Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 6 December 8 December >

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 speedy deleted. Closed as G8 by

non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 19:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Matt rissell

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

Article relates to the CEO of a notable company

talk) 23:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. The consensus among editors who made arguments based on Wikipedia's

notable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

David Seaman (journalist)


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

A marginal American writer/blogger and YouTube personality. I do not think he has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article subject has apparently has published a book (which describes him as "the founder of Shutterline Interactive, a vehicle for rapidly deploying publicity stunts") but he does not appear to have gained any more significant coverage as an business owner or author than he has as a commentator. There are mentions in him in unreliable sources (which I've taken out) but nothing very little (i.e., passing mentions) in reliable, independent publications. Neutralitytalk 23:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 16:17, 11 December 2016)[reply]

  • I've got no idea how to use Wikipedia from an editing perspective, nor do I care about learning as I have seen these sorts of things happen before, and it usually ends up with someone's Wikipedia knowledge being used to settle such debates and delete stuff, rather than an actual merit of the article in question. Just wanted to say this time I am watching with huge interest and would rather be anonymous and with proxy as I don't want to reveal my account name and donations history to Wikipeida (which is how I normally contribute). Of course now with David Seaman having 114,468 subscribers • 10,577,812 views when in October he had 6 million views mean it is very interesting how much more notable he is becoming and I am also interested how a user with the name "Neutrality" is anything but in the way he has reduced the info in the article in question. Now this comment isn't signed, it's probably going to get labelled with some acronym I don't care about, I just wanted my point made as a donator to Wikipedia who will not donate ever again just depending on what happens here. This comment is in the history here, and until history can be uninvented that's all I really care about. Thanks for reading. Will try and sign. 181.20.69.111 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 181.20.69.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - as I said above I only know how to donate to Wikipedia, but encoruage all to write "Keep" because they will use their knowledge of Wikipedia to say this page has 1 neutral and 1 Delete if you don't write Keep. At least I hope it is Keep I need to write. Not sure, as I said I only know how to donate. Perhaps user "Neutrality" if he really is as his name states, perhaps he/she can tell me how I am officially supposed to state that I do not want this article deleted? Thanks. 181.20.69.111 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 181.20.69.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note - Articles for Deletion Discussions are not a vote - it doesn't matter how many people say Keep or Delete - These discussions are about Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. Encouraging random, non-logged-in editors to say "Keep" just undermines whatever points you're trying to make. You'd be better off having just one person making a reasoned, balanced argument. Getting people to come here and blindly say "we should keep this article" will, eventually, not achieve anything. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another journalist who by simply discussing factual information (Wikileaks) has been disproportionately slandered by the mainstream media in an attempt to cover up the truth. The jumbled up mess of a paragraph above shows just how the people of the world who bury their head in the sand will try to, with their idiocy, silence the voices of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.235.105 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 74.127.235.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I also donate regularly to Wikipedia and have been involved in projects with prolific Wikipedians. Anonymous here for obvious reasons. I think it is interesting that this journalist has become more notable recently, and is very well respected as someone who is bravely doing the job the rest of the media should be doing, and it's NOW there's a suggestion for deletion? That makes it appear that there is a concerted effort to reduce his visibility to silence his message, which makes it appear that there is a cover up occurring of the most horrific crimes. I don't think Wikipedia wants to be associated with that. I think this journalist needs to have a more substantial article, he has expertise on cryptocurrency also, and has been interviewed about that on the Bitcoin website. That article also states: "He has been a guest on CNN Headline News, FOX News, ABC News Digital, Coast to Coast, the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast, The Young Turks and elsewhere. His opinions and articles frequently appear in Business Insider and Huffington Post." That was in July 2016, and his following has almost doubled since then on YouTube, and he is one of the most prominent people on up and coming Twitter alternative 'Gab'. His article should be made more substantial, and certainly not deleted.82.221.102.36 (talk) — 82.221.102.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Neutral won't weigh in on deletion but I don't like the edit warring that has been happening in the article, with Wikipedia's "protectors" taking out uncontroversial and verifiable info, such as that Seaman had a column at the Huffington Post, that ended after he wrote some (controversial) stuff about Hillary Clinton. Fwiw Seaman has a youtube video here where he complains about the article being up for deletion, threatens to sue Wikipedia for "lame character attacks" (1:58 in video), then rants about Pizzagate etc. Ok, I said "neutral" but I don't think we need this article. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think Seaman's page should be edited to remove his credentials and/or deleted. My comment on Seaman's page being marked for deletion, and persecution of citizen journalists, is at the talk section for his entry at articles for deletion, Dec. 7 2016. Ladybird99 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — Ladybird99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. I'm completely ignoring the apparently solicited people who have posted here - Wikipedia is not a Fan Site. The simple fact is that a collection of social media posts, blog entries and youtube videos does not make someone a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia entry and the "he was fired by Huffington Post" argument is just an attempt to Inherit Notability. No significant coverage is available in
    Reliable sources. Nothing in the article is independently verifiable which, as every experienced Wikipedia editor knows, means that a Biography of a Living Person should be deleted. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep - Seaman's notability is indisputable. His firing from Huffington Post was widely and internationally publicized and prior to that he was a very well-known reporter for both HuffPo and Business Insider, major publications. Seaman used his standing to garner an extremely large social media audience afterwards, which evidences his existing notability. The article as it stands now refers to Pizzagate as a conspiracy theory generally believed to be false. The standard of non-controversial biographical facts being placed alongside but separate from those on controversies, legal troubles, etc. meets that of other bio articles.199.122.112.244 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 199.122.112.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The consensus and strength of argument appears to be heavily in favor of keeping the article. Seaman was a well-known writer for several news websites with large viewerships and he has an enormous social subscriber base on Twitter, YouTube, and other social media sites. Regardless of one's thoughts on the 'Pizzagate' scandal, Seaman's role in it has expanded his notability further, not reduced it. It's my position that article should be retained but his involvement with/reporting on the Pizzagate conspiracy theory should be acknowledged. 50.182.99.115 (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)— 50.182.99.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note - There is definitely no consensus or strength of argument in favour of retaining this article. There has been very little reference made to the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons - the issues that this Article for Deletion Discussion is actually discussing. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very odd that at the height of Seaman's growing notability/notoriety he is being nominated on the basis non-notability. Prior to being fired from Huffington Post for his articles on Hillary Clinton, Seaman was well-known journalist with a long list of major outlets, an appropriate person for a wiki article. When he was fired, he garnered more notability, and more still from his reporting on the Pizzagate story.50.182.99.115 (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)— 50.182.99.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes, you've already said that, pretty much word for word Exemplo347 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I currently see two that are just profiles, two that barely mention the subject of this article and one which appears to be just a rehash of a conspiracy theory. Which sources are you referring to? Exemplo347 (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are in-depth, significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The citations consist of: (1) a simple log of his blog posts at two sites (The Street, HuffPo); (2) a brief mention of his video in a low-quality news agreggator (Inquisitr); (3) a passing mention in an unsigned Huffington Post blog post from "Outspeak," an online-video network; (4) a passing mention of "someone who tweets under the name David Seaman" in a local TV article; and (5) a passing mention in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. None of these are in-depth. Neutralitytalk 04:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Pizzagate: What Is Next? 'Daily Show' To Feature Panel On Satanic Pedophile Scandal". inquisitr.com. Retrieved 8 December 2016.
Yes, I understand your point in following the Wikipedia policies to a tee, but I think you missed my major point that followed. Looking at the article, it seems that it's turned into a battlefield of two camps motivated by Pizzagate. I'm concerned that this discussion is marred with the controversy and isn't as much about the said journo than it is about the scandal. Regarding the article, if it can't be rewritten to meet the general BLP criteria, then it should be deleted. Personally, I'm not into the strictest following of the BLP policy since as I stated earlier, as it is too restricting in some cases and I would like to see first if the article can be corrected and rewritten rather than deleted. I'd even see that if there is a consensus that this Pizzagate is the biggest claim to notability for Seaman, this article should be merged with
Pizzagate - although it seems that the situation is not particularly settled there either. Sk4170 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@Simtropolitan: If "reliable sources do exist" then please add them to the article. Improving an article during a delete discussion is encouraged. --Krelnik (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to note that this is not correct. First, he has not "worked for" notable mainstream sources; he was an apparently unpaid Huffington Post "contributor," which meant that he occasionally published blog posts on their site. See here: In 2011, there were "close to 15,000 people" who were HuffPo contributors. Being a HuffPo contributor, standing alone, is no different from being an independent blogger and does not confer notability. There is zero evidence that Seaman has been a staff writer nor a professional freelancer or any publication. And, even if he did work for some publication at some point, notability is
    WP:INDEPTH significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 17:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
At least one or two of these is not in fact a reliable source, and most are passing mentions:
Wall Street Journal: passing mention (1 sentence) in op-ed (not news piece - not really reliable for factual assertions)
Business Insider: self-published blog post by subject himself (
WP:SELFPUB
): comes with prominent disclaimer that says "David Seaman's views are his own, and Business Insider's publication of his work is not an endorsement."
El Horizonte: Brief mention in local newspaper that merely quotes Seaman's accusations in video. No analysis or other information.
"Slate.fr": Merely copies a single Tweet from Seaman. No analysis or other information.
"Valeurs Actuelles": brief mention in conservative French newsmagazine that merely notes one of Seaman's YouTube videos.
Vanguardia.com.mx: probably the most coverage, but discusses Seaman entirely in terms of Twitter policy. Unsigned article.
Terra Networks: not reliable; appears to be platform for self-published blogs, similar to
Wordpress
. Attributed to "ALT1040."
So this falls far, far short of in-depth, significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, much of the above consists of extreme, casuistic hairsplitting: The Wall Street Journal is discarded for not being
WP:N. El Horizonte is, incredibly, dismissed as a "local newspaper" — serving a city of 4.5 million people. Valeurs Actuelles is described as "French" and "conservative," as if its nationality or political bent were relevant to the topic, and misleadingly characterized as "about a Youtube video" — in actual fact, the entire article is devoted to Seaman as un journaliste viré pour avoir évoqué la santé de Clinton. Vanguardia is, irrelevantly, described as "unsigned" (does that discredit The Economist as well?). Albrecht (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
"Hard news" vs. editorial content does matter for establishing notability – notability, as mentioned above, requires reliable sourcing.
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Until and unless the very existence of the subject of this AfD is called into question, the Wall Street Journal op-ed will be admissible as a
WP:RS like any other: what's at stake here is not any specific factual statement found in the op-ed, but that the subject of this AfD was sufficiently notable to figure in editorial content relating to the Clinton health story. (In other words, the subject of this AfD's putative "firing" was considered newsworthy — regardless of the factual details. His claims being reported and/or discussed in the press was/is itself a socially significant fact). Albrecht (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
In that case, the reliably-sourced information that emerges – at the most – is that James Taranto believes Seaman was fired for questioning Clinton's health. The piece requires payment to read, so I don't know more than that. But it does not constitute significant coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion doesn't concern an event's social significance, but whether the article meets the relevant criteria for deletion according to wikipedia's policies. Today's weather was also "discussed in the press", but
not everything a newspaper prints is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Evidently the only mention of Seaman here was related to Seaman's claim of having been fired from Huffington Post – an opinion piece or op-ed isn't subject to the same editorial scrutiny as actual news, and so wouldn't be reliable for such statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If we were concerned with establishing or verifying the facts behind the Huffington Post firing, your concerns about the "reliability" of the op-ed would have merit. Since we are instead discussing the claim, which forms the basis of this AfD, that there is "nothing in reliable, independent publications" on the subject of this AfD, your concerns are misplaced. (Your invocation of
WP:NOTNEWS, moreover, strikes me as equally misplaced, if not abusive: the alleged firing of a journalist reporting on a major candidate in the midst of a polarized electoral campaign is patently not the same as a weather report.) Albrecht (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I was referring only to the WSJ editorial. Since it was used as evidence of notability, concerns about its reliability as a source are clearly warranted. If the WSJ truly considered the event to be "newsworthy", they would have reported it in the regular news pages, not merely given it a passing mention in the opinion section. I concur with the objections given above to the sources mentioned – a collection of passing references to a person or event don't confer notability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal is a
WP:INDEPTH, but you should at least have the good faith to recognize that the initial premise of this AfD — that there is "nothing in reliable, independent publications" — is false. Albrecht (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The reliability of a source depends on context. The guideline regarding editorial content that I quoted above is clear in stating that opinion pieces are not generally reliable for factual claims. I addressed the remark about this AfD's premise in a reply further down the page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As has been copiously (some might say tediously) explained above, the matter at hand — whether the subject of this AfD received coverage in a WSJ op-ed — is not a fact that can be doubted by invoking lower standards of accuracy in editorial pages — unless you believe these standards are so low that one can write "David Seaman" but mean "Darth Vader." Albrecht (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that the matter at hand is whether David Seaman has "received coverage", full stop, in any given publication, nor did I ever question it. This AfD exists to discuss whether that coverage has been
significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included – a more in-depth discussion such as this one might conclude otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Your assertion — that coverage in its editorial pages disqualifies the WSJ as a
WP:DEPTH clear many times before, so I'm not sure what purpose is served by restating it for the nth time. Albrecht (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Neutral leaning towards delete His Huff page claims a number of guest appearances which may go some way to establishing notability, if these appearances can be verified (after all his huff profile is his own work). The problem is apart from that there are three articles over 7 years, that does not seem very notable. As to his firing (again) this is his claim. I am not seeing much that is noteworthy, and much that is not noteworthy then any other no staff contributor to a website.Slatersteven (talk)
  • Delete I'm not seeing enough real coverage not related to Pizzagate to warrant a separate article. Could maybe merge into
    Tell me all about it. 18:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Trimmed? There is nothing here anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -There's a huge, huge amount of waffle in this discussion that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. All the nonsense from not-logged-in editors at the beginning of the discussion and the subsequent discourse about political views and non-mainstream beliefs held by the subject of this article have added nothing at all to this AfD discussion. Can't people just focus on the actual issues? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one substantive source given about David Seaman rather than by David Seaman is from notorious click-bait site Inquisitr and even that is only to repeat David Seaman's claims about David Seaman being repressed. Other than that, his status as a TheStreet and HuffPo "contributor" is meaningless as their business model relies on unpaid submissions by non-journalists to survive and being listed as one doesn't proves anything one way or another. I note also that most of his HuffPo contributions have been removed. His status as a self-proclaimed citizen journalist out to expose a huge conspiracy doesn't except him from normal guidelines for inclusion. If he indeed blows Washington wide open and generates significant coverage, then, fine. As it is, that simply isn't there. The only other argument for his inclusion seems to be one of "..he has a lot of reads/page views/followers..." and all kinds of
    WP:ILIKEIT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    While I don't disagree with your other remarks, your assessment of the subject's coverage by third-party sources is, stricto sensu, incorrect: the subject was covered in The Wall Street Journal, El Horizonte, Slate, Valeurs Actuelles, Vanguardia, among others previously mentioned by other editors. Seaman, deservedly or not, did receive real international coverage during the election cycle. Albrecht (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People don't seem to understand what Significant Coverage means. It means a news article should be ABOUT that subject, not just mention it in passing. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As observed by another user, some of the arguments in the "delete" camp are beginning to take on fundamentalist overtones. It's extremely rare for journalists to receive third-party coverage of themselves unless they are murdered or held hostage; the subject of this article has amassed more notability than 90% of journalist articles on Wikipedia (we literally have scores if not hundreds of articles whose only source is the contributor bio for the publication in which they write). Finally, the subject is absolutely central to most of the stories cited above, as any cursory examination will show. Albrecht (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just point out that the subject of this AfD debate is absolutely NOT central to Slate - one of his tweets is mentioned in passing. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair — he's far more central in some of the other articles, though. Albrecht (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I might add that the Slate article is the only one in my list which concerns a phenomenon or controversy of which the subject of this AfD is already recognized (I think) as one of the central figures. Thus, it should be seen as reinforcing his tie to that particular controversy; the other articles are there to establish notability with respect to other events. Albrecht (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate those links but they are all of the sort: some people are tweeting/Youtubing/blogging crazy stuff about Hillary Clinton." In other words, they are about the conspiracy theories or Hillary or the craziness (or all three) but not about Seaman himself. I remain unpersuaded that there is, either strictly construed or not, significant coverage about Seaman justifying a page on him. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't believe you've carefully examined the articles in question. One of the headlines is, verbatim, "A journalist fired for having invoked Clinton's health." Another (El Horizonte) is substantially about this same topic. Whether we believe that the events in question deserved coverage is immaterial to the purposes of this discussion. Albrecht (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That headline itself is the kind of red flag mentioned at
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Regarding "English-language sources":
WP:RSs can be in any language. Regarding "serious allegation": I'm not sure what you're referring to, but a journalist getting fired is the most ordinary thing in the world. Albrecht (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If it's so ordinary, then 1) it's not the sort of noteworthy event that would appear in an encyclopedia, and 2) making a conspiracy out of it would seem to mark the magazine in question as a fringe source. Seaman's writing, YouTube videos, etc. are in English, so a lack of in-depth coverage in other English-language sources of Seaman or his supposed "firing" raises red flags. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, I don't see any mention at all of this person in major French dailies either: nothing from Libération[1] or Le Monde[2], nor even the right-wing-leaning Les Échos[3] or Le Figaro[4]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once again for bringing more information to the discussion. I'm beginning to have pangs of guilt about contributing to the overburden of text the closing admin will be faced with. Because, however, this deserves an honest response I will say this: I, personally, don't have a strong opinion about David Seaman's coverage is deserved. I have a mild opinion that his brand of self-defined journalism is not rooted in reality, but I don't think it is germane to the discussion. I have a fairly strong opinion that, as I said, his self-appointed claim of importance requires significant evidence. Take, for example, the El Horizonte piece: By the most generous reading I can see, three (out of nine) paragraphs are about Seaman. This is the pattern for most of the coverage available. The exception seems to be Valeurs Actuelles. This is a small-circulation right-wing-biased journal; the
WP:RS status is very iffy. Even if we take this and the Inquisitr article mentioned above, that is still only two very dubious sources about Seaman. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree about the reliability of the Valeurs Actuelles piece being iffy. I know almost no French, but going by a machine translation, nearly all of the piece is taken up by statements by David Seaman himself, which are simply repeated verbatim. There's no attempt to provide context or analysis, save the unsourced claim that "in a recent poll, half of Americans say they believe that Clinton lied about [her] health". Ideological and/or partisan bias aside, this is not
In-depth coverage or even decent journalism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Eggishorn: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. If I could summarize the course of this AfD, it would be to say this: I think I have shown, beyond reasonable argument, that the premise on which this AfD hinges — that there is "nothing [on the subject] in reliable, independent publications" — is false. We now have a number of editors who are determined not to accept this, and who have produced a whole laundry list of excuses why these aren't really reliable sources (just look at all the tortuous arguments deployed beneath my original contribution to this AfD. Or consider that now have an editor demanding an explanation as to why the sacking of an American journalist from an online publication wasn't covered throughout the entire French media landscape — is this a reasonable expectation to have, or a relevant topic for this AfD?)
As for Valeurs Actuelles, while its politics aren't my cup of tea, I don't think we can reasonably question its status as a
WP:RS (nor is the article what I would consider "quality journalism," but I'm not particularly interested in debating this either): its long publication history, editorial independence, and contributions from seasoned journalists all testify to this. Nor would I dismiss it as "small circulation"; the venerable New Statesman, to pick a British leftist weekly, only enjoys 1/3 of its circulation. But, again, there are only so many hours in a day, and I really doubt that such discussions are a productive use of anyone's time. Albrecht (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:GNG: significant coverage, reliable sources, independent sources. We need to test this article against those three prongs just like any other. Granting, for the sake of argument, that Valeurs Actuelles and Inquisitr are reliable and independent, even taken together they are still sort of de minimis (meaning here trivial, not passing a minimal standard) coverage. I appreciate that this could change and tomorrow there may be the significant and reliable independent coverage currently lacking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:RSs, as it was at the beginning of this AfD. Albrecht (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As was stated above, the basic issue is and has always been establishing notability per the
WP:BIO), which doesn't require some coverage of a subject, but significant coverage – whether this was stated at the beginning or not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
My acknowledgement, above, that "reasonable people can certainly disagree over whether
WP:DEPTH has been achieved" would seem to make this a superfluous and badgering remark. Please refrain from replying to me unless you have something new and concrete to bring to the discussion. Albrecht (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's a link to information about the <5,000 circulation weekly mentioned above. In all fairness, I don't think the "evil art" piece does much to prove notability. Besides it being a trivial mention,
original research to make any of it relevant to a biography of Seaman since he isn't directly mentioned. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Maybe you are right, but he has ten million views. And facts can be notable, journalists that tell notable facts are less notable. I think things will be different in December 2017 and he will be certainly notable by this time. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What facts? There's nothing in his diatribes that comes close to an actual fact. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example: Trump, Pizzagate. Trump won the election because the main stream media (MSM) told that he will not win the election. Pizzagate will become a disaster because the main stream media tells that it is fake news. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The media says Pizzagate is fake news because it is fake news. There is no evidence to support it, and it is not remotely plausible. Trump lost the popular vote and won the electiononly if the electoral college fails to do the one job for which it was designed: preventing popular but manifestly unfit candidates form being appointed. Regardless, the result had nothing to do with the mainstream media (and that word mainstream is important, it means, those which accept the most commonly accepted version of events rather than ideological bullshit). I am by now in serious doubt of your
competence in this matter. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed - that type of comment adds nothing to the debate and seems to be something people are only saying because they have nothing of substance to add. This AfD debate is about Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons and their application to this article, and only this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. However, this is a fairly new article and in the middle of quite chaotic controversy. The natural place to link here would be the Pizzagate controversy article. Sk4170 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply In my experience, it is irrelevant. I have spent several years of Wikiediting trying to Wikify articles which mention the topics of other articles without providing links to them. Some editors do not even seem to search for related articles when writing their own. Many articles contain no links to other Wikipedia articles at all, several are uncategorized or miscategorized, and have not been tagged or improved by any WikiProject. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note To everyone changing their comments afterwards - please keep your comments as they are (typos excluded), if possible, as it makes the discussion a little difficult to follow, and hard to react for those who perhaps wish to address particular comments in the discussion. Sk4170 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stripping references and then bemoaning the lack of them is just silly. Passing judgment on the man, his assertions, or his references is equally silly. Let the article stand as originally written. Feel free to talk about it, do your own research as to his assertions/references and make your own conclusions. But please for the sake of not just this article but of the sake of Wikipedia in general STOP playing Gawd and let the article stand or fall on the merits of its content, not the tyranny of its censorship! LiberTarHeel (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - You may wish to read
WP:BLPREMOVE - the removal of poorly sourced statements is a fundamental part of editing Biographies of Living Persons. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note to closing admin - LiberTarHeel has less than 20 edits total and only four edits to the main namespace and makes no policy-based argument whatsoever. His/her comment should be discounted accordingly. Neutralitytalk 18:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may be too harsh. LiberTarHeel has been a registered editor since February, 2016, and has spend part of this time blocked due to an IP range block. I have had similar and recurring problems with IP range blocks in various Wiki sites. They can lock you out for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep David Seaman is one of the only persons brave enough to even cover Pizzagate. Just like people covered up the abuse of Jimmy Saville for decades and just like the Franklin scandal was covered up it will take the msm decades to accept that there was validity to this. Even the speaker of the house Dennis Hastert was convicted for pedophilia. So I really don't see why people find it impossible to imagine that other politicians could be pedophiles too and involved in pedophile networks. I'm but this really enrages me. I was a victim of sexual child abuse as well. It took a full 13 years until I was an adult myself and able to fight for justice in court to have people acknowledge that this really happened. It took a god damn conviction. Why does this always have to be so hard with you folks? David Seaman is my official hero using his voice to fight for the rights of children, who can't defend themselves. And to your note I was a speaker at Wikimania. And I specifically talked about this issues in Wikipedia. It is really easy to manipulate it and it can in the end even be used to silence free speech and bury opinions and truth - I don't think that this is what it was intended for though. I really hope that this isn't what Wikipedia will become. Otherwise I'll loose tremendous faith and I'll question why I even put so much time in this project. I guess that you can still read articles on STEM subjects but everything involving politics will just devolve into propaganda. Sad. Wikipedia isn't trustworthy on those issues at all. I'll have to advice anyone to never use Wikipedia for those subjects. Not even to find secondary sources. Again: Sad.
By the way David Seaman is also reporting on BItcoin and how it could be an alternative and save haven in cases of inflation. He covered the NSA activities before they became a scandal. This does in my opinion make him a journalist with a good feeling for what is relevant or will become relevant in these times.
I do also want to ad that I'm not right wing at all. I've personally always been left wing and involved in diversity projects and environmentalism etc. Just to state that before someone will discredit me. As a German, whose country was affected by two dictatorships- a right wing dictatorship with the Nazi regime and a left wing dictatorship after the Russian occupation of east Germany I think that I can say that I'm really saddened by what is happening right now around the world. A dictatorship starts with the restriction of free speech. Hillary Clinton actually just said that she would like the government to be able to censor "fake news" and for the government to decide what that "fake news" actually is. It's beginning again. We're going into dictatorship territory. You'd think that people are smart enough to learn from history but apparently they aren't. It probably brave journalist like David Seaman that were smeared and silenced during the beginning of the two dictatorships in my country. What a brave thing of him to speak up even if it costs him his job and he's being attacked in this way. --Earlyspatz
Talk 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Nothing that you have posted has any actual bearing on this discussion, which (again) is only about the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. How many times do I have to say it? All this extra waffle is flooding the conversation and it's pointless. It doesn't matter what people feel about the subject of this article or his previous work. I deliberately haven't stated my personal opinion because it has no bearing on this discussion. It's about the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons, and their application to this article. Is that clear enough? I'm surprised that experienced editors keep falling down on this point when it should be obvious to them. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are confusing two unrelated topics. The notability and plausibility of Pizzagate, and the notability of Seaman himself. Is it plausible that politicians are pedophiles? Certainly. Do we have evidence for it? No. A witch-hunt targeting supposed pedophiles based on flimsy evidence, sounds like a textbook demonizing the enemy operation. And not every would-be witch-hunter is himself/herself notable. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe it might help establish his "notability" if we have some biographical details to establish he his anything more then an invented internet persona, like DOB, place of education ect all? All he have is a (very brief) resume of his work.Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I spent extensive amounts of time looking for those exact types of detail to help strengthen this article and I've found nothing verifiable from any remotely reliable source, hence my statement that the article should be deleted due to a lack of verifiable information about the subject. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Been having a slight dig about myself, and have found nothing about him. He does not appear to have existed before
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-seaman/strange-bedfellows-millen_b_10836078.html
Which seems to be his first article on Huffpost.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that surprising. Remember his claim that he posts videos on YouTube? I searched for them, here. His first video was posted on January 18, 2016. No earlier indication of activities. Most of his videos since then have been attack pieces on Hillary Clinton and glorification pieces on Donald Trump. As for their objectivity, one of them is called "Ladies, Hillary Clinton is a demon", another is called "Hillary Clinton is CRIMINALLY UNFIT For Office". And my favorite title among them: "Hillary Clinton Will Destroy Us All & Has 'Elite Immunity' ". Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which just reinforces the idea (as does the threat to sue Wikipedia if his page is taken down) that this is all part of a campaign to establish notability by just getting his name out there. People who do not need the publicity of a Wikipedia page do not make a noise about losing it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks
are disruptive to Wikipedia
  • Keep, restore article to a previous version, and pursue AE on Neutrality This is just another attempt by Neutrality to censor all mentions of Pizzagate from wikipedia. No one had any complaints about this article before Seaman made the pizzagate comments, so why is there an issue now? There were never any questions about his notability before pizzagate, so why are there some now? It's very concerning that Neutrality purposefully deleted large amounts of content from this article without consensus in an attempt to get it deleted. Ag97 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any comments that are actually relevant? Comments about the General Notability Guidelines and the Biographies of Living Persons policies, and their application to this article? I only ask because it looks like you're on some sort of crusade against another editor & I don't see the relevance of your comment. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General Notability guidelines show that Seaman is a notable person because he has a well-known reputation as a journalist, as well as a large social media following. He is a well-known person who received widespread attention from the media, so he definitely qualifies as notable under the general notability guidelines. Ag97 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what you should have posted. The stuff about another editor just makes you look disingenuous Exemplo347 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to demonstrate the subject's "well-known reputation as a journalist" and his "widespread attention from the media"? All I see is a collection of passing references to one of his YouTube videos, most from sources of questionable reliability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Personal attacks
are disruptive to Wikipedia
I'm saying that when this article was first created, no one claimed that it should be deleted, and it was also much longer. All of the complaints about this article started right after Seaman supported pizzagate, before this there was no issue. Right after seaman expressed support of pizzagate, large amounts of content were deleted from this article by the same editor who proposed deletion. Combined with the fact that this editor is active on other articles about pizzagate, and edits from a very anti-pizzagate point of view, makes me believe that he wants to get this article deleted in a deliberate attempt to censor mentions of pizzagate from wikipedia, directly violating WP:UNCENSORED. I am quite confident that if Seaman hadn't expressed support of pizzagate, his article wouldn't be up for deletion. Ag97 (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd also like to point out that the same editor who proposed deletion of this article also unsuccessfully attempted to get the
Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) article deleted, despite that article being very noteworthy and covered by a wide range of reliable sources. See this edit [5] and discussion at [6] where the same editor repeatedly argued in favor of deleting the pizzagate article. It is clear that this editor is pushing a strong, personal Pizzagate censorship agenda on Wikipedia.Ag97 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
All of which is irrelevant as the article must be judged on it's own merits. If material was removed reinstate it and lets see if this improves notability or not. If it was not nominated before for deletion then (as it stands) it should have been.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also not only was the page only 3 days old when it was nominated for deletion (neither odd nor unusual, a page has to be noticed to be nominated) but it did n fact mention Pizagate from the start. It is in fact red herring to try and claim the nomination followed the inclusion of Pizagate.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another thinly veiled comment aimed at another editor - you still haven't said how the subject of this article meets the General Notability Guidelines, backing yourself up with Substantial, Reliable Sources. Every comment you add makes it look like you're solely interested in some imaginary feud with another editor and you're just using the premise of improvement of this article as a tired excuse. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this editor has a history of attempting to censor mentions of pizzagate is significant and relevant. My argument is that deleting this article is an attempt at censorship, directly violating
WP:NOTCENSOR.Ag97 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Only if we assume your assertions (and I have demonstrated they are not) are correct. The article was not nominated for deletion only after Pizzagate was mentioned.
WP:NOTCENSOR does not rump all other rules (such as notability).Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
So provide Substantial, Reliable Sources for the article then it'll pass the AfD process and not be deleted. Problem solved. I'm guessing you won't though, so prove me wrong. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is true indeed that at the time the Afd tag was added to the the article, its content was stripped to two very short lines and one reference [7], by the same editor who is proposing deletion. There has been some progress after that but not much.[8]. This is a quite unusual situation, the edit history from the past couple of days is pretty wild, to say the least, so I don't dare to hope that there's someone brave enough to take the task of improving the article as far as it can be improved. After that it would be easier to see whether to keep it, or just add the relevant info to the Pizzagate controversy article. Sk4170 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is meant by "the edit history from the past couple of days is pretty wild", since I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. Based on the article's edit history, I see a number of
Edit warring. Anyone who sees a way to improve the article as it exists now is free to do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't use the words 'edit warring', is there a special reason for you to bring it up? I only stated that there is no proper effort to improve the article, other than a lot of minor edits and a lot of reverts. 64 revisions by 25 different users since the Afd tag, 29 revisions from 11 users after pp-protected tag. This is what I'm looking at. Usually, I think, there is a little more room given to efforts to improve the article during the Afd process. Most often, I believe that the Afds on borderline BLP articles don't even get this much attention. Sk4170 (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As was said earlier, removing poorly-sourced, contentious material about living persons is a basic part of the policy on editing
WP:BLPs. "Stripping" content is therefore not any kind of red flag in itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, didn't see your second comment before posting mine above. I agree that it isn't a red flag in itself to remove poor content. The one thing that drew my attention was that the title is "David Seaman (Journalist)" and that word was deleted from the article itself. His journalist credentials have been discussed later, including his stint as staff writer at
TheStreet.com, but for me that was the red flag for me to watch this Afd. Sk4170 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's a link to an older version of Seaman's TheStreet.com author page from archive.org (archivedate September 26, 2009), with the words "Main Street staff writer' under his name. Here's the current version of the page, available from TheStreet.com website. Sk4170 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to an archived version of the Huffington Post article that allegedly got him "fired". Confirms that he was just a blogger there. Sk4170 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can back this up, I'd be interested to see this Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources - I assume you have this, because I have no idea why you'd say this otherwise. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would too, try as a might all I can find a a few references from the right wing blog sphere towards his "sacking" (something not confirmed or commented on by Huff post), and mostly anonymous so we do not know who wrote them. As well as some passing references towards him in articles about Pizzagate (for which we have an article, so no one is trying to remove all references to it). Merges this with the Pizzagate page, it is really all he is known for.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For to be fired from Huffington post. Even this is (largely) unverified, and based on his own version of what happened.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic: He was never hired by HuffPo so he wasn't actually fired, despite his claims. He was just a blogger that HuffPo has decided can no longer blog on their site.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is kind of my point, the only thing he seems to have gained any attention for is not even true. We also do not know he can no longer blog, only that he says he cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm not sure that an article that is meant to be a Biography of a Living person who is a "notable journalist" (but for whom nobody has been able to provide a source that proves that David Seaman is his actual name) will survive very long. The BLP policy requires a level of Significant, Reliable sources that just aren't forthcoming from anyone.Exemplo347 (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That might be difficult, given the fact that he was only a Contributor for Huffington Post, not a reporter, and we only have his word that he's been stopped from posting his blogs on their site. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that he's lying about having his account and publishing access revoked at Huffington Post, because HuffPo hasn't given a statement? He says on a YouTube video titled "Huffington Post TERMINATED Me For Questioning Hillary's Health" that Huffington Post didn't even notify him before termination and deleting two of his articles. It happened at a time when also other people lost their jobs, tv shows, after talking negatively about Hillary's health. Dr. Drew's case that preceded Seaman's dismissal with only a couple of days was quite public, but
Drew Pinsky is a public figure and CNN had to say something about canceling his show. Most journos who lose their jobs/contracts but aren't big names don't get the same treatment. Sk4170 (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for confirming what I said. There's only his word for his claims, and even if they are true -
Wikipedia runs on Verifiable Sources Exemplo347 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
And there is also the question of the newsworthiness of "Contributor fired from news agency for publishing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories". That doesn't seem to be an especially unusual or surprising result, and certainly shouldn't be enough to hang an encyclopedia article on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are saying that his "sacking" not only does not establish notability (as we cannot proove any of his version, it is all his word alone) but he is so much a "public figure" that (unlike other cases of genuinely notable people being fired) his "employers" have not commented on it. Also the fact he says he was fired (for example) when he was not even employed by then tend to imply he is embellishing the truth somewhat (it makes his self published account unreliable at best).Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dread to think how long the Pizzagate article would be if it listed everyone who has expressed an opinion online about it! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point. On this page or talk page we see "prominence of David Seaman as a citizen journalist in the Pizzagate scandal", "Seaman's role in (Pizzagate) has expanded his notability further" and "not seeing enough real coverage not related to Pizzagate" etc. His claimed notability is involvement with Pizzagate, but he is not notable enough to get a mention in the Pizzagate article. If he was really notable he would be mentioned. He is non notable, which is why we are at AfD..Moriori (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was actually in agreement with you. I need to work on my tone, obviously! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Pizzagate and possible merge, I think it is worth noting that of all pro/con Pizzagate clutter on YouTube, Seaman's videos seem to get a lot of views, 7 videos in Top20 of most viewed (search with 'Pizzagate'). So not a complete nobody blogger. He may not be the strongest candidate to have an article himself, but in the Pizzagate context his reporting could be worth a mention at
Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Sk4170 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you cite a Wikipedia notability policy which says that YouTube views are an indicator or notability? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fact that fake Youtube views can be bought, I really don't think that you should be considering "a lot of Youtube views" as a notability indicator! Do you have any Substantial, Reliable Sources that would make the subject of this article notable? It's a yes or no question, and if it's a yes can you please post the links? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that Seaman isn't even mentioned in the Pizzagate article? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garreous Lisenbee

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

Spectacularly fails

WP:NCOLLATH. Prod removed by SPA with edit summary "adding references" when no references were added. agtx 23:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy deleted. Removed per

non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 19:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Vienna Stadium

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

This appears to be a hoax. There is no stadium of this name in Wollongong. The reference given is a link to a Persian Wikipedia article, presumably by the same author. Grahame (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

CompLexity Gaming

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has no

WP:RS.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to add, almost every bit of information in this article is not sourced as the vast majority of references are to complexitygaming.com, or to a twitter or facebook post by one of them.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, if you are willing to include this information in the article, I would have to withdraw my request.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may be notable, but the article does not reflect this.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is one of the most prominent North American esports organizations; its notability and availability should not be called into question, by any stretch of the imagination. As for MordeKyle's replies to the keep votes, I would say this is a poorly-constructed article deserving significant work, about a worthy subject. AfD is certainly not the answer.
    talk•cont 00:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:CRUFT and is nothing more than a very unsourced list of people. Maintenance tags have been ineffective in changing things. I'm genuinely curious. {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I would bring the article to the
talk•cont 00:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and

WP:SNOW discussion closure). North America1000 07:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tanjim Ashraful Haque

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

The only non-trivial coverage is a primary source interview–Haque in Haque's words, devoid of any independent analysis. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest, including by Bengali script name, found only one other source deeper than a passing mention.[19] It is mainly about his company, but contains one sentence about him. Fails

WP:BASIC. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yi Zhou

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

I still confirm my PROD here as it still applies and explains everything there is to say about this article's concerns. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN is because it's a separately kept "travel" section by an independent journalist, none of that is substance and the article itself contains unconvincing information. As for the other sources, they are either mere mentions or simply interviews, none of that amounts to notability. Also, the ParisMatch, not only being a questionable source, but is in fact something apparently between a press release and a republished "about" as it cites her own website as the source and "please see" hence immediately questioning everything. The NYT, while the best and major source so far, is still too thin and seems to overfocus with republished interviewing and quotes; also, similar, I see NYT has a few other articles about her but nearly all are still only mere mentions, whereas one other is only a few paragraphs long with quotes. When an article is this thin and no genuinely better substance is available, it sufficiently explains this article is not acceptable and can therefore even be removed by WP:NOT alone (Keep votes have not cited policy, also). SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references establish that she is notable. I wonder if the nomination for deletion was prompted by the promotional tone of the article? The subject is good at self-promotion, for sure, that's what her career is based on. But it should be kept out of the article. Maproom (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources themselves then noticeably contain interviews and other trivial information, none of that is substance and this entire article has nothing else beyond it; there's no museum collections or major part reviews, and instead simply the trivial sources here. These comments have not been based in policy, unlike the nomination which is. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If your nomination is based on policy then please write it in comprehensible English so that the rest of us can understand how it is based on policy. And the sources provided are far from trivial. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and analysis - WP:BEFORE was in fact completed because I searched NYT and all there was is interviews and mere mentions, the only NYT that actually works is the 2014 one as the first 2010 is still a noticeable interview, regardless of publication; even then, the second one is still closely interview-esque. Again, the CNN is the same exact link in the article and it's a travel indie blog section, it's not the actual news section, so that's not a new one at all. Once again, the Paris Match is also the same article and it was a blatant press release with her own websites listed at the bottom as sources. We only have one acceptable source here and that's fine, but when WP:NOT policy is also involved, there's no compromises, regardless. The Vogue is not the exact substance we need as it's only a gallery and a few paragraphs. I'd only withdraw this because of the 2014 NYT, certainly not because of the "self-republished press release in ParisMatch" or the "indie travel blog". SwisterTwister talk 18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's much more coverage than the CNN travel piece, but GNG makes zero discrimination of sources from travel sections. --Oakshade (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Any artist who achieves the prestige and success of having major installations in
    WP:NOT explicitly states following, any advertising element should be corrected by regular editing instead of deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tulio Febres Cordero

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

No indication of notability. Does not meet

WP:ACADEMIC. He's written some books, but has an extremely low citation count (the highest being 49). Can't find any in-depth sources about this person. Onel5969 TT me 22:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American corporate media lobby

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

This article reads entirely like an essay with a strong opinion. Whatever you think of the American corporate media lobby, you have to admit this feels like an essay written by a university professor to express his or her opinion. Incidentally, the major contributions to this article were written by its creator, Jaobar, "an Assistant Professor of Communications at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology" according to his userpage. There have been no other substantive contributors. Kndimov (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is certainly an important topic but I don't see this article going anywhere, in the direction of becoming an encyclopedia article. There is not an organization that calls itself the American Corporate Media Lobby. It might be better to work more in the direction of something like "Government regulation of broadcast media in the United States." And then the lobbying efforts of media companies and trade organizations could be covered there, along with other aspects of the topic.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obviously an opinion piece rather than an encyclopedia article. I would also hope that the author of this article would want it to be deleted, because it is clear evidence against his claim to be some kind of academic authority about Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I can't recall how/why this article was originally created back in 2011. I was just starting with the Wikipedia Education Program at the time. I see that I did create it myself, and the content does look familiar, so it may have been an early attempt at editing. It is also possible that this was associated with a student assignment. Either way, I've read through the article again, and your comments, and appreciate your concern. I would argue that the page reads more like a stub than an opinion piece as there is some element of neutrality to some of the material. The citations are strong and credible (in my opinion), and would certainly point readers in the right direction if interested in further reading/research. The question is whether the content of the article is too biased to be beneficial to the community. I'm not convinced. I guess the question to answer is whether deletion is better than leaving the page with the warning (assuming that someone might improve the content). If you believe deletion is the best route, I won't stand in your way. Thanks again for your attention to detail. Oh and I should add that I wouldn't consider myself to be an academic authority about Wikipedia exactly, though I have been teaching with Wikipedia as an e-learning tool for five years, and have really enjoyed my experience thus far! All the best, --Jaobar (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

Kash Hovey

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as unambiguous copyright infringement. Appable (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Rectrix Aviation

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

Non-notable local airline supported by trivial local announcements about opening up a new local route or company website. Lacks

a run of the mill organization. Majority of the article is a copyvio - copied from company website. reddogsix (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Design Corporation

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

Appears to fail

GNG. I failed to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hardman

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

Local politician with only directory-level coverage. Fails notability requirements for politicians and the general guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted G4, G5, G11. —SpacemanSpiff 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prayukti

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

Falls under WP:Toosoon as it has not published a paper yet and was only recently founded and currently doesn't meet basic notability criteria. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superfox

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

Does not meet notability criterion for music. Cannot find any source that lists a top hit, a top concert or anything other than an incidental mention. Rogermx (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 06:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 06:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Clearly no consensus for any one operation; most likely going to either be kept outright or merged/redirected. slakr\ talk / 02:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Martin (publisher)

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

Unclear notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources. I guess the question is are they notable independent of Charles Bukowski? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Rameshnta909 (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe redirect to Charles Bukowski? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find any significant coverage of Martin that doesn't refer to him as Bukowski's publisher, so that would seem to be the best solution. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah on a second thought, maybe redirect is the sensible option here...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can redirect simply as his publisher, but if there is more to be said, we need better sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve This article does not do Martin justice in terms of his importance in late 20th century literary history. He didn't merely publish Bukowski, his intervention made Bukowski's literary career possible. He was also frequently referenced in Bukowski's writing, so might be notable in that respect. But beyond Bukowski, Black Sparrow went on to publish many other notable writers under Martin, which also makes him a notable figure. There are legitimate sources one could draw on with some digging. A counter-argument to my keep argument would be to redirect to the
    Black Sparrow Books entry. At any rate, I would strongly argue against redirecting to the Charles Bukowski entry, because his career as a publisher went beyond his work with Bukowski. (If this entry survives, I may try to pitch in on improving it when I have a moment). Missjastersgarden (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • (after edit conflict) I agree that the LA Times article you linked in your penultimate edit shows that Martin's notability goes beyond Bukowski, but it seems that he and the Black Sparrow Press are pretty well inseparable, so I don't think that we need two separate articles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes merging to Black Sparrow Press is an even better idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian M. Arrigo

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

Fails

WP:POLITICIAN. Some coverage, but basically a local politician. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Perhaps I should have waited to publish until I added more information to the article. However, the mayor and the city of Revere have been at the focus of the state-wide issue of casinos and gambling in Massachusetts. The mayor was leading the campaign to defeat Massachusetts' Question 1 regarding a repeat of the issue in the 2016 Election. BostonUrbEx (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:
XfD
.
Started adding relevant information. It may be a while for me to fully expand upon this without assistance. BostonUrbEx (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:NPOL. Mayor of small city of about 50k. There is coverage of the gambling issue in the Boston Globe, all from around Sep-Oct of 2016. Although the Boston Globe is a big paper, Revere is 5 miles from Boston and this is local coverage of a local news. He has been mayor since Jan and I didn't see any other coverage about anything else earlier in the year. MB 03:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Revere borders Boston, and isn't 5 miles away. Part of a previous casino deal required cooperation between Boston and Revere, but Boston thoroughly rejected it, shifting all focus solely to Revere. The coverage of the issue you saw was a state issue. It was Question 1 on the state ballot, but impacted only Revere directly. There's also been coverage of the possibility for an Assembly Square type development which the mayor is pushing for at Wonderland, and possibly even at Suffolk Downs which could potentially be the largest single development in New England if that latter were to occur. Assembly is widely regarded as a major success in developing an entire neighborhood and in attracting traffic from the surrounding region. A similar project in scale, or larger, would be a major change in Revere's economic development and draw investment to the area. Again, it is all very preliminary, but it is drawing attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonUrbEx (talk • contribs) 09:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

flyer 10:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Melbourne City Ballet

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

A CSD-G11 (advert) was declined. This is an up coming new ballet company with no claims to importance or significance. Only primary sources.Only sn Ghits. Reads like a brochure or an sn entry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - refs easily found on ballet and its productions from different types of media. Not hugely notable yet, but passes the minimum requirements. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]
The only reliable mainstream media source there is the Sydney Morning Herald Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. The article does need cutting and tone adjustment. But multiple examples of substantial coverage of its activities are found in searches (see the GNews search link above, for example), enough anyway to suggest this has become a notable cultural institution in Melbourne. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Melbourne City Ballet is not by any means a notable cultural institution in Melbourne, it is just an independent dance company with an impressive sounding name. It is not especially notable and coverage is not particularly significant or independent, but it might just pass the test.Boneymau (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - borderline notable - hm m.... Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, all sources are social media/held by article subject. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep @
Shawn in Montreal: This person has contributed in multiple language - English, Hindi, Urdu, Arabic and Hindi, hence using the traditional English tools will probably not be helpful in determining notability. I don't have much knowledge on the person, but I've constructed an alternative version here in my sandbox from my own brief research. Would love to get in put on the existing version as well as the sandbox draft from you all. --Muzammil (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
comment Hindustanilanguage are there other Wiki articles that read "his/her areas of interest are..."? I ask because it just seems off to me - not because of your writing but because it reads like a resume. What is wiki policy for notability on English wiki (or any language) if it can't be sourced in the language the article is created in? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. One, I am not the creator this article. Two, I tried to create a second version and this is where I came across a vast number of articles authored by the person which roughly support the statement. As experienced editor, however, you can cut down the stuff, more so if there is any intention to take something from sandbox to main article.--Muzammil (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a combination of
    WP:GNG when examining only the sources that can reasonably be verified to refer to the subject. There is no mainstream coverage (the subject's own articles don't count) so there isn't even a debate regarding sustained coverage. A noble effort and most likely in good faith, but it still fails. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Delete - I see three pages in the current references in the article about Dehlvi that I would use to make an article, one from caravan magazine, one from gulf news, and one from oneindia. There is another from gulf news that is basically the same as the one I listed, but it could be added. All of the rest are blogs, self-submitted material, or articles Gulvi wrote and I'd hesitate to put too much emphasis on them in a wikipedia article. With the three pages I listed, this is the article I would write: "Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a journalist and Islamic scholar in New Dehli. He is an advisor to the Jamia Hazrat Nizammuddin Aulia Madrasa in the Okhla neighborhood of New Delhi. He is a frequent commentator on Muslim affairs in media. He writes in Hindi, Urdu, and Arabic and has worked in translation." For such an article I would be neutral. My guess is that it would not pass an AfD, but it would have been less likely to be nominated. The article as it stands reads like a promotional piece, over-cites the authors own work, and talks about a bunch of other issues only tangentially related to Dahlvi. In my opinion, the article should be deleted or drastically changed. The proposed new version at User:Hindustanilanguage/sandbox3, does not overcome the issues and its inclusion would not change my !vote. To the author(s), I want to point out the essay, Wikipedia:Coatrack articles, which says, "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." In this case, it means that an article about a journalist shouldn't mostly focus on the journalists beat or the issues the journalist writes about. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 12:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yukimasa Obi

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

ANN role analysis:

1) Zero Enma (

Candidate for Goddess
- main)

2) Tatsuki Kuroi (

Super Gals
- main)

Only two main roles, on top of no secondary news sources to assert notability. Article is a credits dump with no room for improvement at all. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussions please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk --Adam in MO Talk 04:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)04:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no room for improvement to write a sufficient bio. Even if we kept the article, it would still fail
WP:WHYN. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Firion is an incredibly minor role in this case. Gameplay is unvoiced, just like the
Wonderswan version the game is ported from. Voice acting is only in FMV and there aren't exactly many of them - 1 as far as I can tell (its been a long time since I played it).SephyTheThird (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
That's fair. Kind of like that girl who voices Zelda or the guy that voices Donkey Kong. They speak?! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely why I've nommed the article for deletion. No reason to keep an article for a voice actor that's only literally known for two or three series that aren't very well known. Besides, as I've mentioned before, it will fail WP:BIO either way. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Barely any, unfortunately. Also, what you just said is
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES right there. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I trust Nihonjoe on this one as it looks like he looked for sources but came up empty. I have no objections to someone placing this article into a draft user-page though for possible future improvements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sparxxx

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Only actual claim of notability is for her "world record", but even the article subject now acknowledges that was a hoax. (http://www.letagparfait.com/en/2013/06/19/lisa-sparks-the-tube-sites-have-now-killed-porn/) Fails the GNG for lack of independent reliable sourcing; what's out there is generally kayfabe or promotional fiction. Unlike other porn performers involved in similar hoaxes (e.g., Jasmin St. Claire), this article subject appears to have made no non-trivial impact outside her own promotional output. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NOTE: The article under consideration here has been pretty heavily edited in recent days. The subject here has
    gang bang pornography (which unfortunately was almost recently gutted by the initiator of this AfD here), and/or basically passes GNG by being featured multiple times in mainstream media, namely the books Plays Well in Groups: A Journey Through the World of Group Sex & Chuck Palahniuk, Parodist: Postmodern Irony in Six Transgressive Novels and the European magazine CultureKiosque (as currently cited in the article). Guy1890 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Given that the subject acknowledges that the "record" is a sham, whether we term it a hoax, a fraud, a canard, a fake, or whatever else, it doesn't matter. The claim on which her supposed notability rests just isn't so. And small parts in nonnotable films don't amount to "starring in numerous mainstream films", either. It's hard to see how a competent editor could advance such arguments in good faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now you're assuming facts not in evidence. She has NOT denied anything in the article (a refusal to confirm is NOT tantamount to denial). Moreover, she still claims a record of 919 different insertions in public. Whether they be from 919 different men or fewer is inconsequential, it is is a notable record that she still undeniably was the first person to achieve. Furthermore, another valid question is how much credibility one should put into a source that is written by a guy who styles himself "Heterogeneous onanist in the service of those who see beyond the weakness of the flesh."? Holanthony (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the subject of this Wikipedia article said when asked in an interview (which has already been added to this article here) about the event in question: "You still hold the world record for the biggest gang bang ever, it was back in 2004. I’ve seen this record being questioned on some websites by people arguing that you did not actually fucked with 900+ different guys. What would you answer them? I have never said that it was 919 different guys I said it was 919 different insertions. That is what the record is for"
This was not a "hoax/fraud", "sham", "canard", or "a fake"...it happened, is described accurately in the article under consideration here, and has been noted by several mainstream sources. The fact that one doesn't like the subject and/or has gutted the Wikipedia article on the subject of the event without any meaningful discussion is irrelevant here at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are listed sources that are more recent than the article by the "Heterogeneous onanist" that still list it as a "record". Thus, we have sources that are not only reliable, but also contemporary and up-to-date. Given these circumstances, I can only reiterate my argument to keep the article. Holanthony (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respected by whom? In my judgment, the sources are crappy. The Chuck Palahniuk source, for example, discusses a different porn actor and mentions Sparks only in passing. It is not significant coverage and is therefore worthless for establishing notability. Feel free to take any of the other sources to the
    Reliable sources noticeboard, where I predict that consensus will be that the sources are not reliable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. The sources are poor (press releases, a trivial mention in a book about literary criticism) to unreliable (the IMDB, which is
    user-generated). I was still leaning toward keeping it because of the world record, but HW raises credible concerns about that. If better sources appear, we can recreate the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Actually, you've disputed the accuracy of the Basket Sessions source here yourself. If you had actually read that source carefully, you would have seen that it simply repeats (with credit) statements from letagparfait.com. letagparfait.com is, of course, the source I cite in my nomination, which you describe below as a dodgy article written by a dodgy anonymous author using a dodgy pen name on an even dodgier website. Apparently it's unreliable when I cite statements attributed to, but not when you do? That shows how far removed from rationality your sourcing arguments are. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop embarrassing yourself. letagparfait is still a dubious source, but Basket sessions is bona fide. The fact that they make reference to to a questionable source does not discount its credibility, or maybe you believe the whole deal about
    pizzagate was for real too? Holanthony (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Again, you fail to answer the question, why do you consider a "passing mention" in a dodgy article written by a dodgy anonymous author using a dodgy pen name on an even dodgier website to be a more reliable source than ANY of the other sources listed which have credited authors, editorial control and are published by reputable companies? Furthermore, I think we have well-established by now that Sparxxx has been addressed in these sources in more than a mere "passing reference". A "Passing reference" suggests it is mentioned as a sub-clause in a sentence that refers to something else. It is no in either of the sources cited, as they reference her in separate, dedicated sections and/or paragraphs. Holanthony (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, first of all, if you don't consider that source reliable, then you can't dispute the claim of a world record, which is what the original poster did (and which serves as the raison d'etre for this article even being up on afd in the first place). Second of all, why then isn't a world record in the greatest number of insertions/partners in one day a notable feat? It has been widely reported for many years in different sources in more than mere "passing references". Holanthony (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To repeat, since you seem not to have understood the first time I said it, I do not consider any of the sources in this article reliable enough or sufficient for establishing notability. With regards to any claim of a "world's record" in any area of human endeavor, we need an impeccably reliable source with a reputation for authenticating such records, for example
    Reliable sources noticeboard for a consensus judgement. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew in a later comment in the discussion. North America1000 08:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Clay

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

Article is a stub, only a single citation which has Zachary Clay's team and his birthdate Cpt,Aldo Rain (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artistic gymnast World Championships participant. Discussed at
WP:NSPORT. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 20:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Speedy Keep Person meets 2x
WP:NGYMNAST, 1) person participated at World Championships, 2) won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition. I therefore ask Cpt,Aldo Rain to withdraw or an administrator to close this AfD. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 18:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Wow! Thank you Sander.v.Ginkel! I did not notice that I will withdrawl immediatly! Cpt,Aldo Rain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kianosh Khodakaram

Kianosh Khodakaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - possible alternate name (unsourced)

Article sources are nebulous at best. No facts or statements in this article are sourced. —jameslucas (" " / +) 19:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

flyer 10:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Philips Interactive Media

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

Redirected to

WP:CORP. Onel5969 TT me 18:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Weiner

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or notability for coaches Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete High school football coaches are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - High school sports is inevitably a local endeavor; I suppose a certain small number of coaches rack up sufficient state titles to become noteworthy for the achievement, but this does not seem to be the case here. For better or worse, WP's notability standards are heavily skewed towards professional athletics, to the level even of college-level players. It is hard to see this as a special case. The 404 link in the footnotes does nothing to bolster my sentiment that this subject does not meet GNG at this time. Carrite (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Krishna

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

talk) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
She is a known actress and her facebook page are verified by facebook (Joshyvjohn (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
@
talk) 10:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
http://parvathynair.in/chennai-koottam-pennu-pennu-song-sreejith-vijay-archana-krishna-najim-arshad-sujatha-mohan/ here is the link that shows archana is a charector of the movie chennaikoottam. (Joshyvjohn (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
@
GSS-1987: http://www.cinespot.net/gallery/v/Movies/Malayalam/Chennai+Koottam+malayalam+movie+photos/Archana+in+Chennai+Koottam.JPG.html it also prove that her role in chennai koottam. Check the article now because i added som citations about the role of chennaikootam. and please remove the afd template (Joshyvjohn (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC))[reply
]
@
talk) 11:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
i have added to archana krishna's article. please check now. (Joshyvjohn (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
@
talk) 11:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

sir there are least number of sources about archana's chennaikoottam. so now what can i do ? i requested you that please dont delete the article. because she is a wellknown actress in kerala. if i remove about chennaikootam, will you verify it and remove the afd ? (Joshyvjohn (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. Does not meet
    WP:TWA in case he wishes to learn more. And providing IMDB links as references is generally frowned upon. By the way are you Shafeekmon. You seem to be colluding with that writer in all your articles. Multiple accounts used abusively can be put through Sockpuppet investigations and subsequently your account will be blocked.Jupitus Smart 19:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

flyer 10:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Carmelite Sarah Brewer

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

Subject lacks notability. PROD removed by page's creator (who claims he is the great grandson). Meatsgains (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak keep or merge to Thomas Davidson Christie based on subject being discussed in Woman's who's who of America here, The Missionary Review here, the website of the Minnesota Historical Society here, the Congregational Year-book here, and other sources available on the net. It might however be not unreasonable to merge what bio material there is on her to the article on her husband, or vice versa. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note page on

death marches and passed through Tarsus on their way to the deserts of what is now Jordan and Syria. I stated she was my great grandmother on the talk page, not in the main page. A serious editor would be more specific in explaining why the page should be deleted, rather than merely saying "subject lacks notability". Worse, a serious editor would not imply because she happened to be my relation, that obviously made her an article to nominate for deletion. I appreciate that an American witness to violent events in Turkey in 1895, 1909 and WWI could be controversial in some cultural/political circles. Rcollman (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

John, thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I apologize but will repeat the link to the
David Josiah Brewer and Josiah Brewer
which added to Thomas's international visibility.

If it was a common practice to show wives and their husbands together in wikipedia, I might agree to a merger. I think people are splitting hairs about this and in the process forgetting the larger picture. My opinion, if less than 10 real people visit a page in the first year, then delete it. Otherwise, let it mature Rcollman (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Her name is at spouse's page. If something, someday is published about her - something might be, missionaries are interesting - the article can always be re-created. Meanwhile, she can be be found at Thomas Davidson Christie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to her husband (which will mostly consist of redirecting. She appears largely to have had an undistinguished career as a missionary's wife, and is thus not separately notable: I would love to be wrong in that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So guys, Eleanor's Roosevelt and countless other womens' names appear on their husband's pages, I can hardly wait to go wild with the recommendation of delete. Keep checking her references. Seriously, how many American women (much less Christian missionaries) dealt directly with the "Blood Shedder" as well as those carrying out his policies for "deportation" of Armenians? How many women in WWI were living openingly behind enemy lines, without their husband or any other American nearby? I am a male so no offense to others who have commented on this page, if several females vote on this, I will abide by their decision. Thanks for the comments Rcollman (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a number of sources pointing to this person's notability. She is certainly of historic interest.--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know what condition the entry was in when someone nominated it for deletion, but now there is more than enough material and there are more than enough sources to establish notability. However, more sources are always good. Also someone - I think the originator of the entry - has asserted above that "...she saved over 1000 Armenians in Tarsus Turkey [during some crisis that peaked in 1909]" That surely needs to be included clearly and simply in the intro section which, where possible, should answer not merely the question "Why is s/he notable?" but also "Why should I want to stop by and read this?" Success Charles01 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly
    WP:BEFORE was not done. COI is irrelevant if the article is presented in a neutral and documented fashion. Article needs work, not deletion. Multiple RS in books as cited above, and newspapers, like [45], [46] which need to be added to the file. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Notability is now at least obvious from the article and sources. ☕ Antiqueight haver 18:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly important in her own right. This is all suitably sourced and if merge, should be split into its own article due to plenty of content here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable on her own, clearly adequate sources, acted independently of her spouse. Not a second fiddle. Montanabw(talk) 20:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

✉ 15:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Xelzeta

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

No notability, no real sources, potentially just advertising and COI Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 15:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Abu Al Hasan

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

Sources appear to mostly be works published by the individual and official bio. News searches return almost nothing. Open web searches return mostly automated social media links.

Most likely autobiographical given original author's user name.

Claim to significance seems to be three co-authored papers, one individually authored paper, and nondescript articles in "daily newspapers". Seems credible enough on its face to likely avoid CSD.

Completed education in 2013, and therefore unlikely to meet notability so soon even if truly an exceptional academic.

TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Gestrid (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Gestrid (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. — Gestrid (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shizuka Hasegawa

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

No reliable sources are listed on Eng wiki, and even the JP wiki has only 3 sources. That does not scream notability. No relevant news articles for the subject found. Subject only has Nana from

WP:WHYN. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I hope you realize that the aforementioned character is listed below the main characters on the encyclopedia. That makes Tomohane a supporting character. Only having done one main role and one main supporting character does not warrant the subject their own article. My question is, is there any reason to even keep an article that is almost guaranteed to fail WP:BIO? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really mean anything as anyone can edit Wikipedia, the Inukami involved in the pack are basically the story. Have you tried looking up Tomohane and Inukami! both in Japanese? Another combo you could try is 長谷川 静香 ともはね. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, just because a character is significant in the story, that doesn't mean that they're the LEAD role. For instance,
WP:NACTOR? "[Subject] has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Multiple, it said. Two is not our idea of multiple. Should be at least three main roles (or very important supporting characters such as the main villain) before considering anything else. I still stand by my claim that the subject only has one main role and one main supporting role. And as of this moment, I still remain unconvinced that the subject is any way, shape or form, notable at all. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I found her mentioned on Oricon, she along with other voice actors/actresses were being thanked at a festival in Akihabara where they had a talk show. [47]. Also present are her roles [48]. I also found biographical info about her on cinema today, [49], if she is making an appearance on reliable news media then she isn't a non notable voice actress. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can write a biography of someone. Whether it's from a reliable source or not, if
WP:NACTOR is not met, it still means the subject is not notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: Can you check the sources I provided above? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on significant coverage in both the Oricon article and the Cinema Today article (both of which are reliable, secondary, independent sources), she now meets
Join WP Japan! 20:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Top Up Day

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

A made-up holiday which was nothing more than a marketing exercise for a mobile phone company. Should have been deleted as G11 advertising way before now. Cabayi (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This AFD has completely blown out of proportion, and I don't see any point in keeping this open any more. I will, however, state that Adam has been very provocative and rude to me here. That is all. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ginzō Matsuo

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

Zero main roles, next to no secondary sources to establish notability. Only sizable article sourced (In JP wiki) details the subject's death. Subject's entire career has been nothing more than just (minor) supporting characters, with only one exception: Smoker from

WP:WHYN. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

And even if you did try to expand it, it'd still amount to three (weak) references at most (from the JP wiki). What aspect of the subject do you even find notable to begin with? Because I sure as heck aren't seeing anything, with the exception of the aforementioned role. That's about it, really. My advice is that you look into what
WP:NACTOR is before you vote. Oh, and also, it wouldn't hurt to build a stronger argument. The subject isn't notable just because you say he is. You need to explain why you think that is. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you Omega, since My Anime List didn't correctly list the role. But Jinn? No. That's clearly supporting. Where's your source that the subject ever played Jack? I've looked into the JP page, and nowhere is the subject listed. And even if you did find it, is there proof that shows that Jack is a main character, and not a main (or minor) supporting character? Dr Asimov is supporting, that much I'm certain. Ginnosuke isn't even main supporting. Do you know how often he appears in the series? He just pops up every now and then. That's not our philosophy of "main supporting". Neither is Hemuhemu, nor Max Burns. Joe, "Queen of Spades" isn't a character. It's one of the show's terminology. Max is, however. So, at the end of the day, after careful analyzation, the subject is clearly known as Smoker, and the main role of Omega. The former is more notable than the latter, so my proposal for redirecting to the former still stands. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jack's a main character in the series, one of the selection of characters from the first game. But the anime OVA series is only 3 episodes long. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to verify, the subject only voiced as Jack in the OVA series, right? If so, then we can be certain that the subject is only notable as Captain Smoker. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. If he voiced in the video game series, then that he would be more notable for that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He also voices as Ran's dad (main character's dad) in Super Gals! But that's a supporting role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... there really is no use trying to save the article for this subject. He's just not notable enough, after all the analyzation we've done. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. In fact, they are factually wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. You can't say a supporting role is a main role just because you think it is. If you're wrong, you're wrong. The end. Don't jump on the keep train if you aren't even sure that this is the ride you want to get on. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an argument or are you just going to stamp you feet, whine, and say nu-uh?--Adam in MO Talk 02:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERSONALATTACK right there. Better watch your mouth if you don't have anything valid to say. I've already presented the facts. You are free to ignore them. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
So you are going to stick with the latter of the two options I presented. I'm anxious to see how this AFD works out for you.--Adam in MO Talk 08:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You honestly sound like a sore loser with the way you're acting just because I've harshly criticized how wrong you are. I suggest that you drop your juvenile behavior before you participate in AFDs. If you want to preserve what little face and dignity you have left, I suggest that you don't reply and do some actual research. It's only going to look even worse for you if you continue to act immaturely. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk to me about sore losers when this AFD completes, mmkay?--Adam in MO Talk 20:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prix Aurora Awards

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

All of the citations provided in this article are to places that mention the names of award winners, and virtually all of those come from the website of the organization itself. What is lacking is any evidence that this award is itself the non-trivial subject of any independent reliable verifiable sources. I found nothing to support a notability claim on such a basis. KDS4444 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Funny, I thought I'd worked on this though I don't see my name in the edit history. Be aware that there's at least two other unrelated awards named "Aurora."
    talk) 17:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't follow the claim that "virtually all of those [citations] come from the website of the organization itself". As far as I can see, the only link to the website of the organization itself is in the "External Links" section. Most of the citations regarding actual award winners come indeed from a single source, Locus Magazine's Science Fiction Awards Database, but you'll find this is true for most other English-language SF awards as well, as Locus is a well-established magazine in this field, and sfadb tracks these awards consistently and reliably. There could certainly be more sources for the award itself, in particular online sources are missing. Oefe (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia doesn't have a preference for "online" sources — as long as the references are reliable ones, we don't actually care whether they exist online on open web, online in subscription news databases, offline in paper or offline on microfilm. They just have to exist, and we don't have a preference for one form over another. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 08:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, nomination was withdrawn The Banner talk 14:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mis Favoritas

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

No effective evidence that this album exists The Banner talk 13:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Actors Center

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

Could probably get deleted as G11, but has been around 10 years so bringing to AfD. I can't find any secondary sources that demonstrate notability. agtx 00:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, insufficient secondary sources to establish notability. MB 03:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BethNaught (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USA Industries

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

This article fails

WP:PRIMARY. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aurel Hermansyah

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

unremarkable muscian Domdeparis (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi @
WP:NMUSIC. I must admit that I may have been a little lazy in not citing the notability criteria, I took it for granted that people would understand what I meant. mea culpa. Domdeparis (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V1749 Cygni

V1749 Cygni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per

WP:NASTRO. Far below naked eye visibility, no publications specific to this star, although it is included in several papers containing lists of red supergiants. Lithopsian (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 09:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this source fulfill

WP:NASTRO as "significant commentary"? It's mentioned 12 times in the body, only once in a list, and once in the abstract. Ioaxxere (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 13:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Singh

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

It is purely a case of

Anup [Talk] 16:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Anup [Talk] 16:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Anup [Talk] 16:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Gadsden County Public Library System

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

Non-notable library lacking any coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
This library system has a dissertation written about it, literally! I added Linda R. Most's 2009 dissertation as a reference to the article, although I drew just a very little bit of information from it so far. Library systems are really important, including in rural, impoverished areas like Northwest Florida. Even if there weren't a book-length study specifically about this specific library system, we need articles about them. --doncram 22:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Qussisiya

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

Little to no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Symptom targeted intervention. MBisanz talk 12:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa McCool

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

Non-notable researcher who does not meet the requirements of either

WP:PROF. This is the substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources, but is local news and relatively brief. Other than that, I could only find brief mentions in a very specialist source: [63] [64] SmartSE (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - Sources exist, but the ones I located are either not in-depth or from unreliable sources. I have no experience searching medical indexes for published works so I would have to defer to nominator on that one. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Pyle (philosopher)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 05:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Folk Sampler. MBisanz talk 12:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Flynn (radio host)

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

Can't find anything to suggest notability. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chakma Unicode Font

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

This appears to be

an article, and substantial overlap exists between that article and the one nominated for deletion. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason; it was made by the same user and promotes the same thing:
RibengUni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not need its own article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chakma Unicode Font cites one decent reference, the Script Encoding Initiative document. The "bibliography" is copied from that reference, so is not intellectually independent of it. None of the external links could help establish notability. Either they are not independent reliable sources, or they are tangential to the topic.
RibengUni cites a different good reference, an article in Kaler Kantho. The author copied the same "bibliography" here, but the entries in it say nothing about the product, they predate it by between 8 and 30 years. Again, none of the external links could help to establish notability, as they are to such sources as the company that makes the product, and the Facebook pages of its founders.
Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, and ProQuest, for both topics, found a single mention, basically an ad inviting linguists to participate in the Script Encoding Initiative.[65] The sources are insufficient to meet
WP:GNG
, they do not justify stand alone articles on these topics.
Alphabet/language articles for other script languages often have a section on alphabet/script/writing-systems with a paragraph or two about Romanization, transliteration and character encoding. I would recommend merge to
Chakma alphabet or Chakma language, except that there is no reliably sourced information that is not already duplicated there. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Domdeparis (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Hofer

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

Does not yet meet

WP:TOOSOON Domdeparis (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator --Domdeparis (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per obvious

WP:BEFORE Agathoclea (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment i may have made an error here as I misunderstood the references to Tatort. --Domdeparis (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well not living in Germany that can happen. I have escaped from having to watch it by emigrating. Maybe someone can close this early if you agree. Agathoclea (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm doing the speedy keep myself as per the withdrawal procedure. Domdeparis (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a hoax and per

(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

2022 in film

2022 in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 2022 in film Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no references, no notability, and no verifiable sources. It just seems pretty clear that this article is just comprised of nothing but blatant hoaxes. Seriously, all that the article does is just show nothing but sequels in which most of them aren't even in production. I think these are very good reasons for why this article should be deleted. Superchunk22 (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CoolAvenues.com

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

Nonnotable Job service; almost all the any references are announcements, either of funding , or of their results for the year, or of DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 12:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Cooper

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

I question the subject's notability. I can't disconnect her from her books. All the sources regarding her talk more about her books than about her. Some of her books might actually be notable but I am not certain about that. I don't think this author is notable by herself, so Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the poorly written article to remove the hype and make it a more standard Wikipedia article about an author. I recommend keeping the entry. The author has published 15 works, won a national award, and established a modest fan base. I believe she is well enough known to warrant her own article, particularly in steampunk circles. Her article is also not an orphan "list of steampunk works" to name just one links to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanQuigley (talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I can't find her in a Proquest news archive search, not even when I add keyswords like "Tarnished" (name of the novel said on page to have won a prize). Also tried keyword "novel" and an article popped up, (Soldier's world comes to life AUTHOR INTERVIEW Illustration by Chris Slane, Anonymous. Bay of Plenty Times [Tauranga, New Zealand] 23 Apr 2011: C.3.) but the "author" in the article title was not Cooper, rather, someone named Karina Cooper who liveds in New Zealand wrote the article. proquest hits on the name sans keywords were to the Karina Cooper who is a journalist downunder. I'm not unwilling to source stuff to Romantic Times, but I do thingk that we need at least something from a second source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amrit Singh (lawyer)

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

As much as I respect anyone who works with ACLU, I am afraid this bio may fall on the wrong side of borderline notability. As an author of one and a half books that did not seem to generate any reviews I can see, she fails

WP:BIO: she got some minor awards, but they don't seem to be sufficient to establish notability. As for coverage, she is not subject to in-depth articles, through there are two in Indian press (she is a daughter of Indian PM, and if she wasn't, I think it is less likely she would be written about in Indian press, through the reason for the coverage is irrelevant to notability) that do mention her in the headline ([66]. [67]}, however they are rather short, and she does not get more than 6 short paragraphs total, and they amount mostly to repating her CV - there is no in-depth journalism here. Ditto for [68], which is even more niche of a source; all of those focus mostly on her report rather then herself. I am afraid, as I said earlier, this fails on the wrong side of notability. Pinging User:LibStar who added notability template here in 2013. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Afra

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

A very highly promotional article with no indication of notability. As an Entrepreneur founded some non notable startups. Serving as member of some non-notable organizations. The Turkish version of the Wikipedia article has been deleted. Mar11 (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. pending the preexisting

talk) 06:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Journal of Spine Surgery

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

no information Jss2015-2015 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let Us Return USA

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

Insufficient evidence for notability , despite the Guardian citation; propagandistic tone. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 03:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koolkart

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

Company that only lasted about a year which no actual convincing and significant impact, with the sources still only being trivial and unconvincing, and the article itself only acts as a company listing, regardless of anything else. As it is, source #3 is one of the clear advertising-pieces as it literally goes into specifics about "what you can get [with the company]", so we seriously cannot willingly accept this with such still blatant advertising motivations regardless of its fate. The history certainly shows it was company-contributed and the account names certainly suggest it. Considering WP:NOT, it explicitly states we are not a business listing or catalogue nor should we be mistaken as one. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Of the given references, the most substantial are the Economic Times start-up piece and The Hindu piece the following year, the latter giving no hint that the venture would terminate the next month. While perhaps almost a case study in the rapid transition from start-up aspirations to demise, I don't see anything given or through my searches than suggests encyclopaedic notability. Fails
    WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Voight

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

Voight was Miss Connecticut, but this is not enough on its own to demonstate notability. We lack any articles on the 10 Miss Connecticuts after her for example. Her other claim towards fame is being a local traffic/news reporter in Hartford. This has generated a little coverage from the local press, but the biggest article I could find was about her engagement, as much because her fiance is an executive chef at a popular restaurant. This would not be enough to justify having an article on him, I do not think it is enough for an article on her either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted by

hoax". North America1000 11:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Alene of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

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

Per

WP:INHERIT notability from her parents without any sort of reliable sources to back up her significance. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 12:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Wheeler (audio/video technologist)

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

Can find little to no significant, independent coverage. May not meet

WP:ENTERTAINER criterion 1 also doesn't apply here, but interested to hear the opinions of others. Ajpolino (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete – John Wheeler has nothing to do with Penteo Corporation since 2010 and keeps making multiple false claims about his involvement in the business.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gas giant (disambiguation)

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

This dab page is not needed per

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should suffice. — Gorthian (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Fotaun (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fotaun (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sikhs in Punjabi Cinema

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

Apart from various issues like BLP where the religious faith of the enlisted is unsourced and over all lack of sources, there doesn't happen to be any relation mentioned as to why the religious faith matters with acting skills in Punjabi film industry.

WP:LISTCRUFT for intersections. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it can be salvaged unless a connection of religious beliefs with acting skills is made. BLP issue of individual's belief is secondary to that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Securolytics

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

No claim of significance but an administrator declined A7. No notability, doesn't meet

WP:ORG. One brief mention at [69] and several copies of the same list of seven companies featured at something called CyberLaunch are all I could find. Largoplazo (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anisha Acharya

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

Appears to be a

WP:BIO1E case, as the only significant coverage of the subject is in relation to the short film Day One (2015 film). PROD was declined. Nsk92 (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presto Engineering, Inc.

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

unreliable sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

I contact you because I'd like to have some information concerning the proposition of deletion. In fact, I don't understand why you nominated this page for the deletion, considering that it's a page which has been created just two weeks ago, and that I cannot add every day some new sources and references. When I created the page concerning the company, I thought following the rules and standards of Wikipedia. And if it was not the case, the page would have been deleted.

As a new user of Wikipedia, I met some issues with the content, but I removed and replaced some parts in order the page to be published. It has been approximately more than a week that many contributors work on the page, modify it and contribute therefore that the page matches with Wikipedia's expectations. Honestly, I do not understand why did you say that there were "unreliable sources for notability" while I'm trying to put most of references from well-known microelectronics reviews concerning the field and activities of the company.

In addition, I've just checked the page dedicated to the nomination of articles for deletion. It is written within the part "before nominating" especially in the part C (Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted) that if the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. Beside, it is also written within the part D (Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability) which is the main concern on which the page has been nominated for deletion, that 

"If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern."

Considering this fact, I suggest that we would work in tandem in order to fix this minor issue (the lack of reliability of some sources) instead deleting the page. Anyway, I'm really up for discussion and delete some parts of the content, add some notable sources or whatever :)

Thanks in advance for your help,

Sincerely yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.dauce (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am very surprised to see your comment concerning the Wikipedia page of Presto Engineering.

-Firstly because I do not agree with the fact that the content belongs on the corporate website. In fact, I would suggest that you'll visit the corporate website, thus you could see that the written content of the Wikipedia page is totally different from the website. As a matter of fact, I truly followed the rules and standards of Wikipedia and thereby, the content of the Wikipedia page is unique and it is not a copy of another website. Anyway, if the content had been the same, it would be deleted.

-Then, because I also disagree with you concerning the fact that the page I wrote is a product brochure or an office locator. Wikipedia is a support of information, and only information. Therefore, while I was writing this page, I was totally aware of this fact. And that is the reason why the page is not a promotional support, promotional content or whatever and that the page has not been deleted automatically. Moreover, it's written in the Wikipedia policy that I can write a page concerning a company as long as there is no promotional content. And I reckon that it is really the case because anybody mentioned the page as promotional content or marketing support before. And I do not understand why you try to remove my page while some others contain a real promotional content on their pages (in example, just take a look to Open-silicon).

-Finally, I'm just trying to summarize the activities of Presto Engineering through an objective point of view (being not an employee of the company but just someone who knows about the business field and the main activities of thereof). And as many other companies did, I was thinking that Presto Engineering could have a Wikipedia page describing the business and the activities through a neutral perspective, based on the same model and framework than eSilicon or Verisilicon (take a look about these companies, which are not deleted because as the Presto's page, there are just a neutral description of the business and the activities).

Last but not least, the page was not submitted to the deletion for an issue concerning a promotional content or marketing support but because there was apparently a lack of reliable sources for notability (but the sources I put mainly came from well-known microelectronics reviews), and I'd greatly appreciate if we could work together to fix this minor issue. Let me know if you have some comments and thanks in advance.

Sincerely, T.dauce (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Whether user:T.Dauce intended it this way or not, this is clearly promotional material. Of the sources given, they are (in order): A blog that barely mentions the article subject in passing, a repackaged press release, two YouTube videos, another blogged press release, a roundtable discussion that involved an engineering VP from the company, another blogged press release, one paragraph in a industry show summary, and three more passing mentions. To summarize: So far, this company has not been shown to generate to anything more than minimal coverage in reliable, independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6750 Ayala Office Tower

6750 Ayala Office Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like

missfortune 01:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veraz Networks

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

trivial company with trivial notices as the only references. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hurry Up, We're Dreaming. czar 04:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait (M83 song)

AfDs for this article:
Wait (M83 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the criteria from

WP:NSONG or the GNG guidelines either. Domdeparis (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Yang

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

This article is being written by

Notability VVikingTalkEdits 15:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbarr

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

Poorly sourced mess of doubious

WP:ORish. Sourced to youtube vidoes and such; frankly this may be some kind of attempt to advertise a youtube channel or... I am not sure. Doesn't exist in Google Books or Scholar; if this is some youth subculture it does not seem very notable. If this is deleted, it would be advisable to nominate the article for deletion on other Wikipedias it exists on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm sick and tired of the keep camp complaining about me not looking into the sources when they are the ones that need to point out why they help assert the subject's notability, because THEY want to keep it. Additionally, I scorn at the very idea of even having to keep a poorly written article in the first place. Go improve this sorry excuse of an article if you want. I'm out after I drop an Expand JP tag. I'm disappointed that Wikipedia's standards have fallen so low nowadays. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reiko Suzuki

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

Literally zero references were used in this article, and the filmography only detailed works the subject's been in, without specifically detailing who. It's worse than a credits dump. Only main role is that of V-May from Magical King Granzort. No news articles to assert the subject's notability found. I do not consider the subject as notable, as I think she fails

WP:BIO. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even with sources available, is that proof that the subject is notable? Not necessarily. It could very much be possible that they're just mere cast announcements. Have you analyzed the sources? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - She seems to have made a career mainly voicing old women, which tends to lead to more supporting roles rather than major roles. However, in addition to the role Sk8erPrince listed, she is also part of the main cast of the
    WP:ENT with major rolls in at least two works. Calathan (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just two main roles (in two niche works) is enough to garner your own independent article? What is up with that kind of logic? It doesn't work like that. The Nono series is extremely obscure, given that the subject is not even vaguely mentioned on the article. Having a career mainly voicing as that random old woman in a number of anime doesn't make the subject notable. Are there any strong, reliable sources that actually asserts how notable the subject is? Until those so called reliable sources in the JP article have been verified, there is no way at all that I would deem the subject as notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think
WP:ENT, but just barely, hence the "weak" keep vote. Calathan (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Alright. Let's assume that Nono is notable enough on the grounds that it has an adaption done by Studio Ghibli. However, the sheer fact that not even a brief characters list is even made on the main Wikipedia page of Magical King Granzort should reflect how non-notable it is.
By the way, some particular supporting roles could amount to notability, if they're extensively covered in secondary sources. The Bleach captains/lieutenants are good examples of which, as a number of them have their own independent Wikipedia articles:
Renji
Sosuke
Gin
However, none of the subject's roles are nearly as notable as the supporting characters I've listed. They are just that random grandma that doesn't add much to the main story. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has verified whether or not the sources help assert the notability of the subject. I suggest that you don't vote unless you have verified them yourself. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained before to you, this is where
WP:BEFORE comes in; "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability as in you have to look at what is out there which includes other wikis. If you need help translating then there are places here to do that for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Or maybe users could learn to write a sizable article in the first place through peer editing and assessment before publication so that AFDs like these could be avoided. When all you do is insert a single line and list a (badly written) filmography, it's worse than a credits dump. Whoever created this article is just begging to have their article to get deleted. Research should be done by the article creator and those that wish to expand it. I'm not doing any more research than the basic role analyzation for poorly written articles like these. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then prepare to have the articles kept in AfD discussions. I have seen it more than once where
WP:BEFORE is cited as the reason for closure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh sure, it's not like I haven't already done basic research for articles I don't care about. Like I said, further research should only be conducted by those that wish to improve the article. I have no intention of achieving that, as I scorn those that can't even learn to write a more sizable article, first. People like those do not deserve my sympathy. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the way it works though, you the nominator need to check the sources before placing the article up for deletion. This isn't "further research" as looking at other wikis can be done with a click of a button on the left side of the article under "languages". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KK87 Has it right. It is up to you, the nominator, to do the due diligence in checking out the sources. Sk8er, please don't take this as an insult, I really don't mean it that way, but you really don't know how to evaluate sources yet, you really should back off of this kind of stuff before you are tbanned. You almost had the tban once.--Adam in MO Talk 03:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to evaluate sources? That isn't for you to decide. You got something to say to me that is unrelated to the notability of this subject, take it to my talk page. Don't try to derail the main topic at hand. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your ability to evaluate sources is germane to this discussion and I have discussed that with you in other places already.--Adam in MO Talk 04:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I'd rather you not try to keep an article that literally has zero references (in the Eng wiki). The article creator or anyone that is interested should redo the entire article in English from scratch since they have clearly not read
WP:YFA. I scorn anyone that thinks it's ok to ignore that guideline. Seriously, if every contributor has at least sent in their drafts for evaluation before publication, we wouldn't be having discussions like these right now. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't assume that I haven't looked into the JP wiki. I have. And in this case, I don't think it helps with notability at all. The amount of limited notable roles the subject has led me to believe that the subject has not reached our requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this moment. Failure of WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR are all valid reasons for deletion.
You said above yourself "Nobody has verified whether or not the sources help assert the notability of the subject" I take this as you didn't look at the sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I won't care to look into the sources in detail if I have deemed that even the JP wiki is nothing more than a credits dump. Also, I've demanded you to analyze the sources, since you're the one that says the subject is notable based on the sources in JP wiki. Your statement means nothing unless you have analyzed them yourself. Well then, what's it gonna be? Are you gonna tell me how the subject is notable with the sources available in the JP wiki? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't care for responses such as I demand you,
WP:BEFORE clearly states that you have the burden to look at the sources. Nobody is making you do this but it isn't a good argument for deletion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Speak for yourself. Simply making an almost obsolete statement such as "sources are present" without actually determining whether or not they help assert notability shows your inability to make an effective counterargument. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we are going in circles, what part of
WP:BEFORE is being read wrong? It is your job as the nominator to check and see if the sources already present are reliable or not. This isn't only applying to you so please don't feel singled out here, it is for any editor that starts an AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You're the one that wants to keep the article, so you have to state how X, Y and Z sources help assert the notability of the subject. I, on the other hand, have no desire to keep it. It also helps to know that I've listed two other reasons why I think the article should be deleted. You are free to talk in circles without paying any mind to the two other failures I've listed. I don't mind. Anyway, WP:BIO failure is a very valid reason to nominate an article for deletion. Obviously, if an article is blatantly not ready for publication, it should either be pushed back to userspace or deleted. The latter is a better option, though. It is better because it will serve to teach unthorough contributors what will happen to their half baked work when it is not ready for the mainspace. That's right: Deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't how the AfD process works though, you have to put in some effort in seeing if the article can be saved. Not doing so is against
WP:BEFORE, and can be seen as a bad faith nomination. As for your other two reasons, those are moot as you refuse to check the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BEFORE only applies to an argument where the main concern is notability, as you have stated. By ignoring my other concerns, your counterargument is moot. Please, speak for yourself. I shouldn't have to put in extra effort in saving someone's half baked clustermess. There is absolutely no logic in that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will break down your rationale... No news articles to assert the subject's notability found. I do not consider the subject as notable, as I think she fails
WP:BIO is under Notability (people). I would say that yes notability IS the main issue you have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
True, but all you've done up to this stage is point out the existence of sources without actually stating whether or not they are useful. You are also ignoring the fact that the article is poorly written and that it also severely fails WP:WHYN. Maybe if you actually look into everything (and by that, I mean all the failures I've listed), I'll be more inclined to take you seriously. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You call that well laid out? I mean, sure, why don't you continue supporting the existence of poorly written articles? I'm sure that's very contributive, indeed. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article quality is not an afd matter in most cases. There are lots of poorly written article but there is no time limit on quality. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Knowledgekid87. --evrik (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Calathan, passes
    WP:ENT. Despite the nominators outright dismissal of the work as "extremely obscure" because its not known outside Japan, it's clearly a main role for a notable series. The bulk of their roles might be minor, but that's not the issue as people can have long successful careers without being mega famous. Our only concern is do they have enough roles that aren't minor characters. The nominator gave one example. Calathan gave another. That's all we need. If that wasn't enough, the nominator has clearly sabotaged their own nomination by focusing too much on getting the page deleted and not enough on being neutral and capable. As well as making demands of people that he isn't prepared to make of himself. If you are going to demand people do a better job of creating and improving articles, then you need to be able to show you can do the same. Making those demands in an AFD nomination is not constructive. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I completely disagree that merely having two main roles is enough to warrant your own independent article. I am also in complete disapproval of poorly written articles having a place on our encyclopedia in the first place. And, FYI, I did improve several articles that I care about (contrary to popular belief, I am not just a deletionist) -
Take this example, for instance. In any case, I'm withdrawing this nom. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Soft delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

State Bill Colorado

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (media) requirement. Minor, niche portal/trade journal that fails aforementioned policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - No activity on this AfD yet besides nom. -- Dane talk 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

WP:SOFTDELETE. Sam Walton (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yılmaz Özdil

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

Fails

WP:GNG. The subject seems to be a rather ordinary newspaper columnist; there is no significant coverage in third-party sources, and no real claim to notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Briar Navigator

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

Cursory search turns up no reliable secondary sources, no indication of meeting

WP:PRODUCT. PROD contested by page author, who then added promotional and copyvio text. Potential COI. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created to provide a link on Briar Navigator from table of Technical_analysis_software and doesn't include any commercial information. It was made to provide Wikipedia's readers a possibility to find out all the opportunities at a glance and ability to compare with other table's participants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Den Williamson (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. The article is very weak for sure. Not one source/reference on the article. Surprised it wasn't speedy deleted. Let's not waste our time on this one, not a single source in Google News, ever. Ferrari250 (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that

non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 17:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Debra Ruh

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

View the page history for more details. Page was originally

WP:NOTABILITY. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I haven't even begun to work on this yet - I have just been using what is in the article, and haven't got to the books, scholarly articles, websites and news yet. Here is a summary from Huffington Post[71]
"Debra Ruh is an advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities and founder of a Ruh Global Communications. The firm focuses on Global Disability Inclusion, EmployAbility, ICT Accessibility, Human Rights, Social Media Marketing and implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). She has provided global leadership to governments, corporations, NGOs and DPO’s (Disability Persons Organizations) supporting research projects, DPO outreach, policy and standards initiatives with the public and private sector. Proud to work with United Nations agencies and countries to help implement the CRPD. She founded TecAccess in 2001 and merged it with another firm in 2011. TecAccess was an IT consulting firm that employed persons with disabilities and helped businesses create accessible technologies for people with disabilities. Co-Founder of www.AXSChat.com a twitter chat about accessibility and disability inclusion."
"Work featured in major mediums including CBS, CNN, PBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, INC, Publishers Weekly, Fortune Magazine, US News & World Report, America’s Best, Washington Technology, and Bloomberg Business Week."
If this can be validated and expanded upon, would you consider this trivial?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See http://ruhglobal.com/2016/02/12/debra-ruh-newest-addition-huffington-posts-blog-team/ Is Debra Ruh affiliated with Huffington Post? --Boson (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, she's a blogger there. She's actually really into social media, blogging and podcasts - almost all the sources though are social media, blogs or sites with the podcasts. That posting is written by Ruh / Ruh Global - If you run across a link from a secondary source, that would be great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Weak keep - (subject to revision) on the presumption that the current improvements will continue. Some of the attention may be PR-generated, and there may have been some editing with a potential conflict of interest; so we need to be careful to keep the article neutral, but there are some longish news items (CNN, Wall Street Journal, etc.), and she gets gets quite a few mentions. And she is chair of a UN committee (though a reference may still need to be added). --Boson (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Changed. --Boson (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Boson I don't have a close connection. I got involved voting on articles for deletions because I had tagged some articles and jumped in because I know that there's a huge backlog. I've voted for a number of incredibly, incredibly weak articles with hardly any votes [72][73][74][75] - and if I run across an article I think I can save, like this one or Susie Gibson, I work on it. I worked on Allen B. Reed, but stopped about half-way when I realized it wasn't likely going to remain a viable article.
If you think this current article has some issues I can work on, let me know. For instance, I'm trying to sort out what to do with all the awards. I want to just keep the most notable ones. Probably the same thing with the boards. I do warm up to people I write about quite often, so there may need to be a tone adjustment. I'll look through it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am completely gobsmacked at what seems to be a lack of
    Tony Boy Espinosa and Raj Kandukuri, are no problem. (Side note: It's also no problem, based upon results, if someone writes about oneself and his company as long as they spread the updates over time and don't make a nuisance of themselves, such as OSW.) I know people are going to think that I do have a close connection at this point. I truly don't. I just applied what I think is common sense. For years I've believed in the process of how things got done here, and now I'm getting disillusioned. It is seeming that attempting to save articles that may not meet letter of the guidelines, but IMO meet the spirit of guidelines is an effort in futility. It seems trying to get rid of the worst of the articles or resolve COI issues isn't a very productive exercise either.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
CaroleHenson, I am very sorry if I gave the impression that I might be referring to you. I was thinking mainly of another user, who made quite a few edits recently (in apparent ignorance of our conventions, so I would not attach any blame) and posted at the Teahouse "I've been instructed to write a post about a former boss of mine, but I'm running into a lot of trouble". When !voting to keep the article, I consciously ignored any PR activity (doing PR does not mean you are not notable!). Others here may also be active at the Teahouse, and therefore aware of the connection. --Boson (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful information, thanks. I wasn't upset about that piece of it - I was just trying to be clear because I think when there's an effort to save an article it can be by people with close connections.
I'm just generally frustrated at the moment.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out a part of my comment that has since been addressed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I probably have copyedits to make, but in terms of content additions and changes, I have finished my edits.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I found more to do. To my points above, about being able to validate/expand on these, I came back to look at how much of the following is covered by reliable, secondary sources:
  • "Debra Ruh is an advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities and founder of a Ruh Global Communications. Done
  • The firm focuses on Global Disability Inclusion, EmployAbility, ICT Accessibility, Human Rights, Social Media Marketing - could use more sources, there's so much more about TecAccess, Ruh Global could use more content and sources. Most of what is out there is in biographies for speaking engagements, work with organizations, etc.
  • and implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Done
  • She has provided global leadership to governments, corporations, NGOs and DPO’s (Disability Persons Organizations) supporting research projects, DPO outreach, policy and standards initiatives with the public and private sector.  Done
  • Proud to work with United Nations agencies and countries to help implement the CRPD.  Done
  • She founded TecAccess in 2001 and merged it with another firm in 2011.  Done
  • TecAccess was an IT consulting firm that employed persons with disabilities and helped businesses create accessible technologies for people with disabilities.  Done
  • Co-Founder of www.AXSChat.com a twitter chat about accessibility and disability inclusion." Done
  • "Work featured in major mediums including CBS, Done CNN, Done US News & World Report Done, Washington Technology, Done ABC, Done - there was also some kind of social media event with ABC that I see on their and Ruh's twitter page, but I cannot find a mainstream source for it, PBS, NBC, NPR, INC, Publishers Weekly, Fortune Magazine, America’s Best, and Bloomberg Business Week."
  • Expand upon information in this bio Done - some of the additonal sources include The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, and the United Nations
Still have a few more to go, it looks like--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COIs on the talk page, especially the user (apparently) named "Debraruh (talk · contribs)". <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I commend CaroleHenson for expanding this biography and adding many references to reliable sources. Well done! I expect that the article will be kept. If so, I suggest that the article needs to be pruned a bit. In my opinion, the legitimate effort to save the article has resulted in a somewhat bloated article that contains excessive detail. There is no need to mention every factoid that appears in a reliable source once notability has been established. Focus instead on the most important content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, Thanks! Good point about the editing - I'll work on that later.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copy editing, removed some content, and moved some into notes in this chunk of edits. Overall, there is a reduction of 351 words in the body of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated diff and word count difference - moved some more to notes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many secondary sources have been provided showing passing of
    WP:GNG. Improvements made to the article removed the promotional COI tone which is far preferable to deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universal intelligence

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

This article freely mixes two topics: one is an extension of the pseudoscientific concept of "innate intelligence" or "innate", dreamed up by the "magnetic healer" and inventor of chiropractic, BJ Palmer; the other is a term in AI but not one with great currency (and it's overwhelmed here by the bullshit version). Guy (Help!) 01:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, going by a quick search online, the chiropractic meaning of the term (along with other mysticism nonsense whose affiliation to chiropraxy is hard to confirm or infirm) is by far the
WP:IAR claim to have the AI article as primary topic, but that is not supported by the guidelines. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Aber

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

Non-notable actor. Only major work was appearing in Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, but as a minor character. Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ansara

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

Non-notable child of 2 famous actors. Sadly, he died of a drug overdose, but I don't see any signs of notability before or after his death. Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aydan Özdemir

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

No significant content. No references. Nothing notable.

talk) 00:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_December_7&oldid=1136472471"