Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 18

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

I don't think elementary schools are intrinsically notable. Even if they are, this subject has little evidence of existence, let alone fulfillment of

WP:GNG. Its Facebook page has 0 likes, and it is only MENTIONED in passing in other Wikipedia pages. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:ORG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
List of Schools in Zimbabwe. Certainly not notable. I found it listed on a NGO data aggregator list of voting inspection stations [1], so I'm assuming it does in fact exist, but being in rural Zimbabwe it doesn't have a website. No real opposition to deletion, but if its on a list, you might as well have a redirect to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 23 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

League Inc.

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

Article is contested. Listed at AFD to determine consensus. Cloud9shopper (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete close to G11, the sources appear to be affiliated with the subject. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam that opens with: "The company mission is to give people the power to act every day!". 'nough said. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as this is clearly advertising and was only ever started as such, so this should be a warning to the users involved to say advertising will not be accepted here, regardless of anything or anyone and especially if advertising motivations are why this article is apparently avidly being started. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the lede says it all: "The company mission is to give people the power to act every day and live longer, healthier lives." If that's not advertising, I don't know what else it is, and the rest of the article continues in that vein. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:08, 24 November 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Math

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

Insufficient indication of notability. The only proven claim to fame is that he's part of

notability is not inherited; J. Math needs to be notable in his own right to have an article. Nothing else in this article has any references to back it up, and even if it did, it wouldn't do that much to indicate notability. The only potentially good source currently on this article is the Vibe Magazine mention; however, I actually looked up the August 2008 issue of Vibe, and Street Radio gets only the briefest of brief mentions in that issue (page 46) -- certainly not enough to indicate notability. I did some thorough searching but I really couldn't find any other credible/verifiable sources indicating that J. Math might be notable. IagoQnsi (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

FYI, I've also started an AfD for the related article Street Radio. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Page has been updated with many new sources and information regarding the issues raised above. J. Math's main point of notability is that as a songwriter for notable artists like 50 Cent, Wu-Tang Clan, Cam'ron, Rick Ross, Wu-Tang Clan, Styles P, and many more. He is credited as such on multiple major label albums that have placed on Billboard charts internationally, which I have updated the page with. He is also credited as such for the RIAA gold certified album "Strength and Loyalty" by Bone Thugs-n-Harmony.

Another point of notability is that he often is credited with other roles, specifically A&R and mixing engineer, and has been integrally involved with many major label or notable independent label releases, including 2Pac, Wu-Tang Clan, and Styles P. I updated the page with these credits and included many online sources, while using the liner notes from these albums to confirm. I also found interviews with J. Math and included a couple quotes regarding the development of these albums.Kairaba (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Kairaba[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails
Anup [Talk] 02:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ I'm not sure why above user thinks the subject of this article fails

WP:MUSBIO

. This notability standard clearly states that "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:" and then it lists 12 different points of notability. The article says someone may be notable if they meet at least 1 criteria, and I have shown that the subject of the article meets at least 4 of those 12. I will list them and their satisfactions here for convenience.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself

- I referenced an article from Vibe Magazine which is entitled "Reasons why hip-hop isn't dead".  That article goes on to list only 5 notable producers/composers of which J. Math is one. 
- I referenced an a full page article in Scratch Magazine that significantly covers J. Math by name as well as some history around his career.  
- I referenced a hiphopdx.com article that heavily reference and quotes J. Math.
- I referenced a sohh.com article that heavily reference and quotes J. Math.

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

- I updated the page with Billboard charts (Top 200, Hot 100) that list J. Math as a composer on at least 5 different songs by notable artists, such as 2Pac, Wu-Tang Clan, and G-Unit.

3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

- I updated the page to reflect that J. Math is listed as a composer on the RIAA gold certified album "Strength and Loyalty" by Bone Thugs-n-Harmony.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

- J. Math is listed as a composer on G-Unit's "I Like The Way She Do It", which was in heavy rotation on national radio and the music video aired regularly on MTV.

Nightfury 10:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Kairaba's has added sources to demonstrate that music the article subject has contributed to is certainly notable, not every contributor to a (for example) #95 single inherits notability from that contribution. If there was significant coverage in
WP:RS of this artist himself, as opposed to the projects he's worked on, then I would agree with keeping it. Kairaba is obviously a fan, and there's nothing wrong with fans creating articles about the subjects of their fandom (this would be a rather sparse project without those contributions, after all) but there is a reason for the notability guidelines.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as trivial and unconvincing and in fact blatant advertising in both information and sources, regardless of any "hopeful improvements" because there are in fact none. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Nightfury 10:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - while Kairaba's efforts are laudable, this simply does not meet either
WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 5 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.

All-terrain tyre

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced stub with barely-paraphrased web content. Will be covered in Off-road tire (which I'm working on), barring further deletionism. Jergling (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but should I have just redirected this? That should have been my first question. I'm not inclined to wipe an entire page without consensus. Jergling (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would've sufficed, there's no consensus needed when there's barely anything here as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per
WP:CHEAP and close this, so we can get onto more difficult issues. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- Thanks Bearian. I found another identical article and redirected that one, so I'll do the same to this one as well. I won't waste the admins' time! -Jergling (talk) 15:49, 21 November 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.

Cameron Herold

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

Delete and Salt as this has been restarted despite, not only a speedy G11 before, but an AfD Delete close last year with clear consensus, and there's literally nothing better from this article from when it was last deleted, searches unsurprisingly found triviality, and that's exactly what the listed sources are, either trivial PR or republished PR interviews, no actual substance. Also, the last AfD showed there was paid advertising contributions from advertising-only accounts which seems to be a viable option in this current case. Regardless of publications listed, it's all still in fact PR advertising, and some of the publications classify it themselves by either explicitly saying so or otherwise in similar form. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has written 2 books and was COO of 1-800-GOT-Junk. [3 books, getting cite for the other Iliketosmoke22 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)]Edited page to eliminate cited "promotional material". Makes a suitable stub nowIliketosmoke22 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)— Iliketosmoke22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No change from before. The coverage that exists in RS is mere mentions or quotes. "5 ways to get more from your PR efforts" did make me chuckle though. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 22 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clásico del Centro

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

An article about two teams that have met just four times in their history; see

WP:GNG pass. The article consists entirely of original research also. Spiderone 22:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 21 November 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 00:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sungusungu

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

~~Organization stub unref since 2009~~

talk) 21:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing.
talk) 17:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Clearly notable. Dozens of local articles, academic treatment, even an extensive entry in the Routledge International Handbook of Rural Criminology. This is a clear keep. I added a few sources to establish notability, but will be undertaking a more significant rewrite next week. This will be one of those situations where an AfD leads to improvement of an article: as the system should work. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -topic is significant, improve article as needed. Elinruby (talk) 02:06, 25 November 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.

Clásico Mexiquense

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

This article has been tagged as failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for four years now; little has been done to address these issues. I don't believe that this 'rivalry' warrants its own article; the teams haven't met that many times; I can find very little coverage on the internet other than trivial mentions and coverage from unreliable blogs and forums. The article is almost entirely original research. Also see

WP:GNG needs to be met independently. Spiderone 21:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 21 November 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. The article is now supported by more than one reliable source, which appears to have been the main concern for the delete !voters. (

(talk to me) 18:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

List of fake news websites

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

I'm not sure this list is notable enough to warrant it's own article. It might be, but I'd like to see what other folks opinions are. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure why the opinion of Melissa Zimdars (who is she by the way?) warrants its own article; this article will always be based on one source alone and therefore fails
WP:GNG. Spiderone 21:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Per
WP:LISTCRITERIA. "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." This one isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Redirect back to~~ fake news website. None on the list are independently notable on their own by themselves for their own standalone article. And together as a list they haven't yet received independent analysis or meta analysis from enough separate secondary sources to merit inclusion on this particular page. Best to just continue discussing them and their impact in paragraph format instead. Sagecandor (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ (see below for update) ~~back to~~
WP:TNT without prejudice to recreation later with a more sensible inclusion criteria. But a glance at the list it draws from shows that there are actually plenty that are independently notable (not that that's a significant factor). Since it's a developing concept, perhaps the best thing is to redirect (there's nothing to merge) back to fake news website and reassess in a couple weeks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- ~~Changed to "Redirect" back to~~ ~~fake news website, agree with Rhododendrites well thought out comment. Sagecandor (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Redirect per above, or merge, if the closing sysop prefers to save some material. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to fake news website per above. Evking22 (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Redirect to fake news website per above. Senthen.2 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an important adjunct to fake news website. These are examples of fake news sites, otherwise it becomes an article without a subject matter. It might help to have an explanation however for each site - "fake because" which then can link to the page on their website that says that it is fake. The page is also useful for readers who want to check to see if a website they are reading is fake. It's similar to the list of satirical news websites. Criteria of inclusion need to be worked on. But if a site is listed as a fake news sites in a reliable secondary source then I think that is good enough reason to include in the list. The ones already there are included because they were listed as fake by Melissa Zimdars, a media professor at Merrimack College. Is that not a reasonable reliable secondary source? We need work on what counts as reliable secondary sources here. Expand and refine rather than delete. Also, whatever the selection criteria are, I do think we should have a list of fake news sites somewhere on wikipedia, for the same reason that we have a list of satirical news sites. The topic is highly notable. Indeed, I'm not sure why there is an AfD for this page - perhaps those here who say Delete or Merge (much the same effect) could elaborate and explain why you think it should be deleted or redirected according to wikipedia guidelines? Robert Walker (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per changed stance due to entry above. Evking22 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with other sources, no need to just use those listed by one source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of those sites are notable and there are any number of others yet to be found which would have just as much claim for inclusion. Redirect would not be appropriate since there is not (and should not be) such a list in the article. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its just like List of satirical news websitesVictor Grigas (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. All the sites in the article you mentioned are notable. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After some thought, changing my sentiment on this one. Change to Keep. After seeing creation of page Liberty Writers News by Sandstein, and seeing also existing page for National Report, I see the encyclopedic value of this page. Sagecandor (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've struck my redirect !vote above and am switching to keep. Others added a few sources so as not to be based solely on Zimdars's list, so with
WP:TNT no longer necessary, I changed the lead to no longer list where they came from (that's for the sources to do, after all). I also removed the table, the inappropriate external links, added/removed some wikilinks, added some sources, and pulled some content from separate articles that have been written. We now have a list based on several reliable sources like Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, All Things Considered, Daily Beast, U.S. News & World Reports, and there are a ton more to draw from. Still needs improvement, but it's moved to a keep for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per User:Robertinventor's rationale. --Fixuture (talk) 07:10, 26 November 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.

Bennett Hennessey

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

Non-notable conservation non-profit worker. No reliable sources to be found. Google has him showing up as being quoted in a few pages related to birding, but not enough to be non-trivial under

WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete nn.
talk) 21:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 21:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete as I basically consider this A7. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search comes up with informal smatterings but not approaching notability.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources come even close to being 3rd party indepdent reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 20 November 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:SALT both Sukuma calendar and Sukuma Calendar. Note that after this close I have also nominated Draft:Sukuma Calendar for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sukuma Calendar. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Sukuma calendar

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

Previously deleted at Sukuma Calendar as a blatant hoax. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 51#Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology, about related articles created by the same user. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence it is true.
talk) 21:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete - if more material were available about the festivals, those could be merged into Sukuma people, but there isn't. Further, there isn't really anything about a calendar here, even if it isn't a hoax. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the sources cited by the article does not mention this calendar. This source does, though, which makes me doubt that this is a complete hoax. A search for further sources reveals very little, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The book does use the phrase "Sukuma calendar", but it appears it was used in an informal sense. Still, no evidence there is an established 'calendar' in astronomical sense.
  talk) 17:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete Whether the Sukuma have a calendar or not, this article presents a
verifiability problem as well as attributing beliefs about it to no one and not completely making sense. It provides no source for a calendar emerging "about 5,776" [sic] years ago, and I find no matches through Google or Google Scholar supporting this. The second half of the lead sentence seems to be a non sequitur. It says the Sukuma are "believed" to have advanced their astronomical skills without saying who believes this, or even why noticing the shifting nighttime sky marks an advancement of astronomical skills rather than being pretty basic. Unless they're using the Gregorian calendar, their solar festivals wouldn't be on the same Gregorian date every year; there's no mention of the months of this calendar, even how many of them there are in a given year (12? 13?), which means this article covers some details without establishing a foundation with the necessary basics. Without sources for this information, it would be impossible for anyone to fill this in or verify what's already there. Largoplazo (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The article creator has left a comment at Talk:Sukuma calendar, arguing for keeping the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- For a calendar to have started in about 3600 BC, as claimed, it would have been necessary for the people to be literate; otherwise it would not have survived unchanged. This relates to an area on the southern side of Lake Victoria, an area not noted for having any ancient writing. Clearly HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All that I can find, from the references and by a search, is that the Sukuma, like many agricultural communities, have an annual cycle for their activities based on the movement of the stars, with associated ceremonies. That might be worth a mention in
WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 19:04, 21 November 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.

Michael Eckford

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

Delete.

WP:GNG for it, but there is no automatic presumption of notability just because he exists if there's this little sourcing to support it. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 20:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 20:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 20:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

del no evidence of notability.
talk) 21:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete' non-jnotable radio/television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 20 November 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.

Michael St. Laurent

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

Delete: as non-notbale. Completely fails

GNG, few credentials and no indication of a successful career. I am sorry she/they had a short life but, just as with any other category, not all drag queens are equally notable. Quis separabit? 18:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 18:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: no significant sources.

Delete sources are not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 21 November 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mitchell (journalist)

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

unremarkable journalist. fails

WP:JOURNALIST criteria Domdeparis (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- thats debatable, Im updating the article including quite some references to his work œæœ(Rinotova (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi
WP:JOURNALIST that should help you debate the subject. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Hi thanks for the feedback, we are talking about a journalist that had to escape the country of Venezuela because of political reasons, I'm currently supporting the article with more sources. (Rinotova (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I've just looked at the references and IMHO nothing proves his notability...he's a jobbing freelance journalist who was the victim of an extorsion attempt in south america (as are a lot of people especially foreign nationals). The references that you provided are not free to view and nothing in the visible bits suggest that it was for political reasons. I found his blog http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/03/19/a-letter-from-a-correspondent-no-longer-in-venezuela/ and he clearly says that he was forced to leave because he is well off

I quote from his blog "There is a general sense of lawlessness and anarchy, which probably created the conditions for the extortion attempt against me. Criminals rob and murder with impunity. Extortion attempts against business people are common, particularly in the border towns close to Colombia. Many pay up. Not many well-off foreigners live in Venezuela but extortion against foreigners takes place in Caracas." So I am afraid he was NOT forced to escape the country for political reasons. When you make unverifiable statements that are contradicted by the subject's own blog to try and prove notability there may be a a

WP:COI

problem here...

as a journalist he must fulfill at least one of the following criteria

1 The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

2 The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

3 The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4 The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Domdeparis (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By political reasons I mean Foreign Journalist not being able to talk against the gov, allow me to correct my statement as it stated on the article and supported by the reference, he had to leave the country due to extortions attpemts, as a British Journalist, both probable target aginst freedom of speech and victim of extorsion in VE, plus the intense amount of work, verifiable now on the new references, it is a worthy article. (Rinotova (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Comment
WP:DISCLOSURE on your user page. Domdeparis (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Im invested in the debate :), and went through quite some work to gather/research this info, which again, I defend as reliable, and supported as you can see in the updated inline citations. (Rinotova (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
comment please answer the question where did all the very personal information come from as there are no sources. This looks very much like COI editing. Domdeparis (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - citations are articles by Mitchell rather than about Mitchell. There are no citations for large chunks about Mitchell's early life. Statements about his career are actually not all sourced, either - the fact that Mitchell's work appeared in a certain journal does not mean he is employed by the journal, as is implied.Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this and I'll concur everything is trivial and unconvincing with the article emphasizing it, therefore there's no convincing article, regardless of anything else insinuated. We're not one to keep articles simply to "hope for improvements" or "hope it maybe gets better soon". SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 2 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.

Cameleon (IDE)

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

makes no claims of notability Domdeparis (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with all haste. As much as it pains me to delete OCaml-related material, this page is an obvious and abject mess. I used the Cameleon IDE, very briefly (it's quite horrible by modern standards), and I'm pretty sure it's got nothing whatsoever to do with the company mentioned here, which the article says is traded as... a template (PA) for a Harry Potter book ?!. Not sure if it's a joke. As for the notability of the editor itself, even in the niche of OCaml users I don't think it is terribly popular. Even if the article made a claim of notability, I doubt it could be sustained. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NSOFT. Brianga (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Techcrunch reference talks about Cameleon (software), which is a different topic. Or redirect to the software page. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like Cameleon (software) involves an IDE, so a redirect would not be appropriate here. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:35, 22 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loona (band)

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

Band does not meet the

WP:BAND criteria they haven't been launched yet and the project does not seem notable as yet. Domdeparis (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly promotional, no evidence of notability. Joe Roe (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 10:51, 20 November 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.

Luiyi Black Side

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

fails

WP:MUSBIO notability cirteria Domdeparis (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As search results indcate no notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 00:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 21 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 10:29, 26 November 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.

Joel Asher Goldstein

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

unremarkable and profoundly promotional. Even the photo is inappropriate IMHO. fails

WP:BLP conditions Domdeparis (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete: as completely promotional in nature. This is not LinkedIn, as I so often have to remind folks. Quis separabit? 18:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 21 November 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. Nomination withdrawn as passing

WP:PROF#C5. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Patrice Beddor

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

Does not meet

WP:NACADEMIC criteria Domdeparis (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 01:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the holder of a named chair at the University of Michigan she clearly passes one of the criteria for notability of an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, named chairs qualify, per #5 at NACADEMIC. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My bad ! I missed that when I read the article as it wasn't mentioned in the sections about her career. That'll teach me to read more carefully before nominating. --Domdeparis (talk) 10:21, 21 November 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.

Paul Leonard-Morgan

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

Fails

WP:GNG

. Found three interviews: http://www.reelscotland.com/interview-paul-leonard-morgan-on-scoring-dredd/ http://coolmusicltd.com/composers/paul-leonard-morgan/ http://www.dewolfemusic.com/page/Paul_Leonard_Morgan 2 of which are for commercial ventures he is involved with.

additional issues unrelated to deletion: Almost reference less. Set up by SPA, has had copyvio issues from COI editors in the past (admittedly immediately reverted). Rayman60 (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leonard-Morgan has been nominated for two BAFTAS and won one. He meets points 1 and 4 of
WP:COMPOSER. There are plenty of reliable sources available, I'll start adding them to the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Keep he does seem to meet
talk) 19:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep He is the composer of the music for The Grand Tour which is expected to be a global popular TV show. Now is not the time to delete his article. I would argue that his notability is fairly certain to increase in the near future. --Elmeter (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the kind of
talk) 20:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep At the time of nomination the article was in a really poor state. I think there has been sufficient improvement and sources added to now demonstrate notability according to
WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:47, 20 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Rajput

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

I failed to find significant coverage in

talk) 16:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 16:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hair stylists are not inherently notable; I can't find anything reliable to back the claims made and it seems to be a clear
WP:GNG failure Spiderone 22:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Trivial coverage in few gossip columns. Fails
Anup [Talk] 04:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as there's in fact no actual significance given the only thinly listed claims are for working with other people, hence advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails
❯❯❯ Vanguard 09:38, 25 November 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.

Khaled Alharbash

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

Non-notable journalist who fails

WP:NJOURNALIST. Article appears to be autobiographical or at least have some conflict of interest based on the creator's username. Google search only returned Facebook hits for me, and Google News brought up no sources on the individual. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising alone, nothing at all to consider anything but a business job listing, and the fact there's no substance, emphasizes it. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 21 November 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.

Nettech

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

The company founded by

The result was keep. Sandstein 13:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ···
Join WP Japan! 22:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as has coverage in reliable sources for training in The Telegraph (Indian News Paper) Telegraphindia.com so that
WP:GNG is passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupido99 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: See also
Join WP Japan! 22:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Telegraph India coverage seems like a decent one but we need more in-depth coverage about this entity. Additionally, article needs to be re-written by an unaffiliated editor and unless someone takes up this task, I'll stick to delete.
Anup [Talk]
22:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC

KEEP: The company is a valid consultancy and educational institute. The given list of references and citations are self explanatory , also every business company related wiki page has description about its history and services which is a primary core information. I have done a detailed verification and I'd like to inform you that all the information stated there are genuine. The points which have been raised are not applicable for this page.--Tirtha04 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is questioning whether the company is a valid company. What is being questioned is whether it meets the
  Join WP Japan! 18:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete - fleeting coverage and passing mentions and brief name drops and small sentences but not in depth. Sagecandor (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The article is almost 8 years old. It was vandalised by some people recently. We should keep it. The article needs to be re-written by an unaffiliated editor. Stupido99 (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck this duplicate vote. You may only vote once in any discussion. ···
Join WP Japan! 06:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the coverage can be considered as significant; the argument that it is 8 years old for keeping it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Spiderone 20:11, 24 November 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.

Tone policing

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

This article has only two cited sources and relatively biased content, out of tone with the rest of the wiki. 141.114.194.83 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above IP editor--text copied from article talk page. I'll note the irony of complaining about the "tone" of the article, but otherwise I'll withhold my !vote until a later date. --Finngall ^talk 15:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ a neologism that has about as little support as a snowflake. My gNews search [2]. To keep a political neologism we need substantive consideration of such a term in RS media, substantive discussion form public intellectuals, and scholarly consideration. The strongest source I came up with is The Myth of Tone Policing, from that right-wing rag, The Harvard Crimson. [3] For the curious, the Crimson columnist points to the "seminal" source on the topic, published in Everyday Feminism, here: [4]. Impressive propaganda, and, clearly the people pushing this meme/neologism make some valid and telling points. However, undergrad newspaper columnists do not suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for sources, it's often the most efficient way to assess short, new articles on little known topics, neologisms in particular. I see now that there are 2 books referenced in the article. I continue to think that this is too think to pass the bar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the condition that it can be rewritten without the soapboxing. Same issue as the more fleshed-out
Generation Snowflake. A neologism article for a word used by critics should focus on the neologism at hand, not the those who use it. That is, answer the question "What is tone policing?" rather than "Who is guilty of tone policing?" or "Who claims to have been tone-policed?". Jergling (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to

~~Generation Snowflake might be an efficient and reasonable resolution. {ping|Jergling}, What thinkest thou?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply

E.M.Gregory, I'd have to disagree with that. They're both petty, politically charged terms that have unfortunately entered the popular lexicon, but they mean very different things. "Tone policing" is usually used in leftist internal critique, while "snowflake generation" is a right-wing pejorative for young liberals. Neither are particularly strong critiques. I'd be all for merging tone policing to ad hominem or a similar fallacy. Jergling (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a
much used neologism. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that
WP:WORDISSUBJECT is the guideline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Changing my vote to tepid keep. Very tepid because the term has not entered the general conversation; rather, it is in use within a narrow bandwidth of academic and political activism. Nevertheless, it is arguable useful to have terms that many users will need ot look up, and ~ 50 users per day were coming to this page before the AFD started, an indication that it is useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conceptually interesting as an ad hominem and a distraction technique to try to win an argument. Also material from the external links could be used.--Penbat (talk) 21:21, 24 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivasan Gopalan

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

This person does not seem to meet

WP:GNG. being a future board member of Deutsche Telekom is not sufficient I believe. Domdeparis (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and non-notable person. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
Anup [Talk] 02:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as clear advertising as it cares to actually specify his job history, something only a business listing with PR motivations would mention. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of in-depth coverage Spiderone 19:55, 25 November 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.

Pierre Hutton

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

fails WP:BIO. keep !voters need to actually demonstrate not notability beyond inherent notability. The one source provided although detailed is written by his daughter so cannot be considered independent of the subject. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have expanded out the references using further sources, including from The Canberra Times. I am aware there was media in The Australian and The Mercury but I have been unable to locate yet - these are referenced in Hutton's book The Legacy of Suez. Clare. (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Published author, ambassador during Lebanese Civil War (amongst other significant postings). Seems pretty notable to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be a notable ambassador holding multiple posts, with adequate third party sources. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At time of nomination, article was a bit scant but has been expanded and referenced very well with sources other than relative's obituary. Notable author as well as ambassador. --Canley (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a major source for this article is an obit in the WP:RS (an ozzie NYT(?)), it is written by a relative, article states Hutton also wrote two books, WorldCat shows library holdings of thirty-two and two, is this a significant number for these sorts of books?, but also shows a review in Australian Journal of Political Science for one of them, a gsearch has not brought up any others. The CT articles appear to be trivial mentions, other references by Hutton, are they relevant for notablenesss? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 21 November 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 Speedily deleted as created by a block-evading editor. (It was also close to be speedily-deletable as promotion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk) 21:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

State anthem of Azad Jammu and Kashmir

State anthem of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (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)

there are no sources backing up the claim as being "official" none found on the web Domdeparis (talk) 14:26, 18 November 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Martino

Guido Martino (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)

Blatant hoax, no Google hits outside false positives and Wikipedia mirrors. Especially the train-killing anecdote sounds like an obvious joke. Speedy deletion deprodded purely because the article is 10 years old (which does not seem a great argument). Even if not a hoax, there is no claim of notability whatsoever, as the subject seems like a random fascist who achieved nothing in his life, but given the tone of the article especially in its early version [5], the lack of sources, the lack of Google hits, the history of its IP creator who later tried to create a further hoax through
WP:AFC ([6]), there is little doubt it is a hoax. Cavarrone 13:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 13:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 13:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 13:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having spent some time looking for any reference for this individual, I have found none. Fails
WP:V. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- Even if it is not a hoax, he seems completely NN, save as then perpetrator of a murder of a nameless railway employee. Since this was (I think) before Mussolini took power, I doubt that even he would have approved of murder as the penalty for a train being late. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even after Mussolini took power, there was never such a thing, i.e. death penalty for late train drivers! That's just a joke based on the Fascist propaganda myth "Mussolini made the trains run on time" (eg. see [7] or [8]). Cavarrone 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unsourced article. It is high time Wikipedia had none of these. Nothing to verify its assertions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Delete I searched - just in case, found nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - For what it is worth, I didn't find anything either. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Can't confirm he existed. Also, no article in the Italian wiki. Zero^talk 08:19, 25 November 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. While there are concerns being voiced about whether the sources located bestow WP:N, I do not see a consensus to delete the article. Joyous! | Talk 01:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ixigo

Ixigo (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 website without a single reliable source giving in-depth coverage of them. Links to their website have been actively spammed here for a long time by throw-away IPs on a considerable number of articles, and it was when doing an external link search (looking for more spam links) that I found the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While external links to the site should be removed, the company seems quite notable. Clicking on that news links provides a few dozen newsworthy articles about them. I'm not from India but my guess is they are quite a big thing over there. Note there is quite a bit more history for that page here, a history merge might be appropriate. --Muhandes (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable website Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Yeah,there are advertisements of the company in Indian TV channels. Also,it's a popular travel website.But does that make it encycloepadic?
❯❯❯ Vanguard 16:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable travel web site. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see coverage for this company in reliable sources including but not limited to [9], [10], [11]. Meets the
notability criteria. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per the reliable sources identified above in the previous post which amount to sig cov in at least two with the other one probable but behind a paywall which lead to a pass of
WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -- one of the said "sig coverage" is

"ixigo plans to go for a third round of funding"

This is
WP:MILL
coverage related to funding and company aspirations. The other one is
"ixigo launches app discovery platform for train travellers"

-- also routine launch publicity. I don't see sources here that address the topic directly and in detail that are not PR driven.
WP:NOTNEWS also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 27 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bailey

Craig Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe the reason
WP:BASIC with no secondary sources". The sources given seem to only be links to the radio stations mentioned in the article, without indicating how they are relevant to this person. Article seems to be an autobiography for promotional purposes. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If you tell me how to add secondary sources then I will add them. The page is not for promotional reasons at all it's to highlight achievements in the radio industry over the past 15 years. — Preceding
talk • contribs) 12:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Your username seems to indicate that you are Craig Bailey. Is that the case? If you are not Craig Bailey, you will need to change your username, which you can do by following
the instructions here. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you. I'm trying to change username but have no idea what the instructions are telling me — Preceding
talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

You can visit this page directly. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with Mr. Bailey in any way? FYI please sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with initial PROD, fails
WP:BASIC unable to find any significant sources that would qualify. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Lets have a chat? no idea how to but I am trying to resolve every issue you are throwing at me. — Preceding
talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

To have an article on Wikipedia, article subjects must be shown with independent (secondary)
those for biographies. Merely linking to the radio station websites Mr. Bailey is associated with is not an independent reliable source; this would include things like news stories, independent reviews of his work, books, etc. I would ask you again if you are associated with Mr. Bailey in any way. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. A radio personality does not qualify for a Wikipedia article if the only "sources" you can provide to support the information are the
WP:GNG, but his own "our staff" profile on the web page of his own employer does not get him into an encyclopedia in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 21 November 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 procedural close. Wrong forum - AfD is not the place to propose a merge, and deletion is incompatible with merging. Michig (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Operator

Kerio Operator (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 a notable product, many news articles about it are actually press releases. Suggest merging anything usable into Kerio Technologies Shritwod (talk) 09:03, 18 November 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 procedural close. Wrong forum - AfD is not the place to propose a merge, and deletion is incompatible with merging. Michig (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Control

Kerio Control (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 a notable product, many news articles about it are actually press releases. Suggest merging anything usable into Kerio Technologies Shritwod (talk) 09:03, 18 November 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 procedural close. Wrong forum - AfD is not the place to propose a merge, and deletion is incompatible with merging. Michig (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Connect

Kerio Connect (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 a notable product, many news articles about it are actually press releases. Suggest merging anything usable into Kerio Technologies Shritwod (talk) 09:03, 18 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK Rail Leasing

UK Rail Leasing (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)

Rail cruft - refs mainly point to Flickr/original research blog posts etc. Non notable company, only interested in rail related leasing.
Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Most of this is about what individual locomotives have done on various dates, and where they may be seen. Essentially, it's a
WP:NOTDIARY), there's very little left. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as indiscriminate collection of information and not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 23 November 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Bobby

Anne Bobby (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

reliable sources online. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Keep, looks well written enough with the shows she played a role in. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable independent sources. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Keep passes NACTOR with significant roles in multiple shows/movies. Maproom, the presence or lack or reliable sources in the article is not what we are !voting on in AfD. There are reliable sources showing she was in these roles which I'll add to the article. We need to look outside Wikipedia, not just at what was added to the article by an editor who poorly sourced their article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have been unable to find adequate references. And the fact that editors have put 21 citations in the article, which contain no significant discussion beyond the roles she has played and the statements that she is "winning"(3), "lesser-known"(4), "young" and "charming"(13), suggest that no-one else can either. Maproom (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NACTOR #1, which the sources show. I added the critical responses as icing on the cake. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a reasonably well sourced stub and appears to meet
WP:ACTOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:25, 21 November 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.

Player wins

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

Fails

WP:NEOLOGISM. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to be part of a series of articles about basketball statistics created by the same person (
Player Winning Percentage is dependent on Offensive rating and Defensive rating, which are also stats created by Oliver. It would be preferable to discuss Oliver's statistics in a more comprehensive article to avoid readers from having to go back and forth so much, if indeed those statistics are notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, this article and the two mentioned above could all be deleted with redirects to Dean Oliver (statistician), if indeed he did coin/develop these terms. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not being encyclopedic content which would be more suitable as a section in another, more fleshed out article. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:45, 21 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 10:30, 26 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Delorme

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

This article about a living person is in clear violation of COI policies, as described for instance in

WP:PSCOI. It was plainly written by its subject, as you can see in the history, and it is laid out like a CV. I’ve mentioned all this in the talk page and gotten no response. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete contributions do not rise to the level of significant impact in his field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I agree, but what about the COI issues? The editor who basically wrote the article is called Arnodelorme. These issues seem even more important to me. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about others' opinions on the COI issues here. The
plain and simple COI guide says you should not edit articles about yourself, yet this entire article was clearly written by Arnaud Delorme, and is laid out exactly like a resume, which is not the purpose of encyclopedia articles. I don't see a way this article could be easily salvaged. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and stubbify. Passes
WP:Prof#C1 with reasonable GS cites in well-cited field. COI is not relevant for delete except that BLP might be stubbified to remove excess promotional bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep as I concur with Xxanthippe, the high of 6,130 cites is enough and that's in Elsevier, certainly enough, and as a lead author. I will comment that I've accepted Drafts or articles at least started by COI for years, as long as they were notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is ridiculously promotional in its current state, the subject looks like a clear pass of
WP:PROF#C1 based on their citation metrics. Joe Roe (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok, so what I'm hearing is that this article will most likely be kept because of the notability of the subject in academia, but someone (probably me) should go through it and take all the promotional-style content out and turn it into something resembling an encyclopedia article? I'd appreciate anyone's suggestions if that's the likely outcome. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the job of the proposer. You could remove everything below the lede. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Alright, I'll think about what precisely I'll do, probably will be more in line with what you said than not. Meanwhile, I should wait until an admin decides officially not to delete the article, correct? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 22 November 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Atlas

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

Prod removed by creator. Many refs that proves that company exists, but no refs to show

reliable sources to show notability. There are several sources in the article but most of them are primary sources; the rest do not appear in-depth enough to indicate notability. Cannot find any coverage of the site itself. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 15:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

FYI, the publication was formerly called Gizmag -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 16:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 16:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete: The article seems to exist only for promotional purposes. I don't see any indication of significant coverage in high-quality independent reliable sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback but I can assure you as the creator the intention of this piece isn't promotional, but to provide details on the long history of the business using Gizmodo as base structure to create the page. I will look to add a section on coverage with details on breaking news & additional notable sources. Will post here as soon as this has been updated, any further advice & guidance is greatly appreciated. —Coast123 (talk) 9:30, 10 November 2016 (GMT)

Keep: Page has been updated to include additional citations and material. Looking to expand the new coverage section due to the high number of brand references within Wikipedia. —Coast123 (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2016 (GMT)

Wikipedia itself is not to be used as a cited source in articles or as evidence of notability. Practically none of that material that you put into the article is talking about the website itself or establishing its notability, as best I can tell. Most of it was not about the website at all. The fact that some person who works for the website or owns the website was on some panel with 100 other people to give some award to someone else does nothing to establish the notability of the website and is basically irrelevant – that might be some (very minor) evidence that the person is notable, but it does nothing to establish that the website is notable. The fact that the website published an article about some camera does nothing to establish the notability of the website – even if some other people read that article and reference it in other articles. It might be evidence of the notability of the camera, but not the website that talked about it. What we need is in-depth coverage about the website in independent reliable sources. Please see

edit summaries when editing to explain your edits? It would be helpful to understand the motivation of the edits. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The page isn't about the website, it's about the brands history and key figures involved during this time so I don't see how awards or key figures involved are irrelevant? Completely understand your reasoning RE notability so I've attempted to re-edit the content accordingly. The publication receives the majority of its coverage on other sites based on the articles & reports it produces, hence the large number of references throughout Wikipedia. This demonstrates the site as a trusted source, so the 'coverage' section was an attempt to display key breaking new stories where the brand has been cited by notable sources, again based on the Gizmodo page. Appreciate the feedback, thanks —Coast123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any references that talk ABOUT New Atlas/Gizmag. There are plenty of refs that show that it exists, but I cannot find any in-depth articles that talk about it. For instance, if you look at the Gizmodo page, there are plenty of references talking about Gizmodo and not just using Gizmodo as a source. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 14:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes a lot more sense, I'll investigate - thanks! —Coast123 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2016 (GMT)

Yes, please. The article is about New Atlas/Gizmag. Per

WP:GNG, it should cite "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that talk about New Atlas/Gizmag "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Currently the article does not have that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Ok I think (hope) we're almost there! The page now includes more details about the website specifically including a diverse array of sources i.e. the Sydney Morning Herald, HighBeam Research and other independent publications. Let me know what you guys think, I've found references toward a book in which the founder had contributed but as it's not the website specifically not sure if that's relevant? Thanks again —Coast123 (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2016 (GMT)

Unless there are any other points of feedback based on the recent changes can we now mark this discussion as resolved? Thanks for all the help. Coast123 (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2016 (GMT)

Personally, I still don't think it passes

WP:GNG

. Of the thirteen refs:

1. Two sentences that shows it exists. 2. Own site. First party. 3. Not about site, about culture clashes. 4. Three sentences that shows it exists. 5. A line in a chart (it exists). 6. Linked-In profile 8. Short paragraph that says it exists. 9. It exists. 11. Looks like a paid advertisement. 12. Own site. First party. 13. Three sentences that shows it exists. Of the two left, 7 and 10, they're both just

interviews with the creator. Not independent from the subject matter. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 13:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

The result was speedy G11 by Ritchie333. czar 19:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: All of the references that state it exists are included as it backs up a statement about the brand / website, so whilst I respect your opinion I have to disagree. Also references 7 & 10 are not interviews, they just include quotes taken from the owner Mike Hanlon, with the articles themselves covering key events in Gizmag’s history which is independent of the subject matter. Compared to other Wikipedia pages for publications such as
Wired where 80% of references are from the website in question, the majority for New Atlas are also from external independent sources about the website. I fully believe the page now caters for the issues surrounding notability. Thanks Coast123 (talk
) 16:06, 24 November 2016 (GMT)

Note: I have struck the duplicate !vote above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find significant coverage about the website or any indication why it was significant. The sources are also not good enough, as can be seen from the analysis. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable source with only expectations of PR and nothing else suggesting both genuinely and sufficient otherwise, thus delete since the article is showing it. SwisterTwister talk 08:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem appears to be one of multiple reliable sources. However you cut it, there seems to be consensus (minus, of course, the article creator) that there is one, maybe two, RS. That doesn't reach notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:14, 2 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.

Liv3ly (Company)

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

Fails

WP:NCORP. Article seems promotional. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:11, 18 November 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. While several participants believe the article(s) should be deleted based on

WP:NOSTATS, several others pointed to very similar articles that had been improved to the point of...encyclopedia-ness... Even the user who made the original nomination changed his mind. Joyous! | Talk 01:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

England cricket team Test results (1946–59)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail the same criteria:

~~Delete all.~~ See change of vote below. (Information is more readily available in specialist online cricket sites and should not be repeated here per

WP:DIRECTORY. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 19:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete for the reasons already given. There's no attempt to do anything other than throw stats at a page here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR, consists of information that is available elsewhere. We need a better explanation of why this should be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all per
WP:NOTSTATS {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all.
WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all of the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per above, and my comments on similar discussions. Joseph2302 08:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we're deleting these, then we should also bundle in
England cricket team Test results (1920–39) as well. Just because the other lists are effectively stubs, and those two are not should not factor in. We don't delete based strictly on content, but on potential content. All the lists that have been nominated have the potential to be similar to the two I've mentioned, so all should be considered equally. Harrias ^talk 17:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello, @

WP:IINFO and they confuse non-cricket readers. Furthermore, they are of minimal, if any, use to cricket followers too unless they have a context and an article without narrative has no context. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply