THC Science

< 10 August	12 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Playfair[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of an actor, demonstrating no evidence that he passes WP:NACTOR as of yet. As always, actors are not automatically handed a free notability pass just because roles have been listed -- he needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage about him to get a Wikipedia article, but none is being shown here, and all I can find on a Google News search is glancing namechecks of his existence, not coverage that's substantively about him at all. No prejudice against recreation if and when he can be properly sourced as passing an NACTOR criterion, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree on WP:TOOSOON. Michelle Mylett has been deleted multiple times too. sikander (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. No sourcing = no claim to notability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thomas & Friends#Thomas & Friends and its recent developments. The consensus is that until the season starts, there should be no standalone article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends (series 21)[edit]

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

Unsourced article for a future show. Prod removed without explanation. SummerPhD^v2.0 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main page until the season starts. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article Thomas & Friends. Vorbee (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure what we would merge as there is absolutely no sourced content in the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thomas & Friends#Thomas & Friends and its recent developments or its episode list. Too soon for this future season. — Wylie pedia 13:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Giorgi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable hockey player playing in a lower-tier professional league. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NHOCKEY as he hasn't played in a fully professional tier league. DrStrauss talk 11:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Miranda[edit]

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

Autobiographical article (in Spanish!) about a political campaigner and activist that fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Ms Miranda may well have been the youth coordinator for the "green wave" movement in Colombia in the early part of this decade, but articles on the movement such as [1] and [2] make no mention of her and thus cannot verify her involvement. Ms Miranda's highest profile campaign was as leader of a movement that camped in Bogota's main square for 45 days in October and November 2016, in between the result of the peace agreement referendum and the signing of the revised agreement – coverage of the protest camp in reliable sources mention her only in passing, such as [3], and therefore do not amount to significant coverage. Of the five references cited in the article, the first is a video interview with Ms Miranda while at the camp (and therefore not an independent third-party source), the second, third and fourth references do not mention her at all, and the fifth is from a source whose RS credentials are debatable, but even so is only a non-notable nomination for a non-existent award by the website's staff. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable based on a quick read of the article. CJK09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also an untranslated article listed at WP:PNT for two weeks. Seagull123 Φ 14:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't been translated for a while. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 00:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Pirogovskaya[edit]

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

Biography of Cirque du Soleil performer. Most references are just passing mentions, but she is one of three performers profiled in a Russian language Chicago magazine. This article has been previously deleted. Prod template removed by article creator. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Anybody who wrote that she got an audition as a mime, despite speaking no English, should be ashamed of themselves. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Non-notable CDS performer whose article consists of her lengthy wait to be picked up after numerous auditions, one of which was in a fancy outfit. Inspiring! — Wylie pedia 13:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Both WP:NOTURBANDICT (cited by most as a reason for deletion) and WP:WORDISSUBJECT (cited as a reason to keep) are actually part of the same policy, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Just saying WP:NOTURBANDICT is thus not sufficient reason for deletion because it's a WP:VAGUEWAVE to a policy that also allows keeping such subjects.

Whether this is indeed a word that is sufficiently notable as an encyclopedic subject is another question, one that has not been answered definitely in this discussion. So Why 12:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neckbeard (slang)[edit]

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

This belongs in something like Urban Dictionary- not Wikipedia. The links mostly point to pop culture opinion pieces. Fails GNG. Recommend deleting and redirecting back to beard. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book ref was actually pretty decent, but still WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. Alsee (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a dictionary entry and the topic is notable, being covered as an substantial chapter in this book. We have articles for other distinctive styles of beard: chinstrap; designer stubble; Shenandoah; soul patch; &c and this forms part of that set. Andrew D. (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is the full chapter listed in the !vote above. I was able to access pages 43 to 63. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbullies, Cyberactivists, Cyberpredators: Film, TV, and Internet Stereotypes: Film, TV, and Internet Stereotypes. ABC-CLIO. pp. 43 – .

Keep Covered by many publications and I think it would do some editors good to familiarize themselves with the term. BlaccCrab (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. This is a classic example of a dictionary definition, with lots of unencyclopedic cutesy examples tossed in for good measure. Blech. Carrite (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe there is a general consensus the term is notable and has been covered in reliable sources, thus passing GNG. There is also a second policy called WP:WORDISSUBJECT which states:

In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability. Examples of Wikipedia articles on words and phrases include Macedonia (terminology), thou, orange (word), and no worries.
In other cases, a word or phrase is still prima facie (at first blush) about a topic other than the word or phrase itself but the word or phrase is a "lens" or concept through which the topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen. When this occurs, the article often focuses on the "lens" and may not be the main coverage of the topics which are viewed through it. World music, Political correctness, Homosexual agenda, Lake Michigan-Huron and Truthiness illustrate this.

Additional examples include Cuckservative, which has been deemed notable and repeatedly survived AfD. A culture of people have formed around this term, this article needs massive expansion not deletion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Valoem (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

That's not a valid rationale, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There also does not seem to be a true keep consensus for Cuckservative, despite your implication. The AfD outcomes were "Trainwreck" (a particularly bad no consensus), "No consensus", "No consensus", and "Speedy close" (due to "no new rationale [since the last no consensus !vote]"). - GretLomborg (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That the term was covered in an entire chapter of the ABC-CLIO book (titled "The worse you look the smarter they think you are: The Neckbeard") means it passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and does not fail Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Cunard (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a textbook case of an article that fails WP:NOTURBANDICT and should be deleted. Discussions of notability are not relevant due the aforementioned WP:NOT issue. We already cover the facial hair style at Beard#Neckbeard. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as GretLomborg says, Wikipedia isn't Urban Dictionary. The term itself has not received significant, in-depth coverage and has only been used in major publications as a passing reference to instances of Internet harassment. For the benefit of the closing admin, while the keep !votes are numerous, they are generally shallow and are only superficially valid. I respect Andrew Davidson as an editor, however his !vote is based upon other stuff existing and these other articles cover the beard style in-depth whereas the article we are discussing is based upon its Internet-lore status. Two other keeps are merely "it's covered in publications" but such reliable publications are not cited. Although Cunard does mention a whole chapter of a book being dedicated to the Internet phenomenon, I can find few other reliable sources that give meaningful coverage that would create content useful for an encyclopedia. Perhaps a section in Beard would be more appropriate but I am of the opinion that the keep rationales are more numerous but weaker. DrStrauss talk 12:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I strongly disagree the deletion side has stronger arguments. The argument WP:WORDISSUBJECT has valid weight. The subject has been covered in a ABC-CLIO book.
ABC-CLIO, LLC is a publishing company for academic reference works and periodicals primarily on topics such as history and social sciences for educational and public library settings. ABC-CLIO provides service to fifteen different online databases which contain over one million online textbooks.

The book Cyberbullies, Cyberactivists, Cyberpredators: Film, TV, and Internet by Lauren Rosewarne, dedicates a full chapter pp 43 - 69 (25 pages) describing the rise of the term and the subculture which it defines.

This is not case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but a comparison of subjects which share WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The ABC-CLIO covers a vast array of additional information which can be included. Other sources include Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The and The Rumble. This term is used to define a subculture, it has little to do with beards, beard would be an invalid redirect.

WP:WORDISSUBJECT overrides WP:NOTURBANDICT as it's goal is to allow exceptions defining them as a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. The application of WP:NOTURBANDICT is to show popular terms which appear on Urban Dictionary, but have not been defined by reliable sources. When a term becomes cultural significant it is covered in reliable sources as Neckbeard has. Your argument of NOTURBANDICT suggests that any term on Urban Dictionary cannot have an article on Wikipedia. That is a misapplication of GNG and NOTURBANDICT. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Valoem (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Weak Delete - So, importantly, the subject we're talking about is the slang term per the parenthetical, distinguishing it from the actual style of beard (covered at Beard#Neckbeard). The chapter in Cyberbullies... is what pushes me from delete to weak delete, but I'd want to see more than that in order to keep. I see a little bit of coverage with e.g. Fibre Culture Journal, Study Breaks, and some standard coverage when added to Oxford Dictionary (e.g. LA Times, Esquire) but none go very in-depth into the slang term. Willing to reconsider if others find more in-depth coverage in reliable sources specifically covering the slang meaning of neckbeard (not, say, grooming tips). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see little connection (besides the use of the term "neckbeard") between the present article and the the ABC-CLIO chapter the keep arguments rely so heavily on. That source is a (rather meandering) rumination on some stereotypes of internet users, and doesn't really have any strong connection to the term "neckbeard", it just uses the term a few times. The present article is not really about that stereotype anyway, but about a specific slang term used to refer to it. It very much fails WP:NOTURBANDICT: for reference, here's the actual Urban Dictionary entry for "neckbeard": [4]. The present article has the same style and content. The term itself has not gotten the kind of in-depth attention to pass WP:WORDISSUBJECT, since mere usage doesn't pass that bar. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's already too much here to fold into the section about the hairstyle on the Beard page, and after perusing the sources listed, I would argue that the article needs to be expanded rather than deleted. There are sources which treat the term (as it applies to people, not a facial hair style) in sufficient depth. The fact that Urban Dictionary has an entry on the same subject is irrelevant, WP:WORDISSUBJECT does trump the other page, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not what's at issue. If the article does fail this AfD nomination, I would argue it's almost certainly merely a matter of time until even more sources of the calibre of the book listed are published to bolster the sources already cited. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the effective guidelines are not what is written, but how we apply them. I could write an almost equally reasonable argument for deleting or keeping this article, depending upon which of the conflicting guidelines in Wikipedia I chose to emphasise. The way forward from this is to remember 0 there is a basic principle: WP is an encyclopedia. The material here is appropriate for an encyclopedia, giving information about not just the use of the word, but the overall context. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beard#Neckbeard. In theory we could have a decent article on the beard style like we do with other beard styles, but this article is not about the style, it's basically a rambling dicdef about how neckbeard wearers are dorks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
GretLomborg (talk · contribs), has zero content creation and has been and editor who has been editing since May 2017 participating solely in AfD and back page maintenance, the user has as far as I see a 100% deletion record please be aware of this editor's edit history. This editor has also been tagging "is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD", which is rarely used in AfDs. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Magnolia677 (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murray H. Goodman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Incidental and trivial mention in various sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable as an investor/developer of shopping malls. The article was just created and I think we should give the creator more time to expand the "career" section.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several of the sources discuss his activities in reasonable depth. Together the sources appear to be sufficient to pass the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his work as a philanthropist needs to be highlighted. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His business career does need to be expanded, but he passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO for his philanthropy alone. Edwardx (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unifoam Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I search the name "Unifoam Group" and just "Unifoam" and failed to find in-depth sources for either search. CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing could be found about the subject for it to meet CORPDEPTH or GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I created this page The Group was found in 1982 and has 3 factories around Nigeria, some resources gathered are in the references. Amin Dayekh (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amin Dayekh (talk • contribs) 10:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage - all the info in the article is just passing mentions. No indication of why the company is notable. Being a successful player in an important category suggests there should be more profiles or other coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rainnie[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality of principally local notability in a small media market. The closest thing he has to a stronger notability claim is having appeared as a guest host on a national network programming, but that's (a) a thing that virtually every local host on all of the network's stations will get to do at least once, and (b) not a thing that got media coverage in its own right, so it's in no way an automatic notability freebie. But this isn't based on the depth or breadth of reliable source coverage needed to get him over WP:GNG in lieu; of the three references here, two are primary sources, and the third is a brief namecheck of his existence in an article about something completely irrelevant to his actual notability claim. All of which means that none of the sourcing here is enough to get him over GNG, and nothing in the content is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 19:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local radio hosts and producers such as this person are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Goswami[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet criteria for notability; sources are primarily from the subject's own website, or his LinkedIn account. The vast majority are duplicates. The most credible source, an article on CBC, was written by Goswami himself. Listed awards are by and large insignificant. A web search reveals that very few independent sources on Goswami exist, though he has an extensive network of self-promotional materials.

The level of detail in this article, predominantly in the section on early life, suggests the author was the subject himself. Stark similarities to content from his personal webpage points to the fact that this is meant as another element in his self-promotion strategy: http://manugoswami.com/my-story/ PerfectProposal 19:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be more notable than many other aspiring young entrepreneurs. Lack of independent reliable sources is also troubling. Legaro (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an up and coming yet still very much run of the mill business person. We are not a free resume service; we are a charity. Per the nom, many of the awards are negligible in importance. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not just that the awards are not significant, it's also that they often are not awards and that they mostly remain unsourced. But more importantly, I have not found any reliable secondary source on the subject of this article. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tendayi Viki[edit]

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

Article about a business consultant that lacks references to independent, reliable sources. Mentions one award, given to his employer, where source does not mention the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, reads like an advertisment LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 19:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. CJK09 (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Drupang. As Onel5969 pointed out, this is likely a typo and there is agreement that the place is to be kept if sources exist. Sources exist for "Drupang", so moving there is the correct outcome. So Why 12:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Durpang[edit]

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

This unsourced page contains no indication of significance or notability. It's also in almost the exact same state it was in during the last AfD a year ago, in which no argument was made to keep the page. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 21:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a populated place, don't we keep those? --do ncram 17:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that it exists and is populated automatically establish notability? The page is unsourced and the only info I could find on it merely claim its existence or give some directory info. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like notability to me. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 20:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GEOLAND, which doncram alluded to but didn't link. Smartyllama (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find a reliable source showing this place exists and is officially recognized. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There is a village with similar name in the district of the above village – Drupang Gaon (gaon is a Hindi term which means village). There's also a village in another state – Durpang forest camp – which has partial matching name. But I couldn't find an exact match. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can't find any sources to show this particular place actually exists. Which is rare. And regarding WP:GEOLAND, as Clarityfriend pointed out, it's not just that a populated place exists, but that it is officially recognized. There's a great resource for India geoplaces, Census2011. I can find no listing for a village named Durpang in this district. NitinMlk's search might show that the title for this article is simply a typo. Since there is no article currently for Drupang, Might I suggest that the nom withdraw their nomination, and we simply move the page to the correct spelling? And use NitinMlk's citation? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. CJK09 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Onel5969 eas it seems likeliest that the current name is indeed a typo. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Onel5969, as WP:V trumps WP:GEOLAND. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleRisk[edit]

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

Per source searches, this open-source risk management system does not meet WP:GNG at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely primary-sourced, the page features promotional rather than encyclopaedic wording ("sports a dashboard for submitting a new risk for consideration by your team", etc.). That aspect could be fixed by normal editing, but I am seeing nothing to demonstrate notability, whether by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

→I beg to differ. If you have a problem with the phraseology, please edit. But I doubt if you know the subject matter well enough so as to say this is a promotional thing. I am not in any way connected with SimpleRisk. Please try finding standards-based open source risk management platforms, see where that will lead you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psy~enwiki (talk • contribs) 01:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm seeing a few hits for minor sources, but the coverage isn't broad or in depth enough to suggest this passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Part of the reason there's not much material on this subject is that, to begin with, not much material out is there on open source risk management platform. This is a highly specialized topic. See, for instance, [Risk management tools]. If you delete, then how else do you build knowledge on the subject? Do you wait for everything to be available elsewhere before you write about the topic? Peter

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Smith Media[edit]

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

Fails general notability and notability for biographies _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule Team Delete: Embarrassingly NN subject, fails any notability criteria by any measure. Article's the sole activity of a rah-rah SPA. Ravenswing 21:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of value or notability in the article. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 10:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:SOAP, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 16:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FairFX[edit]

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

Article previously deleted as promotional has been recreated by a single purpose account probably with a COI. Sources are still thin and it may not be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Maugster (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a publicly traded company and the article is based upon in-depth sources. I did indeed create this article on behalf of FairFX, and freely state my conflict of interest. However, COI is not a reason for deletion, nor is promotionalism (which I disagree exists in this short, concise article). The company is highly notable. Phresh Kicks (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPA Above !vote is also from a single purpose account, presumably sock of other article editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is still basically spam, with little about the company except what it sells Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of soft drinks by country#Italy. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stappj[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has one source, and written so far from encyclopaedic that even if found notable, would need to be WP:TNTed. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of it specifically is not notable? --Rockysantos (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockysantos: You're an experienced editor I think the nomination was clear enough -- there simply doesn't seem to be enough coverage in reliable sources. I also see that you just created an article in Italian, unreferenced. The Gnews results in English aren't great but it seems to be a fairly well-known brand. Can you add a few Italian-language news refs? Do they exist? They surely must. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ for lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I was not able to find much whether in English nor Italian. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article can be improved.--Rockysantos (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rockysantos, all articles can be improved, but that doesn't make their topics notable (and it's not like this hasn't been given any time, it's over 11 years old). How do you think this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to be an interesting and distinctive beverage. The worst case would be to merge into something like list of soft drinks by country. Andrew D. (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG. There are some bad parts of the article, but none so egregious that I will be dropping everything to TNT it at this moment. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I encourage people to invest the next week in researching and evaluating sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me still looks like an interesting article, does it really need to be relisted again?
Keep appears to be notable. If you think it needs to be cleaned up, fix it instead of demanding that it be deleted. CJK09 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find a decent source. However, the "delete" !votes above fail WP:ATD. Merge to List of soft drinks by country#Italy.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of soft drinks by country § Italy. Not finding significant coverage to qualify a standalone article, but a merge will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of soft drinks by country § Italy for lack of sufficient sourcing; not independently notable. I note that the "Keep" voters have not offered any sources, as in: "looks like an interesting article". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 759[edit]

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

An article on something that might have happened is not really noteworthy, crew were aware they made a mistake so nothing to see here. User:MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This occurence is extraordinary by its impact, had strong media reports and inquiries follow-up have already been published and commented by the general press and aeronautical media, waiting for the next steps of the inquiry. If crew is unaware of a mistake that is a threat to aviation. Wykx (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I add this article brings some interest with 500 daily page views. Wykx (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Qualified under WP:NOTE. This is a notable topic that has received significant, sustained coverage from numerous secondary sources (United States and Canada news reports). The incident is receiving an NTSB investigation and an incident/causal analysis report will be generated once the investigation is complete. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a non event, nothing bent and no injuries. Thousands of passengers are at " imminent risk" 24/7. Encyclopedia articles are not about what might have been. The existence of this article sets an unwelcome precedence and we must draw the line somewhere. Perhaps we should have articles about ham-fisted Cessna pilots who forgot to extend the gear on final and remembered at the last minute. - Samf4u (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - *Delete - Every airline flight that lands could have been an accident, but like this one, wasn't. This was mostly media sensationalism of a non-event. Dozens of non-accidents like this happen every day, but we don't have articles on them because nothing happened. Wikipedia doesn't have to join the news media in trying to sell newspapers or advertising clicks. Given that this incident has now resulted in changes to ATC procedures it now meets event notability requirements and so I am changing my opinion to "keep". - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, Aviation accident task force and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally not notable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything notable here would be better placed on another topic such as Media reactions to near-misses, ATC or FAA regulation changes resulting from the yet-to-be completed investigation, general Flight Safety design, etc and this (non-)incident would serve only as an example on those pages. Loopy30 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: At least until the NTSB investigation finishes its report. I was initially dismissive of this event's significance, too; but then I found out further details, like just how bloody low (59 feet!) the aircraft was allowed to get over the taxiway before it pulled up. The tower controller (singular--only one was active at the time) appears to have been totally ineffective here: by the time he issued a go-around order, the aircraft was already climbing.

This is not just another "oh, nothing to see here" landing goof. This came way too damned close to being a catastrophe, and the fact that it's fallen off the radar of today's media, whose attention span is notoriously short, matters very little. Ahunt, you say "Dozens of non-accidents like this [my emphasis] happen every day", but consider the literal interpretation of that statement. I certainly hope they don't, because if they do then it will only be a matter of time before we have another horrible air crash. The U.S.'s airline safety record over the last decade has been damned near flawless, and complacency is the enemy of such records; as such, investigations of potentially catastrophic incidents matter. We have an article for the "Windsor incident", a DC-10 mishap in the early 1970s which killed no one but warned of a critical problem in the aircraft; sadly, that problem wasn't properly addressed before the Turkish Airlines disaster in Paris. Not being the NTSB, I can't be certain, but this incident would seem to be of similar import, with the potential problem in this case being weaknesses in SFO's flight controller management, who never should have allowed this situation to develop. Hopefully action will be taken to prevent another incident like this, in which fortune may not be so kind. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep per Ahunt above. ~~Wikipedia has to draw the line somewhere and, with no harm done, this is the wrong side of the line.~~ — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Failing that, I'd be happy with the redirect to San Francisco International Airport#Accidents and incidents per Mangoe, below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a precedent, see T.F. Green Airport, specifically the 1999 runway incursion section. Similar type event (airliner collision near-miss, generating lots of interest at the time), but at the end of the day, no accident occurred. Thus, the incident has a section in other articles, but does not have its own article. I do think it would benefit the encyclopedia to make sure this Air Canada incident is covered in quality in the "Accidents and Incidents" section of the San Fransisco International Airport article. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might have implied it, but to make explicit: I would also support a redirect to San Francisco International Airport#Accidents and incidents. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those incidents are different. The T.F.Green Airport incident is about an aircraft entering a wrong taxiway on the ground (confusion on the ground happened in a number of cases) while the Air Canada incident is about not landing on the active runway which is similar to Continental Airlines Flight 1883 and is a rare occurence for which a page is active since 2006. Wykx (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep much worse and much more significant than the crew making a routine mistake, if the plane had been a few dozen feet lower it would have caused a disaster that would have made Tenerife pale in comparison. The article generated a significant and clearly notability-fulfilling amount of coverage, and there will be even more information available once the investigation reports are released. CJK09 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major near-miss with significant coverage in independent reliable sources is notable. It's quite possible there will be significant recommendations coming out of the investigation. There is no "nothing bent and no injuries" exemption to WP:GNG for airplanes. Meters (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to San Francisco International Airport#Accidents and incidents where this is mentioned. Nobody was hurt, it made the news, and that's about it for now; the T. F. Green mention is a reasonable precedent. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (regrettably, for all the work editors have already done) – A non-accident most likely due to human error alone (my guess: crew fatigued, non-adherence to SOPs; reliance on visual clues only, without cross-checking the ILS, and similar factors). Admittedly, it was a hair-risingly close call, but the scare factor does not increase notability; only sells more papers. If it turns out that something more fundamental was wrong (e.g. some weird distortion of the ILS signal or other unprecedented system failure), then the article can always be reinstated. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human errors are fondamental in aviation accidents and incidents. Wykx (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not keep an article about every single aviation safety incident that occurs at all regardless of its actual end result. We're not a newspaper, so it's not our role to keep an article about every current or recent news story — our role is to filter the news for what readers will still need to know and read about ten years from now, not just to uncritically create an article about every single thing that happens at all, and a near miss non-crash with no fatalities and no injuries, that got corrected in the nick of time and ended entirely without actual incident, is not a thing that passes the 10-year test. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you write actual result is not the point, it is more what happened and this is a very uncommon occurrence. Wykx (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - Unnotable. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources. I disagree with comments that suggest this article represents an attempt to include 'every event or single thing'. If this kind of near miss was reported often, we might consider it routine and exclude coverage, or we might include them all, as an indication of major problems in air safety. This event, I believe, was highly unusual, so an article is warranted, as was, for example: 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion. DonFB (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC) 04:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As many others have said before me, this incident has received considerable press and attention from a variety of sources. This alone, in my opinion, makes it notable, and worthy of having a presence on the Wiki. Furthermore, this reasoning is compounded by the fact that the NTSB has opened an investigation into the incident. --Hunterm267^Talk 05:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The generalist news are a bit sensationalist, but the near miss is indeed rare and impressive, and the incident also received significant coverage in specialised publications (4 articles on aviationweek, 3 on flightglobal, flyingmag, Flight safety foundation report...). Since it is investigated by the NTSB and TSB-Canada, recommendations will be issued from the incident and the article will be needed to explain its legacy, and is already a bit too large to be merged in another.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep - already passes GNG in droves, and that's long before the final report is published. Near misses such as this event can also significantly improve aviation safety, as there is much to be learnt from them. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: it hasn't generated any directives/recommendations yet. If it does, then we can have an article, but WP:CRYSTAL FAA outcomes aren't notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that gets press coverage at all is not automatically a valid article topic just because press coverage exists. "Michelle Obama's arms" and "Donald Trump's hair" and "Hillary Clinton's cankles" and "Justin Trudeau's colourful socks" are also things that technically got enough press coverage to pass GNG too — the question that something like this needs to answer to merit an article is not "did press coverage happen?", but "is there a reason why anybody will still need an article about this to exist ten years from now?" And the answer to that question is no. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bearcat, the answer to that question is "we won't know for sure until the final report has been published". Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then "the final report has been published and said something enduringly important about this" is the time for an article about it to get started, not "today, just in case". Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Changes have already been made following this incident. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to San_Francisco_International_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents leaving behind a categorized redirect. Do not simply delete. Continues to generate considerable coverage long after the near-miss. Meets WP:SUSTAINED. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is absolutely a notable event given the press coverage it received and the potential consequences it could have had. This was (fortunately) a rare and very unusual situation, not like a car almost crashing. See 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion and 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion for similar articles that remain on Wikipedia.--Analogue Kid (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not "Other articles exist", it is not an argument either way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received significant press coverage, major incident, or almost incident, or whatever you want to call it. Smartyllama (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a highly unusual event that received significant coverage in reliable sources. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good chance of leading to changes in procedures, according to authoritative sources like FAA, NTSB. Leondz (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has lead to changes in ATC procedure at SFO. If this article is deleted, a host of other articles should be re-evaluated for notability.— Brother Flounder 19:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

No one is making the case here that "Everything that gets press coverage" is a valid article topic. That's a straw man argument. As for the argument whether "anybody will still need an article about this" in ten years--I'd be interested in an answer to that question for Wikipedia's innumerable articles about, for example, professional wrestling, or video games. A wp:crystal ball argument can actually be made on both sides of the present topic: it will be important because of new official recommendations and regulations; or it won't be very important, because new mandates are not issued. For now, I believe, it suffices that this incident was serious and became notable, per WP guidelines. DonFB (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that if this amounts to something in terms of consequences, then an article can be written. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on that point (the investigation leading to a form of consequences), is also that such a conclusion is not necessary to justify an article here. The article was written about a highly unusual and nearly catastrophic event that has received considerable media coverage. No plane should ever line up with and become ~50ft above a taxiway. Regardless of ultimate conclusions, this event was an aviation safety incident that has received considerable attention and achieved notability, and should be documented here accordingly. Even if an investigation does not prove a specific fault, something went wrong, and the fact it happened practically guarantees that it will amount to something. --Hunterm267^Talk 18:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This incident is about the closest chance of exceeding the death toll in the Tenerife disaster that has happened since that event. There was ~5ft between the bottom of the Air Canada aircraft and the top of the tail of one of the United Airlines aircraft. A major investigation (or three) underway means that lessons are going to be learnt. As I said above, GNG is already met in spades. In reply to Mangoe's point, I counter that with the fact that it is easier to write articles from fresh information. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Air Canada aircraft had actually hit the tail of one of the UA aircraft, that doesn't automatically equal everybody on all of the aircraft dying and therefore exceeding the death toll at Tenerife — a lot of followup things still have to happen in a certain way for people to start dying. And at any rate, a death toll that might maybe have exceeded the death toll of Tenerife if certain further things had happened, but they didn't happen that way and therefore the death toll was zero, is not all that it takes in and of itself for an article to be justified on Wikipedia. We judge notability based on what did happen, not what might have happened in some alternate reality we don't actually live in — we judge it based on how many people did die, not how many people might have died if worse had come to worst. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Lasting effects" section of the "Notability (events)" guideline states: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." That guidance disagrees with the rigid interpretation argued above that: "if this amounts to something in terms of consequences, then an article can be written." DonFB (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides this passing WP:GNG, the incident has lead to changes to landing procedures at SFO. [5] --Oakshade (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enduring significance as it has prompted changes to airport procedures, which has received coverage in the media. feminist 07:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 12:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rude Boy USA[edit]

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

Unimportant series of books by a non-notable author. No reviews in any significant publications. Edwardx (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of independent sources which devoted sufficient column space to reviewing the trilogy. Nowhere in Wikipedia policies or guidelines does it say every book has to have appeared in The New York Review of Books before it can be considered notable. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Dorsch[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, as he has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 12:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Private pension. So Why 12:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Private Retirement Plan[edit]

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

A copy of a section from the California Code of Civil Procedure isn't an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTMIRROR. Largoplazo (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Private Retirement Plan is California Civil Code of Procedure 704.115. This is CA state law and the page states the fact of what the law says. If it didn't cite it correctly or something please let me know but as far as I am concerned there is no difference between this and the wiki page on the IRA, Roth IRA, or any other law that has a wikipage dedicated to it. Mark Seither (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Individual retirement account and Roth IRA are encyclopedia articles about those respective subjects that include none of the text of the legislation behind those two topics, rather than being barely prefaced copy-pastes from a legal book.

Also, their titles are commensurate with what they are about. Titling an article "Private Retirement Plan" when its scope is limited to civil procedure in a single state of the United States with respect to private retirement plans is, I'm afraid, similar to titling an article Primary school when its coverage is limited to the legal standard for licensing public primary school teachers in a single canton in Switzerland. Largoplazo (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the title were changed to "Civil procedure pertaining to private retirement plans in California", I'm not sure that the topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. It seems unlikely to me that they have received attention from anyone outside of the set of California attorneys who have engaged in lawsuits where payouts from someone's private retirement plan come into play—in contrast to the way that the Roth IRA has received widespread attention, for example. Largoplazo (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent info, I'll look into some of these aspect of the page and see if I can change it. As far as it being titled "Private Retirement Plan", the law actually titles it a private retirement plan, that is not a generic term. If you were to look up case studies on private retirement plans you would find a bunch referring to the Private Retirement Plan followed by the code supporting it. If I were to title it by its civil code and then just referenced the Private Retirement Plan in the body, would that suffice?

i also beg to differ about the notability guidelines based on the fact there are other california law specific pages, there is a page about the california code of civil procedure, there are tons of case studies involving the law not just involving CA residents (the sue-ee has a PRP but the sue-er can be from anywhere), and ERISA was actually drafted from the CA CCP 704.115. Should be signifucant enough to have a wiki page, i'll see if i can find anything on encyclopedia and use that instead of taking it directly from its public record. any other thoughts? Comments? Advice? Mark Seither (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, within the context of the civil procedure code, Section 704.115 is the section that deals with private retirement plans. It isn't claiming to be defining private retirement plans for the entire world. I can't even tell where you're seeing this as a title, because the version here has no such title, but, even so, (1) legal codes often name sections or articles, or whatever subdivision, like this to help guide users in the context of the specific code, and (2) it's like creating an article called "Household furnishings" on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of discussing section 704.020 of the CCP. Context is important!

I'd expect that every section of every jurisdiction's rules of civil procedure gets used in appropriate situations, but I wouldn't expect that most of those individual sections would meet WP:N.

I don't know where you got that idea about ERISA because almost nothing in ERISA, even as amended, has anything to do with court-ordered awards from retirement plans to people other than the retiree (or the retiree's beneficiary), and ERISA was passed in 1974, while this detail page from the CCP says that Article 3, which contains Section 704, was added in 1982. (Did I mention that I was in the pension field for 15 years, dealing with ERISA the entire time? Over a range of years that included 1982.) Largoplazo (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the PRP was last amended last in 1982 but was originally introduced to CCP in 1970. Thank you for citing the CCP code that included 704.115, if you're looking for where it titles it a private retirement plan, look 5 words beyond the letter (a) after 704.115, it says "private retirement plan means" and then goes on to define it. The Private Retirement Plan was around while you were working in the field of pensions but there would have been no cross over since people with a pension have little need to worry about retirement assets and exemption planning. I completely understand why you have not heard of or know the origin of private retirement plans. If this more of an issue with there not being enough people to which the PRP is relevant then I understand that. Mark Seither (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to talk about "Private Retirement Plan" as though that term means "section 704.115 of the CCP". All that section is doing is defining what this code means by that term when it uses it. That's what legal codes do: they define their terms before they use them. They are often terms that are in general use, but often with varying and imprecise meanings, so the code using the term "defines" them to declare what it specifically means when it uses them.

There isn't even any the Private Retirement Plan—you keep referring to it in the singular. There are millions of private retirement plans. As for their origin, they go back to the 19th century. The earliest one in the U.S. was established by American Express in 1875. (I'm not sure why I even have to explain this. Paragraph (a) itself says that it's explaining what it means by "private retirement plan", and is not calling itself "the" Private Retirement Plan.) Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to define it a little further I will refer to it as the Private Retirement Plan Exemption since it is more important to know the exemption allowed when setting up and administrating your own Private Retirement Plan as defined under CCP. Clearly it is not the literal "private retirement plan" as thought of if you were to take the 3 words separately and put them together. Anyone with half a brain stem would know that those have been around longer than the 1970. I have been to many seminars on this topic from some of the best minds in estate planning and have spoken to some of the most knowledgeable experts in this field (even more qualified than 15 years in the pension field!), in such an unfriendly state, the CA Private Retirement Plan Exemption is absolutely fascinating! I can send you more info if you'd like to read up on the difference and the legitimacy of what I am talking about. I am going to take C.Fred's recommendation and move it to wikisource and deal with it there. If you are a CA resident then feel free to check out your exemptions allowed when setting up a CA defined Private Retirement Plan! Best! Mark Seither (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of demonstrated coverage of the PRP in independent reliable sources. Just restating the law doesn't count as coverage. Further, the bulk of the article is the law; depending on the copyright status of California laws, this either needs deleted as a copyright infringement or moved to Wikisource. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is no copyright issue with citing the California law, I am interestead in what wikisource is and seeing if it makes sense to go that route. I am new to creating Wikipages so I am still trying to understand all the different types of pages. If it is better suited for wikisource, is that easy to switch to or would I need to creat a whole new page?Mark Seither (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright issue with citing law as a reference; there can be with reprinting it, depending on the state. Georgia deems the OCGA to be a copyrighted work. If the text should be transfered to Wikisource, there are users who can assist with the transfer. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See here, with attention to paragraph (g), but then also here, and make of them what you will. Largoplazo (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear case of WP:NOT. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disagreement over sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as obvious COPYVIO. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to private pension as a plausible search term. No problem with creating an encyclopaedia article about this subject but it should be called Private Retirement Plan (California) and, yanno, be an encyclopaedia article.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about private retirement plans in California. It's about the rules of civil procedure applicable to private retirement plans in California. Or the specifics about what the California rules of civil procedure mean when they use the term "private retirement plan". Largoplazo (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. And that's why the current article should be turned into a redirect to private pension: the text is of no value to an encyclopaedia. I have no problem with someone creating an encyclopaedia article about private retirement plans in California but this is not a useful starting point.—S Marshall T/C 20:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - S Marshall is on the mark, I think. Redirect to the most plausible target and give this unencyclopedic bit the TNT treatment, with no prejudice against recreation of a real piece on the California law if it is written. Carrite (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a value in redirecting the name of a state-specific retirement plan to an article that does not discuss it. Redirect would be better than Keep, but Delete is preferred. TJRC (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per S Marshall. Wikipedia is not a repository for reproductions of statutes, although Wikisource may be interested. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sub Rosa (company). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ventura (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Delete Fail criteria for establishing notability. I note that the article was previously turned down from Articles for Creation by SwisterTwister but author went ahead and created it anyway. Fails WP:CREATIVE and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, same as the subject's company, Sub Rosa (company). Has all appearance of being part of a WP:PROMO walled garden. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - the NY Times and GQ sources are more about his apartment than him, the Wired content is written by a third party, and while the Business Insider content is good, the most notable part is still about his agency. I just voted keep for the agency article - perhaps merge some of this info info a section about him there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sub Rosa (company), the company he founded, in lieu of deletion. I agree with TimTempleton's analysis of the sources as being primarily about his apartment or his agency. In my searches for sources, I found "Under the rose with Michael Ventura" from The Huffington Post, but the page says "This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.", which indicates it is self-published so cannot be used to establish notability.
Cunard (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Sub Rosa (company). If the target article gets deleted, then problem solved. If not, then Wikipedia clearly does not need two articles on these closely related topics. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- back to "Delete", since the proposed target article's AfD closed as "No consensus". The founder is even less notable than the company, and his name is unlikely to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect , no merge considering the other article's notability was taken into question and no consensus has been achieved to suggest it actually satisfied our policies, the founder is certainly not notable as it's only "best known for 1 company". The current sources only consist of clear announcements, including in such trade publications as AdvertisingAge, BusinessMagazine, BusinessInsider and Wired. Such sources cannot be accepted by WP:Deletion policy; only the minor-est information should be merged, if at all, since again, there's no defined notability here therefore would become undue. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1¹ 17:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Star Music[edit]

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

Article does not cite any sources and may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music groups. Formal Dude (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NMUS and WP:NORG. DrStrauss talk 10:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is about a record label, not a band, so WP:NMUSIC does not fit. There are some mentions I could find with a quick GNews search,such as [6], but even if the subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, Héctor el Father (founder) is a perfectly valid merge/redirect target, so I see no reason to delete. Regards So Why 10:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [7] [8] label did appear on Billboard charts, and according to second link may be significant to the development of genre awareness, despite limited releases. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. References above are merely passing references and the article itself has no references for any of the content. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 12:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen's of Tenby[edit]

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

Not notable company or organization. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is false as the topic is documented in numerous sources including Tenby & Saundersfoot Through Time; Transactions of the Royal Historical Society and Tenby: Old & New. Andrew D. (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's precious little that I can find for any of the three company names or its founder. BTW I think it might be Allens of Tenby, no apostrophe, as stated here. I get slightly better results with that. Nothing approaching ORG but there may well more in offline sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perhaps the article should be renamed Excelsior Studio with Charles Allen Smith as its ~~best known principal~~ founder? That's what this Gbooks result suggests, anyway. This was a Gbooks search for "Excelsior Studio" + Allen + Tenby and it seems to produce the best results -- though still on the meagre side. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have quickly added a couple of refs. It seems the "Allens of Tenby" were a notable local family and business. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concern would be that they were a little too "local" a notable family and business... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Photographer in 1890 *might* have attracted a fair bit of print press. Enough at least that later sources are picking up on it. "Enduring record" Agathoclea (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- The article is properly (rather than well) referenced, but I have grave doubts as to whehter a photographer's shop in a seaside town is likely to be notable. The National Library of Wales reference merely indicates that some of the output is on file there. The other two are relatively ephemeral local publications. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can further work be done on this regarding possible offline, physical sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — fortunavelut luna 10:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Naruto characters#Shin Uchiha. Redirecting makes slightly more sense than not since it's a named character, no matter how obscure and thus a potential search term. Since all text is taken from a still available source, there is no point in keeping the history in place. So Why 12:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shin uchiha[edit]

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

Apparently minor Naruto character. Doesn't warrant own article. Directly copied from http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Shin_Uchiha ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete <per G12 and tagged as such. Although Wikia's content is usually licensed under CC-BY-SA (as with the Naruto wiki), there wasn't even any link whatsoever to the Naruto wiki, which violates the CC license and thus technically makes the article copyright infringement. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Declining admin comment - it took me two minutes to add {{Text release}} (most of that time spent finding the damn thing), which removes it from eligibility to be speedied. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A very minor character who lacks even some coverage in reliable sources. Due to the obscurity of the character, I'm opposed to a redirect. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:A&M/CHARACTER. I have no objection to recreation per WP:TNT if the right info can be found on the character. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Redirect to List_of_Naruto_characters#Shin_Uchiha as there is a sizeable entry on the list. The character entry should be scrubbed for copyvio and referencing. If the character is not notable, then it should be removed from that list and then delete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 12:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I was asked about it, here is my rationale: The main point of discussion was WP:PORNBIO, especially if the award she won is sufficient to establish notability, with people arguing equally for and against it. There was the argument that there is previous consensus to discount said award, however, the AFDs cited in favor of said consensus don't actually contain any discussion of the award itself, other than being mentioned by the nominator. So I don't think they alone can - without broader discussion at the related project pages - be considered established consensus against those awards' status regarding WP:PORNBIO. The rest of the !votes are along the lines of "still not notable, sources are not sufficient" vs. "definitely notable, sources are sufficient and/or sources definitely exist" with no side making a stronger argument. Whether the amount of sourcing is sufficient to establish notability is often open to interpretation and thus consensus, but in this case, there simply was none (regardless of whether the award is sufficient or not). Before renominating, consider a meta discussion of the award's "worthiness" to establish clear consensus, so nomination No. 5 will not have to be again about whether the award is sufficient or not. Regards So Why 07:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Barry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated biography of a non-notable porn star. Minor awards do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO as determined in the previous AfD. Still lacks non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. G4 declined due to lots of new citations, but the reliable ones are trivial mentions, not about the subject. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE AND SALT per nom (4th time should be the charm). Quis separabit? 14:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Previous vote to last was to keep - so odd that another vote came in this year and was only voted on by 3 people all to delete. Has won several awards, including Life Time Achievment at the UK Adult Film Awards and is about as famous as a British porn star can be - to the point that she starred as her self in Channel 4 series Skins. She is also a director of a leading UK porn production company. It's not surprising that there are not more web references for a porn star who was at her most famous in the 1990's and early 2000's as so many article will have vanished over the years - this is "possibly" where common sense needs to be applied especially when there are articles on thousands of US porn stars very few people have heard of.Tbone556 (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines have been tightened significantly since the 2008 consensus to keep. The working consensus now is that UK Adult Film Awards do not count as major as far as PORNBIO is concerned. Also PORNBIO without significant reliable source coverage is no longer an automatic keep. Finally, Wikipedia does not have thousands of porn star articles, and weakly sourced articles about American performers are also being culled. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A working consensus amongst a select (small) number of editors? Can you name a more significant UK pornographic award? Exactly. Barry is a very famous, clearly notable British porn star who is so well known that she has appeared in a mainstream TV show as herself, co-runs a leading porn production company and has her own line of DVDs. She isn't some vaguely known porn star. Tbone556 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - Fails GNG; porn standards have been tightened here over the last five years, reflected in the assessment last time at AfD that this was a non-notable subject.~~ Carrite (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now neutral on this one. I think there's a case to be made if sources are mustered, although finding good sources might be a challenge. Definitely should NOT be salted, no matter the outcome. Carrite (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not standards, it's a an anti-porn bias highlighted by the first vote where an editor seems to relish in the idea of article re-creation being blocked - maybe they have a crystal ball. I also think a world famous British porn star is more notable than a Pakistani hairdresser, whose short article has 6 references, but whatever. Tbone556 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research, but I can't believe sources can't be found to establish Barry's notability. I'm not British, but my impression is that she was one of the most prominent British porn actresses of her time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is - I would have thought a request for better or more refs would be more relevant and helpful than a desire to delete. Personally, I'm amazed that the article is up for deletion, as she IS one of the most famous British porn stars everTbone556 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those three previous deletion nominations caught my eye. Unless Gene93k can cite the discussion that decided on it so we can see how it was decided, an assertion that "The working consensus now is that UK Adult Film Awards do not count as major as far as PORNBIO is concerned" looks like cultural bias. An indication that Malik Shabazz may be right about her notability is that she is mentioned in a 2014 mainstream media report, years after the particular event event that concerned her happened, as an example of one of the "stars" a cosmetic surgeon had operated on [9]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Moore (2nd nomination) set the precedent. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Moist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keisha Kane Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Lain and Cathy Barry followed. The UKAFTA was a short-lived (2006–2008) award sponsored by one producer to promote the industry. It falls short of the significant industry award test in WP:PORNBIO. As for cultural bias, AVN Hall of Fame inclusion no longer gets an article automatically. Systemic bias against the UK. Really? • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Still no evidence of notability, Salting ... well that should speak for itself. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deletion argument is reasonable, but salting is not. This is a subject with a very large Google footprint and I share Malik's observation that the good sources are almost certainly out there. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She may well have a large Google footprint etc etc but this article has now been created 4 times and deleted 3 times so Salting is now warranted, If there's good sources then they should be provided otherwise this article should be deleted and then salted. –Davey2010^Talk 12:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is incorrect from what I can see - the article has been deleted once and created twice.Gotoneonmeyeah (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Moore (2nd nomination), the UKAFTA awards lacked genuine significance and therefore fails the PORNBIO standard -- "winners" reported buying their awards, and awards went to films/videos before they were released, and even to ones that didn't exist/were never released. Note also that most of the text of this article is cut-and-pasted from the deleted article, withoutacknowledgment or proper attribution. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt because its a blp that still fails the gng. The new sources aren't about her and the logic of them is too redirect this to Liam Fox, which is patently nonsense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The comments above got me wondering whether this subject wasn't a run of the mill porn star, but rather a public figure in the strata of Traci Lords, Seka, Marilyn Chambers, etc. It does seem that there is such a case to be made, but I'm still not finding anything that gets the subject over the GNG bar. Ping me if anything comes up, I'm now amenable to persuasion here. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic UK porn star. Has appeared in an enormous array of porn films many of which are based on her and has won awards, has also appeared in several small films and on UK chat shows and documentaries including the BBC. I know she was voted Daily Sport Model Of The Decade once, but can no longer find a reference - would have to investigate archived websites. Skijump777 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would agree that most porn stars are non-notable. However, this one most certainly is notable. Exceptionally well-known. Two out of three AfDs have resulted in a keep decision. No idea what the desperate urge to have the article deleted is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree with the previous comments of her being notable, and this article is hardly a stub, and is very well referenced. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a notable figure with a career that has extended beyond merely appearing in porn films - and references-a-plenty.Gotoneonmeyeah (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- if the subject was indeed an "iconic star" this should be evident via 3rd party reliable sources. I don't see it in this case, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons of Perish[edit]

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

Currently a non-notable game with limited coverage. The article subject was released in August 2017, and is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The article currently only serves to promote the subject game's existance. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable game. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Only ref provided does not mention Dungeons of Perish. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 10:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Faner[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per GNG, I do not rise to the challenge. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Miettinen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yet another in this vast horde of NN Australian hockey players. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 13:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged an image, File:Kai Miettinen.png, for discussion. If it is not a notable subject, then delete. We do not want wasted image space being used in the servers. Ups and Downs (↕) 02:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NHOCKEY LibStar (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to NTT Communications#Subsidiaries. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 19:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NTT Com Asia[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability standards. Should be a single line or paragraph in the NTT Communications article. Sekicho (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to NTT Communications#Subsidiaries. There's not much here now that can't easily go there. If the NTT Com Asia info is flushed out, then I'd support restoring the content. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NTT Communications § Subsidiaries. May not quite meet notability guidelines, but a merge will improve the main article, and it's a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Williams[edit]

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

Limited coverage in third-party reliable sources, potentially autobiography Adabow (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Appears to be either self-promotion or at least strong COI. Fails SIGCOV, no indication of significant mentions in reliable sources independent of the subject. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient independent sources to meet WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Cherkasov[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. No independent third-party coverage. Google search finds the usual non-notable hits. (It also finds another Denis Cherkasov.) Robert McClenon (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a run of the mill middle functionary. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IIIAC[edit]

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

Non notable conference. Reads like an events page and created by a probable WP:COI user. No reliable references exist in sources independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 08:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional, not an encyclopaedic article. Pretty much all copied word for word from the organisation's website iiiac.in. Neiltonks (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. This seems like another attempt of a local organization attempting to use Wikipedia to create social media buzz. Even the article for the organization itself appears to have the same problem, so this article (about the conference) is worse. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sada e Jauhar[edit]

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

Non notable college magazine. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 07:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of thousands of college periodicals, most of which are just not notable. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Ebeye[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 12:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~: there seems to be a lot of coverage (http://dailypost.ng/2017/01/21/cannot-marry-babys-father-amanda-ebeye/, etc) of her in Nigerian media, albeit mostly about her baby and its father. But this describes her as "She is currently one of the richest & most influential actress in Nigeria". On the other hand the article, despite a lot of editing over the years, is still virtually the same as the apparent autobiography created in 2010, with what seems to be the same set of 6 bare URL sources not linked to the text. PamD 09:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On further work, Delete: no evidence of notability - redlinked awards (whether or not there's a third T in "Terracota"), redlinked films, "City Sisters" not mentioned in imdb, the only "Tawa award" traceable on Google is a New Zealand community award, etc. PamD 09:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article invalidates your reason for wanting a deletion. Could you kindly review? Darreg (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable actress, article needs work not deletion. Darreg (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out to sources that proves she is notable aside the petty interviews that focuses on her private life? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles in notable productions to pass notability criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but you seem to participate in a lot of AFDs yet your votes usually add little or real value to discussions. Why is that so?? Darreg (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I practically rewrote the article in its entirety after my vote so it might be a smart idea for Pam and RMS to review the article. Darreg (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is main actor in significant films. Added another ref and pix Victuallers (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss refs added by Victuallers
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BEFORE B3 states, "Review the article's history..." What WP:BEFORE B3 shows is a previous discussion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ebeyeamanda, and a very thoughtful MfD at that, including seven sources. Pinging participants there and one editor who requested notifications: @Salvio giuliano, SmokeyJoe, MichaelQSchmidt, Magioladitis, and Skomorokh: Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the discussion and sources at the MfD and the many sources found and entered into the article in the current AfD. That these sources source Nigeria makes them all the more remarkable. Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears that her recent roles were starring. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely passes GNG. The article is well sourced with secondary reliable sources, discussing the subject.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Monteleone[edit]

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

Notability does not meet guidelines for geberal blp or musicians. Sources can't be located for the majority of content and the article appears to have been created by a single purpose account close to the subject.--Sizzla77 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there do not appear to be WP:RS for this subject. I can't tell if it is a hoax or just a non-notable subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it's a hoax – he appears to have a LinkedIn profile as well: [10]. Whether he's notable or not, that's another matter. Richard3120 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent vanity page created by an SPA editor that has gone undetected for 8 years. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per request of author via CSD. Risker (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Dirt Track Racing Australia[edit]

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

Not enough references found to be notable for inclusion, per WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references are good. 👍🏻Like it! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What references are you referring to? Just a Mobygames listing isn't enough._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quinton Feldberg, you "like it"? It has a single reference, not several references. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that? Sorry. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I got one result on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. Not notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Could redirect to developer article Ratbag Games but that has no sources and questionable notability itself. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quinton Feldberg (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I request that this article be tagged for "speedy deletion". Nobody can provide any notability and nobody wants to contribute. The article in my mind stands as "dead end". If game enthusiasts absolutely want to discover information on this game, they can look up and search for the game on MobyGames.com. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been creating a lot of stub articles in the past I think you should read WP:GNG on what makes a notable Wikipedia article. Just because a game is listed on MobyGames or Gamefaqs does not make it fit for a Wikipedia article. Use the WP:VG Custom Search tool and WP:VG/S to avoid unreliable sources. I generally only make articles if I can make them into Start Class articles with several reliable sources because Stub articles are not much better than redlinks. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAMEXPO[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable sources mentioning the expo beyond [11], fails WP:COVERAGE. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. (Not sure I'd even count the government database entry mentioned in the nom.) Probably not likely for there to be sourcing either, its a yearly expo only dating back a few years, and their claim to fame - "biggest table-top game expo in San Antonio" - really isn't that much of a claim, if you think about it. How many board game expos do you think happen in a single city? Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also of note, likely WP:COI editing by GAMEXPO account. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Bukhari[edit]

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

Apparently, the press coverage that subject has received is only in the context of a single event.. many no RS added to bio which needs to be eliminated. her career is non-notable.. this is poorly sourced and promotional bio in nature.. the log here tells it was created by the subject herself using the User:NBUKHARI. I don't see her passing WP's notability criteria. Saqib (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a fellow of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, that's a pass for basic notability on the basis of her career. This is how leading pharmacists get to be recognised: they don't receive Oscars or golden discs, they become FRPharmS. This is also someone who is notable as a matter of social history: the first female Muslim to become a fellow of the RPharmS. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy Dingley, appears to have coverage in web, book and news sources as well. Mar4d (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she passes the point#3 of WP:NACADEMIC. Greenbörg (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know where the entries in the log referenced by User:Saqib come from, but there is no user named NBUKHARI. Largoplazo (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tagged A1 -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AXN (Australia)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was recreated hours after consensus on speedy deletion. See the first discussion. More drastic measures need to be taken against the author. — Andreyyshore T C 06:39, 11 Aug 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of alderpersons of Carrboro, North Carolina[edit]

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

This page was deleted through ProD in 2015, but has now been restored. The original ProD reason still seems to apply perfectly though: "A smallish city (less than 20,000 inhabitants) is for more than 10 years apparehntly the only city on Wikipedia with a list of alderpersons (not even mayors, alderpersons!). Complete lack of notability. The only two bluelinks are later mayors, and those have a separate list anyway." Fram (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Entirely unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No prejudice against listing the town councillors in an article about the town council itself, if it can be shown to clear WP:GNG, but we do not maintain standalone lists of municipal councillors — even New York City doesn't have one of these, and it's a global city where the city councillors are actually deemed to pass WP:NPOL (which Carrboro's are not). Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the final analysis: unencyclopedic trivia. Carrite (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only keep !vote was unable to convince the other participants that this is not mere news coverage and their argument fails to take into account that a crime being "unusual" does not automatically mean it should be included. So Why 20:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Konstanz shooting[edit]

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

Before I present my rationale, let me make two things clear: this was not terrorism and the perpetrator was killed. The non-existent "obvious terror" and "there will be a trial" guidelines can be discarded. Now, for the actual policies, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. With that being said, only two days of WP:ROUTINE reports within the typical news cycle covered the incident. The crime, while terribly unfortunate, fails WP:CRIME, WP:LASTING, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE as well. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable crime. This kind of articles belongs at Wikinews, not here. —Kusma (t·c) 09:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unusual, notable crime. Several people being shot in one incident in Western Europe is very unusual. There's no requirement that only terror attacks can be notable crimes. The gunman having been killed at the scene doesn't make the crime less notable - in most mass shootings in peacetime the killer either kills himself or is killed. Jim Michael (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address my whole rationale instead of the part meant to detract editors from those types of poor rationales? I hate to break it to you but there is nothing "unusual" about this shooting. The gunman got into a heated argument with the manager. While it is incredibly stupid to solve a problem with a bullet, it is also sadly a common occurrence. Two days of media coverage will not change that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect me to say? I've countered what you say is justification for deleting the article. Mass shootings certainly are unusual in Western Europe. It wasn't one bullet, he shot several people. He didn't merely argue with the manager - he left and came back with a loaded gun. Jim Michael (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, you didn't counter anything but I guess it was still worth asking for a legitimate keep rationale. Coverage went away after a routine news cycle. You know the definition of WP:NOTNEWS and so do I. I will not even readdress the rest of my rationale; it is just too obvious, according to our guidelines, why this incident fails notability standards.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- wikipedia is not a newspaper. Coverage is routine crime blotter. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I do take User:Jim Michael's point that this sort of shooting doesn't happen in Germany, or, at, least, that this sort of gun crime used to be very rare in Germany, it does not appear that it has gotten coverage as anything beyond a personal dispute that tragically led to 2 deaths.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A personal dispute in which uninvolved people were also shot. Jim Michael (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael...and? Does the involvement, or lack there of, of the victims somehow address the lack of coverage?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You want this deleted because there hasn't been enough media coverage of it? Jim Michael (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jim Michael, Hi. I am guessing that you are either new to WP, or have not often joined AfD discussions. Please take a moment to look at WP:NCRIME, making sure to scroll to the top of the page and look at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. It is not that i and other editors fail ot see that this crime is as notable as it is horrific, it is only that we are asking, Is it encyclopedic? and gauging our responses by those standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has actually been around longer than you and me combined, and has more edits than us which is surprising.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Application Usage in Tanzania[edit]

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

Not written like an encyclopedic article but like an essay. Does not provide a neutral point of view. Cannot readily be reworked to be a neutral encyclopedic article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like notes taken for an academic assignment, not an encyclopedia article. I would like to know whether this is part of a class's project to write articles for Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would we have articles about mobile application usage in just about any country in the world? The first part of this article reads less like an article on mobile application usage in Tanzania than an article on mobile application usage in general, so arguably, this article could be re-written and just re-named "Mobile application usage". Vorbee (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hardly anything here is unique to Tanzania. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to project space so the editor can use the page to co-ordinate their project. The page is now at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Collaboration of Dental Schools. Nev1 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Collaboration of Dental Schools[edit]

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

Self-referential tutorial for Wikipedia. PROD was denied. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to somewhere in the Wikipedia: project space, rather than the mainspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. PROD was actually removed by original author.PRehse (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dentistry. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Barber (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local district authority councillor and deputy police commissioner on a local police board. As always, the local level of office is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because the person exists — to get an article on Wikipedia, a person at this level of government needs to be really well-sourced to a degree of press coverage sizable enough to mark him out as significantly more notable than the norm for people at this level of government. But of the ten sources cited here, six of them are primary sources that cannot support notability at all -- and of the four that are media coverage, all four are deadlinks. Four references wouldn't have been enough to get a local councillor in the door even if they were still live links, because every local councillor who exists could always show just four pieces of media coverage — there's simply not enough substance or sourcing here to deem him notable under NPOL #2 ("local political figures who have received significant press coverage"). Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.-Umair Aj (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essentially the equivalent of an American county commissioner of a smallish county, as near as I can reckon, and therefore fails to meet the Special Notability high bar that we have, by consensus at AfD, for politicians. Carrite (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 20:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Niedermaier[edit]

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

No notable references as to qualify under WP:COMPOSER, regarding the awards from the National Federation of Music Clubs, I couldn't find much to see that it was a "major music competition", and interestingly, it's WP page has no references. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 20:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chloecouture[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KASAPA 102.3 FM[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails WP:NRV, WP:ORGIN, and CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of regional media entities per NOTPROMO. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not worth keeping, based on the super-short page and sources. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The station would certainly qualify for an article if it could be reliably sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations — but the references here are a one-man PR blog and a site that appears to be a user-generated citizen journalism platform where anybody can contribute self-published "sourcing" about anything at all (for instance, compare this article's headline to its authorial byline.) We don't require radio stations to have claims of notability beyond existing as a licensed radio station that produces some original programming, but we do require those claims to be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated change control management[edit]

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

See Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Reads like part of a textbook or course on project management, not a neutral assessment of the views of reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The topic could be notable, a quick google search beings plenty of results and google books hits on the subject. However, the article is plainly not written as an encycolpedia article. This would place it under WP:DEL14, but I am hesitant to !vote delete as the topic could be notable - I have reservations around WP:TNT. To rewrite it would be the better option here. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I am an expert in this field. This article adds nothing to Change control. If anyone believes there are any good sentences or references in this article, copy them now to Change control (which also needs some help). Change this article to a Redirect and put it behind us. Rhadow (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In theory, there might be a valid article about this topic but this isn't it, for the WP:NOTHOWTO reasons cited above. It's also hard to see how this differs significantly from Change control, but even a redirect to there seems pointless because I don't see anybody ever typing this into a search box. On the other hand, redirects are WP:CHEAP, so I don't have any real objection to redirecting if somebody feels it would be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia national under-21 football team results[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets WP:LISTN. The team's competitive results are already detailed at the various competition articles. There are many lists of results for many full national teams, but far fewer for age-group teams. (see Category:National association football team results) I think this reflects the fact that the results of a full national team are inherently notable, but not their age-group teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a question of the list being inherently notable, their matches seem to get plenty of coverage in Estonian media here, plus international media coverage such as here, so seem to satisfy LISTN. That the team's competitive matches are covered in various competitions is not a relevant argument for deletion. U-21 results listings do exist; see: England national under-21 football team results, but are admittedly not widespread, though I am not aware of previous consensus that they are not notable. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the person who originally PRODded this article, I have to agree it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The results of age group teams, even the top age group, aren't necessary here, and I would consider it worth nominating for deletion the list of England U21 results mentioned above. – Pee Jay 16:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (possible merge) - per Fenix down's rational as stated in that user's !vote: the amount of coverage might make this article reliable or at the very least suitable information to be part of the larger team article. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fenix. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I don't feel this merits its own article but if adequately sourced it could have a place in the main U21 article. It looks like someone is interested in updating it, but if this tails off it should maybe all be deleted (if we get to say 2020 and there are detailed results from 5 years earlier but nothing current, it ends up looking silly). Crowsus (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Fenix. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Amin[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete he has recently received some press coverage related to PIA... but i don't think he's notable enough to warrant an article here. --Saqib (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have coverage in multiple sources, some starting points: [12] [13]. Mar4d (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find the sources found by Mar4d to be a compelling demonstration that this subject passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to The Battle of Polytopia. So Why 19:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polytopia[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Polytopia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Unsourced article about a video game which gives no indication of notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename - These are all notable articles about it [14] [15] [16] Therefore it passes WP:GNG. Should be renamed to The Battle of Polytopia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename - I think the article should be kept; as mentioned above, there are notable articles about it. It should be renamed and "Polytopia" can redirect to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolieCoolster (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Battle of Polytopia per sources provided by Zxcvbnm above. WP:GNG is met with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews) sources. WP:COMMONNAME does not appear to be Polytopia, so we should use the full name. Leaving a redirect seems fine. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STARR 103.5 FM[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails WP:NRV, WP:ORGIN, and CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of regional media entities per NOTPROMO. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same issues as KASAPA 102.3 FM I mentioned. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The station would certainly qualify for an article if it could be reliably sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations — but the only reference here is a WordPress blog, not a reliable source. We don't require radio stations to have claims of notability beyond existing as a licensed radio station that produces some original programming, but we do require those claims to be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus whether the award is sufficient enough to establish notability nor whether the rest of the coverage is, although there is only little discussion about that. So Why 11:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Zakarias (Zee)[edit]

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

Not notable for Wikipedia. Having a "Diana Award" does not make you notable for a Wikipedia page since it is a school award which has been given to thousands of children. Doxduck (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - the award is notable, it is not a school award, and per this source it had been given to 150 people worldwide by 2013, when she received it. There is also sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 09:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - the International version of the Diana Award is a highly prestigious and selective award which has not been awarded to many people.--Danlincoln (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The award is still not at the level to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won a highly selective, prestigious, and rarely bestowed award. Smartyllama (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Diana Memorial Award. It's not the Nobel Prize by any stretch of the imagination, as shown by the fact that only one other awardee has an article, and Georgina Lara Booth has other accomplishments to her credit. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diana Memorial Award. GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Birchard[edit]

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

Not notable bit-part actor that has not featured in any significant roles, article lacks sourcing. Karst (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has a large number of roles in film, TV, radio, theatre and video games. Sources can be definitely be improved, I have added one for a theatre role mentioned. Tim! (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major roles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wp:nactor also includes "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances" (my emphasis). While the article needs to be better sourced, he's had significant roles in multiple stage productions. While a small role, the waiter in Death of a Salesman is borderline significant, which he did on the West End. He played one of the lead roles in the stage production of James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake at the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. Add to that his role in Inherit the Wind at the Old Vic, and he passes WP:NACTOR. His writing of the rap song also doesn't hurt his notability. Unfortunately, there's nothing like ibdb.com for the UK, if there were, I have a feeling that it would be even easier to show his notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior#Interstitial programming. The article can always be restored if and when better coverage is found to establish notability. So Why 11:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lights, Camera, Lexi![edit]

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

Procedural nom on behalf of IP after I declined speedy. This is officially neutral, I will !vote below StarM 02:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral and essentially expansion of my nomination. I declined this speedy as it didn't fit. The IP has a good point on Talk:Lights, Camera, Lexi! and that's why I completed the AfD for that editor. I'm honestly unfamiliar with notability guidelines as they relate to TV programs but it seems like the viewership might have generated some coverage. I'll be traveling and likely won't have time to research further for sources to add, if indeed there's enough StarM 02:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior#Interstitial programming Unfortunately it is merely a continuity segment on Disney Junior (or Disney Channel's time for it in the mornings) which fills in for what would be usually commercial advertising on another network. It does have a confirmable cite that a million viewers did see it, but other than that sourcing is much thinner than it would be for a full-length series. I'd be willing to see if more sourcing pops up to switch it to a keep, but for now it's just one of many segments DJ uses to put between programs. Nate • (chatter) 04:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than once this has had over a million viewers, noted this by adding another source in the Broadcast section. This exceeds a lot of other shows which have articles despite their inferior ratings. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Because it got a Nielsen rating" isn't good enough. We need pure and solid sources as to this interstitial's notability. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Nate. I am not in any way affiliated with Ms. Lexi, Disney, or the any part of their plan for world domination. I do expect to get a good reward for sharing a name with the Empress, or at least an honorable mention :) L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 23:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Boyd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor actor. Acting credits are basically community theatre and eighth-billing on 11 episodes of a Star Trek fan series. Calton | Talk 02:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is NOT the same Ron Boyd from the first AFD nomination. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, without prejudice to re-creation if the subject becomes more notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage and roles to meet WP:GNG/WP:ENT at this time. gongshow talk 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Groutage[edit]

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

Single-sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL in and of itself, but the depth of coverage needed to get him over WP:GNG is not shown. Further, over the past couple of years there's been a persistent IP campaign to add claims that he's the author of a fantasy novel series, without actually adding any reliable sources to verify that the writer and the political candidate are actually the same person, or even that the writer would get over WP:AUTHOR at all. So regardless of whether the writer and the political candidate are the same person or not, no encyclopedic notability is actually being shown here for either endeavour — writers aren't automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, either, but must also pass certain specific notability criteria and have sufficient reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For more than the past 100 years since the University of Wyoming opened its doors as an institution of higher education at least 100,000 students have enrolled in the College of Engineering. Only 51 of those students have had the distinct honor of being inducted into the University of Wyoming Engineering Hall of Fame. In 1998, world-renown scientist, W. Edwards Deming was inducted into the Engineering Hall of Fame. Six years later in 2004, Dr. Dale Groutage had the distinct honor of being inducted into the University of Wyoming Engineering Hall of Fame as it 26th member alongside Dr. Deming. Dr. Groutage was inducted for his service to his country as a scientist who worked on the Navy's Missile and Submarine Silencing Programs, which helped win the battle with our advisory, the Soviet Union, during the Cold War. He was honored as one of the Nation's Top Ten Engineers by the National Society of Professional Engineers in 2001 for his national achievements. In 2006, Dale was the Democrat Party's Candidate the U.S. Senate from the State of Wyoming. Following retirement from his professional career as an Engineer and Scientist, Dr. Groutage had an opportunity to return to his first love, "The Arts," to fulfill his life-long dream of writing Young Adult novels. Dale is the author of The Kopaz Series, which is sold around the world, including Europe, Russia, China, Australia, and Japan to name a few countries. Major retailers include: Amazon, Barns and Noble, Walmart and many more. Dale Groutage the Author is the same Dale Groutage who was honored as a Top-Ten Engineer in the United States Federal Government and the same Dale Groutage who was inducted into the University of Wyoming Engineering Hall of Fame for his national accomplishments. Dale Groutage's Wikipedia Page should not be deleted. As the son of a coalminer born into poverty, his page is an inspiration to those who are searching for hope and can see that dreams can come true if you reach for a higher plane of existence. For a person or persons to put the argument forward to delete Dale Groutage's Wikipedia page—based on the singular fact that he/she never mentions Dale's national accomplishments and bases the argument solely on the untrue statement that Dale Groutage the author is not the same person who was Wyoming's Democrat Party Candidate for U. S. Senate—is disingenuous. The person or persons rational for deleting Dale Groutage's Wikipedia bio-page does not meet any of the Wikipedia guidelines and/or requirements for deleting a Wikipedia bio-page/article.

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

Notability on Wikipedia is a matter of reliable source coverage, not of mere existence. There is no notability claim that any person can make — not "university professor", not "wrote books", not "inducted into a niche industry hall of fame", not "was a political canditate" — that entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article without having been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Our role on here is not to anoint or honour every single person who can simply be claimed as "an inspiration to others", because practically every single person who exists could try to claim that about themselves — our job is to keep articles about people who can be reliably sourced as satisfying our notability standards, and not to keep articles about people who can't. We're an encyclopedia, not a free public relations platform for every single person who ever did anything at all. And it's also not "disingenuous" to question the matter of whether the senate candidate and the writer are the same person or not — no sources have ever been provided at all to demonstrate the claim, which means it's not properly verified. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It’s sad when the person posting on this Wikipedia discussion of Dale Groutage insults the people from the great state of Wyoming by slamming not only the University of Wyoming, but also those students who have attended the university for higher education, when the person states that the University of Wyoming Engineering Hall of Fame is nothing more than a “niche industry hall of fame.” I guess W. Edwards Deming, who was inducted into the University of Wyoming Engineering Hall of Fame, is now in the so-called “niche industry hall of fame,” as claimed by the person posting on this Wikipedia discussion on Dale Groutage. One has to ask if the person posting this discussion attained the position of Top-Ten Engineer in our nation’s federal government by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)? Dr. Groutage can claim that honor as so bestowed by the NSPE in 2001 — Top Ten Engineers. Does this person have patents (see for example US6522996) alongside his or her name for technical developments required to help our nation win the Cold War against the Soviet Union? Dr. Groutage can claim that honor as he has six patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 4,108,400; 4,324,378; 4,453,425; 4,842,218; 4,493,136, & 6,522,996) all of which were part of the Navy’s missile guidance and submarine silencing efforts to fight our advisory, the Soviet Union, during the Cold War. Has the person posting on this Wikipedia discussion of Dale Groutage worked with NASA scientists to develop a new technology for identification and classification of aeroelastic and aeroservoelastic dynamics used to design the next generation NASA airframes? Dr. Dale Groutage can claim that honor, see NASA Report Document ID 20010043991, Nonstationary Dynamics Data Analysis with Wavelet-SVD Filtering by Marty Brenner and Dale Groutage. When the person posting on this Wikipedia discussion stoops to the low of calling the University of Wyoming Engineering Hall of Fame a “niche industry hall of fame,” one has to ask if the person posting on this Wikipedia discussion of Dale Groutage is a politician, as his/her rhetoric sounds like a “Tweet Storm” coming from the White House.The Kopaz (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the person’s claim that Dale Groutage the author, that Dale Groutage the Scientist and that Dale Groutage the senate candidate is not the same person, which is disingenuous, can be verified as false with a simple search. A snap search on Amazon, or Google for that matter, will verify that Dale Groutage the author, that Dale Groutage the Navy Scientist and Dale Groutage the senate candidate is indeed the same person.The Kopaz (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again: notability for Wikipedia purposes is a question of showing enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG — even the President of the entire United States wouldn't get to have a Wikipedia article if for some weird reason he wasn't the subject of any media coverage. Nothing that can be claimed about Groutage entitles him to keep an article if reliable source coverage in media cannot be shown to get him over GNG — if his notability claim has to depend on primary sources to be "referenced" at all, then it does not pass our standards whether you like the fact or not. Induction into a hall of fame does not confer notability if you have to rely on that hall of fame's own self-published website about itself to source the fact — it only counts as a notability claim to the extent that media cover the awarding of that distinction as news. Writing books does not confer notability if you have to rely on Amazon.com as evidence that the books exist — that only counts as a notability claim to the extent that media have written about the books. "Working with NASA scientists" does not count as a notability claim if you have to depend on NASA's own self-published reports to prove the claim — it only counts as notability to the extent that media have written about that work. "Holding patents" does not count as a notability claim if you have to depend on a routine patents database to source the claim — it counts as a notability claim only to the extent that media have written content about him and his inventions.

No matter what notability claim you make, it still works the same way no matter what: it counts as notability if he got media coverage for it, and not if you have to depend on primary sources to support the claim. Nothing that can be claimed about any person ever counts as a valid notability claim until it's referenced to reliable source coverage in media — so show some reliable source coverage in media, or drop the stick and walk away. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that being on the front page — Headline “He Made Submarines Quiet” — of the Casper Star Tribune, Wyoming’s state-wide paper, counts as media coverage. And I also assume that the nearly 1000 episodes of media coverage of Dale Groutage — including TV, Radio and News Papers during the 2006 national senate-race election — count as media coverage — see [1], , [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] & [7] for example. Or, does person posting on this Wikipedia discussion of Dale Groutage take the position that if you lose the election, then nothing counts as exposure. If that is the case, Trump has exposure and Secretary Clinton has none! One thing is for sure and that is that Dale Groutage is known throughout the state of Wyoming. I assume that a headline such as “Dr. Dale Groutage Invents a Revolutionary New Matrix Decomposition Technique” does not happen and would not appear, for example, in The Casper Star Tribune — Wyoming's state-wide paper. But on the other hand, I assume that scientists around the world take note of the new Matrix Decomposition, including those at NASA, namely Marty Brenner, and he calls Dr. Groutage at the Navy and proposes a joint venture that ends up as a new tool for NASA air frame development. Not only did NASA take note, but text book authors and researchers from around the world from a wide range of scientific disciplines have taken note of the revolutionary contribution by Dr. Groutage, as the new Matrix Decomposition by Dr. Groutage — Transformed Singular Value Decomposition (TSVD) — replaces the conventional Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) — see [A], [B], [C], [D] & [E] for example. Of note is that this new matrix decomposition by Dr. Groutage is used throughout the world, see for example [use in Japan] and [also in China].

Only a small number of media examples have been shown here. There are literally thousands of media coverage stories of Dale Groutage the Wyoming Senate Candidate for the 2006 election and for Dr. Dale Groutage the inventor of the New Matrix Decomposition — Transformed Singular Value Decomposition (TSVD). A google search on either produces countless medial articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kopaz (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC) The Kopaz (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton is not a valid comparison — she may not have won the presidency, but she has held the offices of First Lady, Senator for New York and Secretary of State, and thus already had an article on those grounds years before even the first time she tried to run for president. Regardless of her failure in one election, she has held other notable offices in the past and thus passes WP:NPOL — the rule is not that a person has to be a current officeholder to qualify for an article on WP:NPOL grounds, but merely that they have to have held a notable office at some point in their lives. And that's why campaign coverage doesn't assist in establishing Groutage's notability: it doesn't establish that he held a notable political office, but merely that he ran for one and lost.

And incidentally, another of our rules is that you're not allowed to WP:BLUDGEON a discussion to death by repeatedly posting long walls of text in reply to every single thing anybody says. Make your points succinctly, once, or drop the stick and walk away. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say, “show some reliable source coverage in media.” When reliable media coverage of Dale Groutage “Front Page Coverage of the Casper Star Tribune” is presented, along with many other reliable media sources, you change the subject and say, “the rule is not that a person has to be a current officeholder to qualify for an article on WP:NPOL grounds, but merely that they have to have held a notable office at some point in their lives.” For the record, Dale Groutage held a public office, Fremont County State of Wyoming, public office for 10 years as the Secretary/Treasure and then Vice Chairman of the Fremont County Solid Waste Disposal District (FCSWDD). Dale was in charge of FCSWDD’s 7.5 million dollar yearly budget. Now to the succinct point. If what you say is fact, you contradict yourself. That is, Jon Ossoff has never held public office, he lost his bid for the Alabama 6th district seat in Congress and has a Wikipedia Page. What is it with people from Wyoming that you have a problem? You make offensive remarks about the University of Wyoming Engineering Hall of Fame by calling it a “niche industry hall of fame” and then you set a double standard for people running for public office who did not win their race — Dale Groutage from Wyoming is not granted a Wikipedia Page but Jon Ossoff from Alabama is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kopaz (talk • contribs) 02:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To count towards NPOL, public office has to be held at the state or federal levels, not treasurer of a county waste disposal committee. And incidentally, I nominated Ossoff for deletion when that article was first created — consensus kept it not because he was a candidate in and of itself, but because somebody was able to properly source evidence that he had a credible preexisting notability for reasons independent of being a candidate. So, again, not equivalent to this.

And the reason campaign coverage doesn't get a person over WP:GNG by itself is that campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election — but Wikipedia does not, and simply cannot, accept every candidate in every election as an article topic, and the campaign coverage just makes the person a WP:BLP1E, not a topic people are still going to need to read about in ten, 50 or 100 years from now. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you struck out on getting Jon Ossoff’s Wikipedia Page deleted because of his achievements, I ask, “What has Jon Ossoff achieved? Is he in a Hall of Fame? Is or was he selected as one of the Top-Ten people in the United States Government by a world-wide Professional Organization for his accomplishments? Did Jon Ossoff discover or invent something that is used by scientists world-wide in many disciplines? Has or did Jon Ossoff documented any unique and new technology or scientific or mathematical concept that is now in text books used in University class rooms? Is Jon Ossoff’s work referenced by his peers world-wide? Has Jon Ossoff been entrusted by the public to serve in public office anywhere in government (local or otherwise)? By the way and for the record, I was not on a committee. I was a public officer of Fremont County created by the State of Wyoming to oversee a 7.5 Million Dollars of annual budget to perform a function in a community. For all of the questions above, Dale Groutage can answer “Yes!” Furthermore, here is one-of-many text books used by Universities around the world that includes a full chapter on Groutage's contibutions: Applications in Time-Frequency Signal Processing. So, if Ossoff is allowed to hold a Wikipedia Page for achievements, please point them out and show they are equivalent to Groutage’s national and world-wide recognized achievements, including giving the United States the Biggest Stick it has to defend our freedom — Super Quiet Samarines! I hope Wikipedia does not hold a double standard, especially for people from Wyoming. The Kopaz (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What he's achieved is that he got media coverage for stuff besides just the fact of being a candidate in and of itself. Again, our notability criteria consist of exactly two things: got media coverage, in a context that counts as a notability claim according to our notability standards. We do not accept mere candidacy as a notability claim in and of itself — and whatever other notability claim a person may have, we do not exempt them from having to have received media coverage for that. If you want to get into Wikipedia because of the books, you need to show media coverage about the books and not just the Amazon sales pages of the books. If you want to get into Wikipedia because of being inducted into a state-level science hall of fame, you need to show media coverage about that distinction and not just the primary source web page of the institution. If you want to get into Wikipedia because inventions, you need to show media coverage about the inventions and not just a primary source database of every patent that everybody's ever filed on anything. And if you want to get into Wikipedia because political candidacy, well, that's just not going to happen, because it doesn't count as a notability claim in and of itself — and neither does it matter a whit whether the "Fremont County Solid Waste Disposal District" was a committee or not: the lowest level of political office that guarantees a person an article on here is the state legislature, and the "Fremont County Solid Waste Disposal District" is not the state legislature.

And for the record, you started out this discussion pretending to be a different person who was referring to Dale Groutage in the third person, but in this comment you suddenly (and perhaps accidentally) switched to the first person — so you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails BIO and GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not enough references. Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. I find a few mentions but nothing that comes close to significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I want to end this, hopefully, on a positive note. I know I have been, to say the least, robust, in my comments, but I will say that is because of a passion of mine. I will say a little more about that passion, but first I want to give a little background. I was born into extreme poverty, the son of a coal miner. As we had no TV or other entertainment, my mom and I read books. Together, in the early 50s, we read most of Thomas B. Costains’ books. It was my first love, the arts, and I wanted to be an author. But my mom — bless her heart — knew that I needed much more than to follow my dream of being an author. My mom wanted me to escape the clutches of a southwestern Wyoming coal camp and the all too tragic environment that could have been my future. She encouraged me to pursue the sciences — thank god. It paid off and I had a long successful career. So let me tell you of my passion, which is best told by an example. In 1955 pilot Tex Johnston barrel rolled a Boeing 707 over Lake Washington. He got the publicity. The unsung heroes were the team of engineers that made that feat possible. Today they are lost in history. It is Tex Johnston who is the hero. This story is played out over and over. The safe bridges, the safe skyscrapers, the war machines that safeguard our freedom and the list go on because of heroes in back rooms quietly and without fanfare and without media coverage doing their job because they love what they do. It has been my dream to bring them out of the back rooms and to the forefront. But you know my age, so this will be left to the next generation. If you ever have a change to come to Lander, Wyoming, give me a call. We’ll have lunch or coffee and perhaps have time to share our stories. Good luck in wherever your journey of life takes you. Dale! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kopaz (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC) — The Kopaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of local interest only despite the wall of text. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this is only a local interest, with no significant coverage shown. Kierzek (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NPOL and GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to United States Senate election in Wyoming, 2006. All the claims made surely would mean he got coverage in newspapers, right? So I checked newspapers.com. However, there is no coverage about a "Dale Groutage" before 2006, not about winning the Federal Engineer of the Year Award, being inducted in any Hall of Fame or working for the US government. Still, he ran for the Senate as a major party candidate, so he is a likely search term for said election, so redirecting makes sense. Regards So Why 11:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Numerically it's a close delete but on the strength of the arguments, especially about the quality of the sources, the consensus is still for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biocom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply promotional webhosting since the information and sources mean nothing to us in WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy, see the offered analysis last time: Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation. Biocom currently operates for members in the areas of public policy advocacy, industry events and conferences, promotion of the industry, professional development programs, industry news and information, and, most importantly, purchasing group and member discounts that substantially affect the bottom line of the companies' value chain, A San Diego trade group seeking to boost the Southern California biotech industry is now setting up shop in downtown Los Angeles, a northward shift that could step on the toes of L.A.'s own homegrown biotech association....Biocom, established in San Diego in the early 1990s, plans to open its office here in June. Joe Panetta, the group's chief executive, said he sees the expansion as a chance to add more members and unite the two regions' biotech industries, Under Panetta's stewardship, Biocom membership has doubled, revenue has risen from $700,000 to more than $3 million and the staff has grown from six to 18. The group's geographic reach now extends north to Thousand Oaks....Biocom's board of directors has grown from 30 members to 50 and includes the top executives of the region's biggest and most successful companies, BIOCOM, the San Diego-based trade association for life sciences and medical device companies, is pushing into Orange County. A hundred OC biotech industry executives and service providers pre-registered for a BIOCOM meeting held Wednesday in Irvine on the topic of getting medical devices to market. With roughly 560 members, BIOCOM claims to be the largest regional biotech group in the world. Only about 30 of those member companies are in Orange County. But here is where the group's greatest growth potential lies, says President Joe Panetta The group plans to open an office in Orange County within six months and schedule education and networking events inside the Orange Curtain and San Diego's leading biotechnology trade group has released its first "score card"....Biocom, which represents more than 200 biotech companies in San Diego, took aim at the voting records of legislators on 10 bills that deal with everything from the cloning of human stem cells to divulging secret settlements in product liability lawsuits which visibly show the company's influences in them. It's actually worse when, not only was this promotional advocacy, but the last deletion was as G5, so it never improved for the better, and nothing showing it will now. One of the last AfD comments said "Biocom exists. The article is factual -- doesn't currently make it sound "notable" in the sense of "exciting", like you would want to run and tell all your friends about what you just read. But that's not the standard for wikipedia articles. When Biocom is more in the news, at least we can know who it is as a player" is contrary to WP:What Wikipedia, WP:Deletion policy, WP:Crystal and WP:NPOV all establish. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional article. WP:NOT. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article notes:
Biocom is a trade organization focusing on the life sciences business market in California.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Biocom was founded in 1995, through the merger of the San Diego Biotechnology Industry Council (BIC) and the San Diego Biocommerce Association.[4]
As of 2016, Biocom represents over 800 member companies.[8]
The organization runs the non-profit Biocom Institute and the Festival of Science and Engineering.[9][10]
This provides basic facts and is neutrally written. It does not violate WP:NOTADVERTISING.
Cunard (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per previous opinion and above. Light2021 (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. local trade organizations like thisd are essentially never notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all local trade organizations are notable. This one is notable.
Vittorio Chiesa and Davide Chiaroni, professors at Polytechnic University of Milan in Italy, wrote in their Imperial College Press–published book Industrial Clusters in Biotechnology: Driving Forces, Development Processes, and Management Practices: "Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation." That two Italian professors wrote this about Biocom, which is based in San Diego, California, strongly establishes that Biocom is notable.
Cunard (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chiesa, Vittorio; Chiaroni, Davide (2005). Industrial Clusters in Biotechnology: Driving Forces, Development Processes, and Management Practices. London: Imperial College Press. pp. 197–198. ISBN 1860946070. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The book notes:
  
  Biocom (San Diego, US)
  In the mid '90s industry leaders in the cluster of San Diego, the third largest cluster in the world, gathered together with a strong commitment to create an association that would ensure growth and expansion opportunities and represent the industry's interests on a local, state and national level. Biocom was founded in 1995 by the merger of the Biomedical Industry Council (BIC) and the San Diego Biocommerce Association. The organisation was initially created to provide advocacy for industry on local infrastructure issues having an impact on future industry growth. Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation. Biocom currently operates for members in the areas of public policy advocacy, industry events and conferences, promotion of the industry, professional development programs, industry news and information, and, most importantly, purchasing group and member discounts that substantially affect the bottom line of the companies' value chain.
2. Koren, James Rufus (2016-04-29). "Biotech trade group Biocom expands to L.A." Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  
  A San Diego trade group seeking to boost the Southern California biotech industry is now setting up shop in downtown Los Angeles, a northward shift that could step on the toes of L.A.'s own homegrown biotech association.
  Biocom, established in San Diego in the early 1990s, plans to open its office here in June. Joe Panetta, the group's chief executive, said he sees the expansion as a chance to add more members and unite the two regions' biotech industries.
  "It's an opportunity to bring together the life-science entities in Los Angeles and bring that group together with the community in San Diego," he said. "It will help us bring together something we've been talking about for 10 years: a unified Southern California life-sciences community that extends from Santa Barbara to across the Mexican border."
  Though Biocom is a not-for-profit organization, Panetta said the group — which counts more than 750 members, including biotechs, law firms and consultants — needs to continue to grow. A bigger organization can put on better events, draw bigger investors to its members and more effectively lobby in Sacramento and on Capitol Hill, he said.
  ...
  Biocom has already been active in Los Angeles. It's one of a handful of groups working with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. on a plan to build up L.A. County's biotech industry by attracting companies to the region and helping them expand.
3. Somers, Terri (2005-03-15). "The face of Biocom: Chief of biotechnology trade group has improved organization, won accolades". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  
  After Mycogen was acquired by Dow in 1998, Caulder recommended Panetta for the job running Biocom.
  ...
  Under Panetta's stewardship, Biocom membership has doubled, revenue has risen from $700,000 to more than $3 million and the staff has grown from six to 18. The group's geographic reach now extends north to Thousand Oaks.
  ...
  Biocom's board of directors has grown from 30 members to 50 and includes the top executives of the region's biggest and most successful companies. ...
4. Fikes, Bradley J. (2015-11-13). "Fouts, Benirschke mark Biocom's 20th". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  
  With two San Diego football legends taking center stage, San Diego's life science trade group Biocom marked its 20th year at its annual "Celebration of Life" dinner Thursday.
  Former Chargers quarterback Dan Fouts and placekicker Rolf Benirschke shared stories about their lives in football, life in general, and the need for better medical treatments.
  ...
  About 650 people attended the "Back to the Future" themed event for the biotech/biomedical industry, held at the Hyatt Aventine in La Jolla. Biocom was formed in 1995 from the merger of two local biomedical groups. Based in San Diego, Biocom operates throughout much of Southern California and statewide; in addition to having a staff member in Washington D.C.
5. Norman, Jan (2007-08-09). "BIOCOM comes to O.C." Orange County Register. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  
  BIOCOM, the San Diego-based trade association for life sciences and medical device companies, is pushing into Orange County.
  A hundred OC biotech industry executives and service providers pre-registered for a BIOCOM meeting held Wednesday in Irvine on the topic of getting medical devices to market.
  With roughly 560 members, BIOCOM claims to be the largest regional biotech group in the world. Only about 30 of those member companies are in Orange County. But here is where the group's greatest growth potential lies, says President Joe Panetta.
  ...
  The group plans to open an office in Orange County within six months and schedule education and networking events inside the Orange Curtain.
6. Crabtree, Penni (2002-09-24). "Biotech firms give grades to legislators". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  
  San Diego's leading biotechnology trade group has released its first "score card" on how California legislators voted this year on issues of concern to the industry -- an action that has some politicians crying foul.
  Biocom, which represents more than 200 biotech companies in San Diego, took aim at the voting records of legislators on 10 bills that deal with everything from the cloning of human stem cells to divulging secret settlements in product liability lawsuits.
  The trade group hopes to leverage the life-science industry's growing economic clout -- local biotech and medical device companies employ about 32,000 and spend close to $1 billion for research -- into political muscle. Last year, Biocom formed a political action committee to influence politicians and shape legislation at the state and federal level.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Biocom to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a book mention with the language of "one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation" is hardly a claim to notability. If it were the largest life science association in the nation, then maybe yes, it would be worth keeping. But a regional trade group? Trade associations are rarely notable, and this one misses the mark. The article is a directory-like listing with no opportunities for improvement per available sources. Our notability guidelines specifically discourages such articles. The coverage is mostly local and / or future looking, as in "The trade group hopes to leverage the life-science industry's growing economic clout..." etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article doesn't pass WP:NOT, therefore if doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Before the promotion was removed, it violated WP:NOT via WP:PROMO. With the promo removed it's left as a simple directory entry, violating WP:NOT via WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Either way it's just not notable and no arguing about GNG can get around that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the end of the day, the question has to be, is this something that a reasonable community of interested readers might legitimately want to know about, and expect to learn about in an encyclopedia. Yes, we need to protect our readers from exposure to scams and promotional material that overstates or misrepresents the significance of a subject. However, we should not use this as a reason to deny them access to NPOV information about a subject covered in reliable sources. bd2412 T 14:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, this would go against WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper since we're not a primary publisher of what news publishers should be publishing instead, and that's in WP:What Wikipedia is not and it completely agrees with "need to protect our readers from exposure to scams and promotional material", which is why exceptions aren't a feasible option. About the NPOV, it's actually contrary, the articles should be in every manner, NPOV, and or else our denying them is simply part of our procedural article process. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I agree the sourcing here is still founded in promotional press releases or notices, none of which are a negotiable exception in our policies; for example, see WP:Deletion policy's that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia and this applies here especially considering the fact this one article never improved since last AfD, that's not it now can't, but instead that improvements would've happened and that sourcing could be improved too if someone had shown it can successfully happen, especially when to remove COI contributions. Next, adding to the "sources can be improved", the range of sourcing hasn't actually ever changed so this is a another sign there's not the significant substance to show better. In this case, not only was the last AfD visited by a now-banned paid user, this was accepted from AfC when it was clear the company itself authored it. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: when the peacock terms are stripped off we're left with a WP:NOTDIR entry. DrStrauss talk 08:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I saw the PROD notice and the invitation to fix the article. I bent over and picked up the glove. Now I have a dog in the hunt, so I won't vote for my own work. What I saw was an extraordinary organization. Instead of hosting continuing education and networking cocktail hours, Biocom is focusing on the next generation of biotechnologists in Southern California. They partnered with Cal State LA to get a $500,000 federal grant to spend on kids. They sponsor a kids' technology fair that draws 24,000. I don't care what the San Diego Union Tribune says. Politifact tells me they are spending real money. The LA Business times tells me that the Department of Commerce believes in them, to the tune of a half million. It's easier to be critical than creative like Biocom is. Rhadow (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company has received coverage in significant and reliable third-party news sources. Notability requires that the subject has received attention from third party sources, so the subject satisfies the general guidelines for notability. I took a minute to remove some of the promotional tone from the article--I think it no longer reads like an advertisement or simple directory. Malinaccier (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another cry from the popcorn gallery I perceive that the value of WP derives from the synthesis of information in an article. The article is more than the sum of its parts. The founder's name might be a link to a bio. The organization's budget is pulled in from an IRS form 990. One newspaper says something interesting, even if it did take quotes from the subject, all wrapped in happy talk. Another newspaper might say something bad. The editor might even observe that trade organizations and lobbyists are the fourth branch of government in DC. THAT is an encyclopedic article -- a summary of the state of affairs for the person who can only read one thing. The fact that we draw from newspapers doesn't make WP a newspaper.

On the subject of trade associations, let's use a single measure, annual spending. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for firearms manufacturers, took in $36 million last year and spent $32. It's only seven times larger than Biocom, and it's nationwide. That makes a regional association look pretty strong, doesn't it? By contrast, the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council spent $5.5 million in 2015 -- for a whole state. Rhadow (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just made some changes, and in just a few minutes found plenty of coverage. I elected to add a section about the group's advocacy efforts. They get a lot of media coverage in independent reliable sources, as Cunard has shown above - but if you go to their site you'll see they've compiled an even more extensive list of coverage, going back to February 2016.[[17]] Rhadow - I don't think editing the article disqualifies you from voting keep, or else you'd have to disqualify those who have tagged the article from voting delete, right? We all know tag bombers. So this is to let the closing editor know that there's an extra keep vote that isn't showing up. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address the newly added sources and changes in content
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and Radow. CJK09 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article now seems to have adequate sourcing to establish its notability. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure how folks think that a few lines denotes "significant coverage". Beyond routine and trivial mentions, no true in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to pass GNG from sources showing in the footnotes, which includes significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune. We're not here to deal the swift sword of justice to self-promoters or to punish more or less gross business entities with more or less gross political ties, but rather to weigh objectively the merits of each nomination by our established standards for inclusion. This subject clears that GNG bar, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are still not much more than recycled organisational press releases and and the text is still basically promotion for the organisation. At least three contributing accounts are likely paid editors, and one is banned. I don't know why we are thinking of rewarding them by approving what is still basically organisational wallpaper Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, a local trade organization does not merit an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman has persuaded me with his rebuttals to this being somehow above local notability. Smallbones's summary about WP:NOT is icing on the cake. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and Smallbones both: local trade organizations that are featured in local trade publications and other local sources are not typically accepted as reliable sources for the purpose of notability on the English Wikipedia, because the trade pubs will print virtually anything that they are told to print, making them failing in both independence and editorial oversight that we typically expect from our secondary sources. Regular local journalism is slightly better, but they do tend to be less stringent on the publication of information from local groups than we prefer for organizations. The sources that do not fall into this category also seem to be typical PR churn, which would be excluded from counting towards notability by WP:SPIP.
With those consideration, this does not pass the general guideline in WP:N. As Smallbones also points out, it is impossible to be notable, even if there were sources, if the article does not pass WP:NOT. The notability guideline is abundantly clear on this: to be included a subject must pass either the general guideline or a subject guideline and not be excluded by the policy of WP:NOT. Failing both the general guideline and NOT as either promotion or a directory entry makes this a clear delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what Tony said, small trade pubs can have more independence issues when they have close ties to the subjects they write about. See Talk:Propane Education and Research Council#Independence of LP Gas Magazine for example. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted by DGG, just a regional trade association. No real claim to notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:HEY and because this squeaks by WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Of note is that the article was entirely rewritten on 16:32, 1 August 2017‎ (UTC) (diff). As such, commentary for deletion relative to the state of the article prior to this time are in reference to the previous version of the article, rather than its present state. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of the commentary about the state of the article prior to the rewrite was also about notability, which this local trade group doesn't have in my mind and most of the earlier delete voters. The question the WP:N and CORPDEPTH and all the guidelines that surround them are essentially: if you read all the possible coverage of this subject, would you know it should be in a general purpose encyclopedia. The coverage here doesn't provide that in my view, so we shouldn't include it. On top of that, I'm not sure the rewrite really addressed the directory entry or promo concerns that well. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closure request filed at WP:ANRFC. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Lundqvist[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Won award as part of a large team, most of the others have had their articles deleted. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Few visual effects artists get noticed, and most of the time they're notable for other roles or for winning Emmys and Oscars (from my brief perusal of Category:Visual effects artists). He isn't the exception to the rule. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article subject meets at the very least the section 4c for having won significant critical attention with the Annie Award. (see creative professional under notability) Please show me the notation where it says that an award shared by a five person team does not count toward notability. He does not meet WP:ENT since he is not considered an entertainer but a creative professional. I do not consider a 5 person team large. I would have contested the others the nommentoned but did not see them. I read over them and the participation looked quite thin. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CREATIVE is probably a better link, but you haven't established how he meets that either. Your editing is unusual for someone who's been on Wikipedia a month, have you edited uder a different name previously? Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last relist. No !votes since last 2
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the award is not significant enough to presume notability under WP:ANYBIO as there's no corresponding independent coverage. I note that others who received the prize alongside the subject do not have articles:

"Lundqvist won the award along with Steve Avoujageli, Atsushi Ikarashi, Pawel Grochola and Paul Waggoner". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan AuSable Valley Railroad[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG. This is a tourist attraction, not a railroad, and there is no indication it is a very well known tourist attraction. The article seems to be more a directory listing in a tourist guide than an encyclopedia article. John from Idegon (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Non-delete Redirect to Fairview, Michigan~~ I doubt that the nom would have claimed this topic failed WP:GNG had he/she reported the WP:BEFORE D1 results for Google books. But the article as it stands fails WP:V#Notability, and there is an excellent redirect target, so the point is academic. Unscintillating (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is absolutely no indication of anything resembling notability in a Google book search. This GB search shows a brief mention in an "oddball" tourist site guide and mention of the attraction in three seperate editions of a tourist railroad guide published by a publishing house that specializes in hobby publications, Kalmbach Publishing. Listings in guidebooks do not speak to notability, even multiple ones, altho in this case we have effectively only 2. Not completely irrelevant is the fact that the owner of this attraction is a regular advertiser in several of the publisher of the tourist railroad guide's magazines, making them at least somewhat less than independent. No Redirect should be made, as keeping this is just yet another step in selling Wikipedia down the river to promotional interests. John from Idegon (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that I was wrong. As to the statement "absolutely no indication of anything resembling notability", this I cannot verify.

Railfan & Railroad has been around since the 1970s, so when a Google snippet reports Railroad & Railfan as saying that the Schrader's catalog has "fame", I think this means what it says. According to the snippet, the writer is aware of colors, sound, and restoration history of the Hudson engine, and the snippet goes on to discuss a diesel engine. This is in-depth. As for "selling Wikipedia down the river", and I mean this respectfully, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm changing my !vote to keep as the article has gone through a major upgrade. Regarding one specific point I mentioned above, it no longer fails WP:V#Notability. Unscintillating (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

agreed LibStar (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so, you'd be able to identify at least one thing about which you agreed. Unscintillating (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

everything. This AfD may explain your behavior in the other AfD and your tendency to argue. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:LibStar has edited the discussion without leaving a note in the discussion that the discussion has been altered. See WP:TPO, which states (bold in original), "Never edit...someone's comment to change its meaning". Unscintillating (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the nomination, this is a tourist attraction. --do ncram 13:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability in being a tourist attraction. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a little shadow that goes in and out with me,. And what can be the use of him is more than I can see. --do ncram 21:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is made as a proof by assertion that "tourist attractions are not inherently notable". First of all, this is a straw man because the OP here said nothing about inherent notability. Secondly, the retort fails to knock down the straw man, since as per the WP:N nutshell, notable topics are those which have attracted "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Thirdly, returning to the proof by assertion, note that as per WP:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. zero third party coverage nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Outright deletion should be ruled out, because a good wp:ATD exists: merge, leaving a redirect behind, to List of miniature railways, specifically to its table row, Ridable miniature railway#Michigan AuSable Valley Railroad. I voted "Keep" above and think that's best, still, although I also do not easily find coverage about it. I think that coverage must exist, because, as stated, it is a tourist attraction. --do ncram 22:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've got a keep, a redirect w/o deletion, and a delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - Google footprint is tiny and I am not seeing a single source that counts to GNG.~~ Carrite (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will strike my opinion and get out of the way to make determination of consensus easier, given the trend of the arguments below. Carrite (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What were your results from WP:BEFORE D1 on Google books? Unscintillating (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the Google books search yields coverage in multiple guidebooks and perhaps other sources. --do ncram 17:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No compliance with WP:Before. In any event, meets WP:GNG. Took five years to build. Been operational for 20 years; closing this year. Article needs to be expanded. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added lots of sources and content, which establish beyond any reasonable doubt that this is an important tourist destination to those who are miniature railroad afficiandos. It was covered in the usual sources given the subject matter. This establishes further that WP:Before was more honored in the breach than the observance. Given its relatively obscure and remote locale, it has received a lot of mention. I will continue to add sources, but I am done for this evening. Sweet dreams. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no comment, just keep. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting I posted neutral notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains and Talk:Ridable miniature railway regarding this discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep public transportation using a steam locomotive. I don't know what US regulations are, but in the UK this would be subject to Transport and Works Act 1992, official boiler inspections etc. Not saying this gives WP notability, just that it's not (just) someone's model train set. Article's really twee, tho' :) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Railway stations are considered notable, simply because they are a structure. Even a small halt in the middle of nowhere. I think a railway like this easily meets the criteria for notability. In all honesty, I could find a 1000 other articles that are less notable than this. Morphenniel (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons given below (with thanks to 7&6=thirteen).The joy of all things (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Morphenniel, there are worse articles out there. Additionally, deletion is an extreme, it could be moved under its own header into the article about the National Park that it is located in and the original article turned into a redirect.

It's within a National Forest, not a National Park. But otherwise, I agree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is borderline notable, but there's enough sources to keep, especially Guide to Tourist Railroads and Museums. 7&6=thirteen deserves a barnstar. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a few third-party sources to establish notability there. The fact this is a tourist attraction isn't a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who are childless by choice for non-religious reasons[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NOTABLE. My two problems with this article are a) These people are not necessarily famous for not having children and b) There is no clear scope/inclusion criteria. Millions of people choose not to have children for non-religious reasons, but why specifically are the people on the list now there? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. There's no evidence that this particular group of people has been discussed as a group in reliable sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wanted to convert this to List of antinatalists per Category:Antinatalists that might work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't assume that they are antinatalists without reliable sources saying that for each of them. The fact that these particular people don't want to have children themselves (assuming that they don't) would not prove anything about their opinions about other people having children. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes and that is what I was trying to imply. It would be more than just a rename. There are 40 names in the category, though I have not checked their quality of sourcing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would seem to just be a completely different list with just some overlapping entries, so whether or not this should be deleted would have nothing to do with whether that should also be separately created. postdlf (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point, in eyeballing the list and the category, there really is no overlap. It would have to start from scratch. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This seems arbitrary, perhaps over-specific, and not helpful to readers. I wouldn't necessarily object to an equivalent category, since that just adds structured information, but I can't see a use for the list and it doesn't seem completable. Only a 'weak' vote because some of the same objections would apply to other lists collecting people by personal characteristics, for example List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, which I wouldn't want to remove. Mortee (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the list you mentioned above, I also have an issue with the scope of that list. Taking WP:NOTABLE into consideration, I personally would only include notable individuals whose sexual orientation has been discussed as a group in reliable sources. Otherwise, anyone who identifies LGBTQ could be included on that list, but that would be excessive. As for this list, unless a person is famous for their antinatalist views, I cannot see why they should be included on the list. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...whose sexual orientation has been discussed as a group"... I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. ANYhoo, such lists should be and are ordinarily limited to notable people, though lists are not limited to "why" people are "famous". You should focus on "no clear scope/inclusion criteria" as an argument, because that's certainly a valid concern for the list you nominated here. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I essentially meant that the list should be limited to notable people. And you're right that my biggest issue with the list is the lack of scope/inclusion criteria. Apologies for the confusion. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 12:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial way of listing people. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Necessarily involves speculation about religious motives and medical histories. Pure OR in that regard. Trivia. Carrite (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no conceivable inclusion criteria or threshold for this to make it substantive rather than trivial, equivocal, or circumstantial. Entries may run the gamut from people who are philosophically opposed to anyone having children to others who are basically "yeah, we're fine without them, who knows though, we may change our minds." Essentially trying to list people by their motive for maintaining a life status. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yemi Amodu[edit]

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

non-notable actor who fails to meet WP:GNG. I could only find passing mentions on relatively primary sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seemed like a notable actor when I read the article, so I Googled him to find coverage in reliable source but found nothing. I wasn't even particular about the coverage being completely independent, since he acts mainly in Yoruba films, yet nothing, not even an interview in rs. There is no point keeping an article that can't be verified. Darreg (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester and District Saturday Football League[edit]

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

Lacks notability. I can't find any independent, reliable sources which cover the league. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 17:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RIK-210[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. There is one paper about star, that says there is something orbiting about it, not sure what, maybe just junk trapped in the star's magnetic field. That's it. The paper was picked up by some web sites, which is probably why we have this article. Fails WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although there is one academic paper, it has also appeared in several secondary science news sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Plenty of sources reporting on it.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Alsee (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alsee. CJK09 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruck Easton[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person who may have a legitimate claim of notability, but isn't properly sourcing it. Being president of a political party is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL -- it's enough if the person can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but does not hand him an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of adequate sourcing. But of the four sources here, one is a primary source that cannot assist notability at all, two are dead links whose content is unverifiable, and the one that's actually retrievable is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that's primarily about somebody else. And even on a deep ProQuest search, I still can't find any coverage that's substantively about him -- he gets namechecked a lot, and is sometimes the bylined author of op-ed columns, but isn't the subject of any substantive coverage that I can locate. All of which means there's just not enough sourcing to get him over GNG, and nothing in the article exempts him from having to have enough sourcing to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates are generally non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion it fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.-Umair Aj (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marmalade Souls[edit]

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

Currently sourced completely with primary and non-reliable sourcing, with the lone exception being the AllMusic reference. However, searches turned up virtually no-indepth coverage of this band. Books turned up a lot of hits, but they were all of the listing kind. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...with the lone exception being the AllMusic reference..."?? You don't consider IMDB reliable and non-primary? Gagitsel (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only I, but Wikipedia does not consider imdb reliable. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Questionable resources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, even though they are the stars of the documentary På Helig Mark (On Holy Ground), people are considering deletion of this article? Strange.Gagitsel (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary in question being a twenty minute short that premiered on Umeå International Film Festival last year, has had no other distribution and has gathered a few hundred views on Youtube? Asking to make sure I'm not missing anything. /Julle (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, sadly. Wikipedia needs a slew of other sources first to work. It's how the site works. If not, all our attempts to make it reliable fails. /Julle (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on verifiability grounds. There seems to be next to nothing written about the band – almost no reliable sources not connected to the bad used in the article, as noted, and I can't find anything about the band when looking for further reliable sources online either. /Julle (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sufficient independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of notability from RS, independent sources. Kierzek (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Realty Partners[edit]

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

An article on a firm, sourced mainly to a Bloomberg profile page and an appointment announcement. My attempted CSD A7 was declined in October 2012, but I am not seeing substantial improvement since. Some legal action involved the co-founders, and a flurry of edits in 2015 resulted in the page being protected, but the article remains insubstantial and lacking in discernable encyclopaedic notability. Nothing in the text or found in my searches indicates more than a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL company going about its business, so my opinion remains that it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage at all, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essentially seems to be using Wikipedia as an advertising platform. No significant coverage. fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No comments, treating as WP:PROD Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Afzal Khan Barikoti[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Here is Pashto article. Greenbörg (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rythmz[edit]

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

Music duo that does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. I have tried to find information about the Green Light Awards, which is their claim to notability, but I have only found a few local reports about the awards from media in Yaoundé, and I can't see that it is a "major music award" per WP:BAND.

Because there is a risk of systemic bias when it comes to articles about Cameroon, I've spent some time cleaning up the article and looking for sources; as far as I can tell they are very talented but still up-and-coming, making it too soon for an article. bonadea contributions talk 09:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bonadea I am actually helping to list Cameroonians on this prestigeous online reference website known as wikipedia. If you have research and found out they are not notable then you can put down the page, but however i am looking at other achievement they might have. Thanks Abanda bride (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khurshid Eqbal[edit]

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

Full of promotional stuff. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gisela Novoa[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Local news producer who has been nominated for several, and won on, regional (Suncoast) Daytime Emmy award. I would argue that this regional Emmy is not a significant enough achievement for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CREATIVE. regional emmy doesn't cut it. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM applies. Soft delete with a possible refund available. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny J[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Trivial mention in online sources. No awards or charted music. The discography section links to several Wikipedia articles which make no mention of "Ronny J". Magnolia677 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No comments after 2 relists, SOFTDELETE applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Mercury[edit]

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

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

Article about a band, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. There's no content here that satisfies any of the NMUSIC criteria: the closest that the article gets to notability is the number of albums that they released, but NMUSIC #5 requires two albums to have been on major or large-indie labels — and of the three albums here, only one was on a label that's even maybe prominent enough to qualify (its article is also so poorly sourced that it's also deletion bait.) One album got reviewed in Exclaim! and has a "track listing only, no review" page on AllMusic, but all of the other sources here are primary sources rather than reliable ones. There are touring claims being made here as well, but touring only constitutes notability per NMUSIC #4 if the tour can be sourced as the subject of media coverage, and not if all you do is say they toured.
And on a ProQuest search, I can't find any evidence that they ever got any substantive media coverage beyond just their own hometown newspaper — even for the touring claims, all I can find is WP:ROUTINE "what's on at the clubs tonight" concert listings, not substantive coverage. As for AllMusic, while it would assist notability if they had deemed the album worthy of a review, the mere presence of a tracklist-only directory entry is not an automatic notability freebie since they try as much as possible to maintain at least that type of page for every album that exists. (And since Library and Archives Canada also tries as much as possible to keep a copy of every sound recording made in Canada at all, having directory entries there isn't an automatic notability pass either.)
So literally all we've really got here for notability-building sources is the Exclaim! review, and that's just not enough by itself — and since the band's been defunct for a decade, there's no realistic prospect of better sourcing emerging in the future. I'm also bundling the one album that has a separate standalone article, as it makes no credible claim of notability either. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No comments, I'm treating this as a PROD/SOFTDELETE. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Frishauf[edit]

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

No references, seems to serve as a vanity project for the subject as well as a CV and as a repository for external links for business interests.

(NB: Subject of article is also a Wikipedian who has made only one relatively innocuous edit to this page 12 years ago, so this is not about a conflict of interest there.) JesseRafe (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation should proper sourcing be located. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gone with the Wind (2005 film)[edit]

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

Fails the general notability criterion. There is scant coverage of this film in reliable sources, although being an Afghan film this should not be an immediate argument for its dismissal. However, it fails WP:NFO in other ways:

No evidence of wide distribution
No reviews are included in the article which would help establish the esteem it is held in
No evidence of awards

In short there is no evidence of its importance. The two sources in the article are dead and the film is not even listed on the director's bio at IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680298/reference Betty Logan (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have fixed the 2 references in the article but they are only brief directory listings, might need to search in Pashto and Dari for refs , definitely needs Afghan editors input Atlantic306 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No good content, any results would be overrun with the 1939 version in sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M Aslam Khan Malik[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. BLP more suitable for LinkedIn. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a borderline A7 speedy deletion candidate: nothing in the article makes any claim of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject fails to meet WP:Hockey, and that extant sourcing does not meet WP:GNG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aslı Çukurkavaklı[edit]

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

Fails WP:HOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Failure to pass WP:HOCKEY is irrelevant given the WP:GNG issues. The major issue here is while there are a lot of sources about Çukurkavaklı, most of them are in Turkish. 6 of these are cited in the article. Some one more familiar with the Turkish language can probably do a better job at picking these sources out, and adding information to them to the article. But the strength of their existence alone, albeit not in the English language, demonstrates WP:GNG passing. --LauraHale (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails NHOCKEY. LauraHale's assertion that the number of sources indicates notability is incorrect as the sources (those of which that are not broken links such as #4) are still readable even with a simple translation such as those available through Google Translate. The Turkish sources only have passing mentions of her and are mostly of the WP:ROUTINE game coverage variety and two stats pages. The only one talking about her is this one (used twice as sources #2 and #5), but even that is very brief and more about what the players' backgrounds are when they are not competing. I see no significant coverage, Turkish or otherwise, that indicates the subject passes GNG, specifically criterion #1: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Yosemiter (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Yosemiter, to whom I'm grateful for doing the legwork on a couple of these AfDs so that I don't have to do so. I remain dismayed that LauraHale is pulling knee-jerk Keeps on these Turkish women's hockey articles without coming up with a single cite that meets the GNG's requirements, and is notably silent when asked to identify specific cites she claims does. Ravenswing 01:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of GNG. Sources are all databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing most of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mac-on-Mac[edit]

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

Non-notable software. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage, and project appears stalled years ago. Dialectric (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davincci Lourenço de Almeida[edit]

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

fails WP:BLP1E Without the unproven claim that he delivered a bag of money to Lula this person is eminently non-notable. Domdeparis (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that he delivered a bag of money to Lula, former presidente, was made by him to a major news publication in Brazil and had major repercussions, including a lawsuit from the former president against him and the publication. The claim in unproven because it is being discussed in the Justice system, but the mere fact that it was made, against such a notable public figure, is relevance enough in my opinion. Furthermore he is not only noticeable for one event, he has accused major political figures in other unrelated cases, as the cited accusation against federal congressman Russomanno. In this case, the congressman himself made a public national statement that is also cited in the article. WikiGuy2517 (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So he is notable for making unproven accusations ? Domdeparis (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Onuegbu[edit]

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

C.V-like article of a non-notable subject who fails to meet WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Collins Onuegbu has been updated with citations, independent sources i will appreciate your review with necessary corrections. Thanks.olavaun 08:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olusegun Ajakaiye (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Nelson[edit]

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

Not eligible for a speedy due to presence of plausible claims of notability. Probably fails WP:GNG as a cursory search does not turn up any editorial coverage -- just presence in lists of credits and the like. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources to show that she passes WP:NACTOR or any more generic notability criteria. She's had a few guest roles (don't know how significant) in TV shows, and two years hosting a sports failure video clip show. That's it. The only source in the article is a very weak IMDB blurb. Meters (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither notable nor verifiable. — Wylie pedia 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Manley (politician)[edit]

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

Unelected politician - WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and MOS:CA#Politics.

Deputy leader of a minor party isn't an inherently notable office. Madg2011 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deputy leaders of political parties, even minor ones, may qualify for articles if they can be reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG on "has received significant media coverage" grounds — but they're not entitled to an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist, and this article cites zero sources at all. And when an article goes into this much personal detail about his private life (e.g. names of his wife and son) without actually showing sources for the information, the balance of probabilities says there's been some conflict of interest editing somewhere along the way. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With most biographies Special Notability Guidelines exist to supplement GNG and make more easy the inclusion of professions or occupations not demonstrating importance in the usual way, via the media. Take, for example, the case of academics. With politicians, consensus is to suspend GNG for coverage relating to their ordinary campaigns and to instead hold them to a higher standard via a SNG — that they must demonstrate notability through election to some high office, or party leadership, or by GNG passage unrelated to their electoral escapades. This is an ordinary unelected politician who was not a party leader. Carrite (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appear[edit]

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

Per source searches, this company does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- thinly veiled advertising brochure. Reyk _YO! 08:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a company, it fails WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 02:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Absence paradox[edit]

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

Non notable. The article has exactly one source, and extensive searching doesn't turn up any other relevant sources.

My searches found a music album with this name, significant unrelated hits for "presence-absence paradox", and some apparent Google-books search hits which are actually repackaged copies of Wikipedia articles (invalid as pure WP:CIRCULAR). Alsee (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't find any other relevant sources either. (Though Google Books did suggest a David Icke tract as a "related item" at one point, which is always fun.) And even in the best hypothetical case, it doesn't seem to stand on its own as an article. If it were more clearly written, and if there were more evidence of the topic being discussed under this name, then the material might fit somewhere. XOR'easter (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any coverage suggesting it has any cultural relevance. I actually found more hits for an unrelated term, presence-absence paradox. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without opposition. A low-importance topic with an absence of evidence of notability, and no one to defend its existence. I have taken the liberty of redirecting the title to King Street, Cambridge, where this is mentioned, and merging in a paragraph of the content. bd2412 T 02:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King Street Run[edit]

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

Non-notable bar crawl. Perhaps even a non-notable former bar crawl as I can find no reliable sources attesting to its recent occurrence. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 00:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insignificant student tradition, local to a college community. Insignificant coverage in poor-or-unusable sources. I was unable to check the ref The Ascent of Mount Hum. However I am confident that source would carry minimal weight due to the nature of the book and the available context. A single solid source would be insufficient in any case. Alsee (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuits Européennes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete: the festival ran from 1995 to 2013, and few of the acts were well known: as it was very much a local affair and was permanently wound up four years ago, there's precious little information out there. Richard3120 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 02:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 00:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept pursuant to improvements establishing notability through influence in the the field. bd2412 T 02:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Astrachan[edit]

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

This article qualifies for deletion because:

. The subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:NOTABILITY)
. It is self-promotional (WP:PROMOTION)

Notability

None of the following things qualify the subject as notable:

His role as a professor; that is his profession, and Wikipedia is not a directory
His professional awards; We don't list everybody who has ever won a professional award
His NSF grants; those belong on his faculty page, if he has one
His role as an expert witness in a software patents case
Being a published author

Self-promotion

The tone is self-promotional.
The article contains irrelevant details about the subject's hobbies.
The article was created and most of the edits to it have been made by the user Bubble snipe. This user's only contributions to Wikipedia have been either to this article or to other articles to insert links to this one.
The secondary sources cited in the article are merely news stories in which the subject is quoted, not news stories about the subject.
None of the references have anything to do with the subject himself. He is quoted as an expert witness in software patents case in one. The rest is name-dropping.

With respect to the subject, there's nothing to salvage here. Many award-winning professors don't merit their own Wikipedia articles. The article should be deleted. Rhombus (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. GS h-index of 20 seems rather low for a high-cited field. Nomination seems to overly hostile and, despite its length, short on detail. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It is hard to find the usual publication support for academics whose impact has been on improving high school and undergraduate education in their field rather than research in the field. But he is a full professor at a major research university and an NSF Computer and Information Science and Engineering Distinguished Education Fellow. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is also the principle investigator on the NSF grant for the joint NSF/College Board project that has just produced the new AP Computer Science Principles course and exam. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 00:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. He does seem to be a prominent CS educator rather than scholar, so we should look for evidence via WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF. But the article provides none of the in-depth reliable independent sources needed to pass GNG among all of the anecdotal cruft that it lists, and I didn't find anything suitable elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been slowly rewriting the article. If this educator's impact on his field as shown by awards isn't enough to warrant an article I despair of getting any academic who is primarily an educator in. David Eppstein, will these sources and do?

William Aspray (2016). "4.3 CS Principles". Participation in Computing: The National Science Foundation’s Expansionary Programs. Springer. pp. 114–119. ISBN 978-3-319-24832-5. - his role in the development of the various AP computer science courses and exams from 1984 to the present
"Owen Astrachan". Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved 13 August 2017. - citation and introduction for the 2016 ACM Karl V. Karlstrom Outstanding Educator Award (primary source for the award, secondary source for the in-depth analysis of his impact on computer science education)
"NSF Announces First Annual Computer and Information Science and Engineering Distinguished Education Fellows". National Science Foundation. 13 July 2007. Retrieved 2017-07-31. - with Peter Denning the only two CISE Distinguished Education Fellows awarded by the NSF

StarryGrandma (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be clearer if the non-notable stuff (he got this NSF grant and this other NSF grant...he wrote this programming assignment and this other programming assignment) were removed so that the article could more clearly focus on things that make him notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cut a sizable amount of stuff, so the article might be better focused now. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, I've finished revising. I don't know why it took me so long to find his ACM awards page. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. The external recognition as a CS educator now more visible in the article (NSF/CISE Distinguished Educator, ACM Distinguished Member, and Karlstrom Award) should be enough. I think the criterion that best fits is WP:PROF#C4: "significant impact in the area of higher education". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds of adequately satisfying (flips through The Wikipedian's Complete Almanac of Acronyms) WP:PROF#C4. XOR'easter (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Group purchasing organization. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Private purchasing group[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without fully addressing the issue. One weak source was added. Concern was: Unsourced original research. Article is really little more tan a DICDEF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, it's not really original research, its a know technique to help companies group together to increase purchasing power. Unfortunately the original editor hasn't done anything to find valid sources. scope_creep (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what it is, Scope creep, but there are half a a dozen other terms for the same thing, so there may already be an article about it, making it a possible redirect. However, it's not in its present form a useful encyclopedia page. I originally PRODed it on 20 December, the day of its creation and dug it out of my PROD log recently which I go through occasionally to look for blue links, but I notice you re-proded (which is not strictly allowed) it yourself on 9 January with: Not an encyclopedic article. Doesn't utilize Wikipedia resources. Single link points to external third party website . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I forgot who I was talking too. I think when I was reviewing, it had some substantial gbook hits, I thought somebody might have spun it up into a proper article, by now. Its a pity, we need these types of articles, with odd and obscure knowledge, byzantine sales and marketing techniques. scope_creep (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your're right of course, Scope creep, but perhaps byzantine is not the right word for it. It's a legitimate and quite common way of getting suppliers manufacturers who are practicing unreasonably high prices to lower them. That's why some companies with disproportionately high prices sell only through their own retail outlets. Certainly worth a article if there isn't one, but I would have to recuse myself from it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 00:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- dictionary definition at best; notability not established. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Group purchasing organization, an identical concept. Group buying is slightly different, but can be referenced for info. Also check on captive insurance, a similar concept in the insurance industry. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per TimTempleton as a ATD. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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