Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 30 September 2 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Simon and the Oaks

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

This is the article on the book. The movie was hugely successful being nominated for multiple Swedish Oscars. But problems plauging the article on the book is no plot and lacks sources. For seven years, it has been tagged with expansion from the Swedish article. I don't know if it has been brought to the appropriate WikiPojects to get looked at. With the state the article is in, it doesn't merit being kept. Mr. C.C.

Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Redirect for now, because it's held at 600 libraries worldwide and it was a film, so that's enough to suggest enough for an article alone. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allripe

Allripe (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 can't find evidence of notability. I would have PRODed if not for a previous PROD in 2014. Adam9007 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. very minor copany; the refs are basically press releases for its various minor accomlishments. Not one of them is a RS for notability DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt as this has essentially been deleted twice, once was worse than the other, but this current one is the worst of all given it's advertising, so considering all of thid together, I cannot confide someone would then restart it how it should be. This article is a PR campaign to simply advertise what the company wants to say itself. SwisterTwister talk 01:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete bordering on an advert. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete- thinly veiled advertisement. Sources are advertorials mostly. Reyk YO! 09:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any claim of significance here and there's literally nothing available in reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 04:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Nesbeth

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

Does not pass

WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league or at senior international level Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:56, 2 October 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, again, unfortunately. There is significant disagreement on what should be covered and where, and little to no analysis of quality and availability of reference material. I imagine that there will be a third discussion at some point; if so, perhaps it can more directly tackle these issues rather than focusing on subjective perceptions of importance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls

AfDs for this article:
New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls (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)

Returning this highly contentious topic to AfD, where it belongs. First AfD ended in no consensus, but clearly this needs to return to AfD and now is as good a time as any. Safiel (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article should have already been deleted. The arguments for keep were not strong at all. This was one of 34 regular season games. It was not a playoff game, it was not a crucial game during the season. It only tied for the largest win in MLS, which means nothing. It should just be a part of the Hudson River Derby article. Last time a non administrator ended the discussion, this time only an administrator should decide.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Fenix's reasoning in the first AfD... also can the nominator not sound more salty. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the consensus for Fenix's argument exist. I haven's seen one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 00:08, October 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fenix and SG on the first AFD. The match will have some staying power, given that the only comparable result was in 1998, at the very beginning of the league's history, and similar margins are rare to come by in modern soccer. SounderBruce 01:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just one regular season game. Also Borussia Dortmund just destroyed a team in the Champions League 6-0. I don't see any articles about that game, which sounds more notable than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 00:08, October 2, 2016 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: we already discussed this. And it looks like a majority believe it should be kept per Fenix in AfD. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Discussed, yes, resolved, no. In the end, it ended in a no consensus, so another discussion is appropriate. Safiel (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I brought this back into AfD primarily as the result of an erroneous attempt to delete this via speedy deletion. Given that there is some contention regarding this article's existence, that would seem to me to be a good reason to return to AfD and get a final resolution of keep or delete, rather than no consensus, as happened in the first AfD. After some thought over the last day, I am going to go with a keep based on the arguments here and at the first AfD. Nevertheless, this AfD needs to go the distance and hopefully there will be enough of a consensus in either direction to get something other than a no consensus. Safiel (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to what was said on the previous Afd, this game did not receive that great of media coverage. When I googled it, all I really found were results from the New York media and ESPNFC. A game of this little importance should not have the same size article that the MLS Final has. I also looked up other NYCFC games and they were covered by the same media sources. Also the only reason this article was created was probably because a Red Bulls fan wanted rub the result in NYCFC's face. No I am not a fan of either team.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Hudson derby, does not merit a separate article. GiantSnowman 07:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Categories such as
    routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    NBA mirrors that of the NFL; there is attention to the games with the highest total points scored, but no mention at all of the highest margin-of-victory. Now, I think margin of victory is a "useful" record to track, and it's pretty easy to find sourced information about that for the NFL (and probably the NBA, I didn't look). We should (and do!) include that in the MLS records list. But contrary to the assertion in the prior AFD, none of the comparable events in MLS -- nor in any other, similar sport -- have their own articles. There is a "clear consensus", but it is not one to retain. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - This is well sourced and seems significant in the context of the rivalry between the two teams. LCrowter (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add some content to Hudson River Derby, in which its significance in the context of the rivalry between the two teams is apparently so great that it doesn't even get a mention apart from its entry in the list of results...

    My comments at the first nomination suggested that existing articles used to suggest precedent weren't directly comparable, because they had features over and above the score. Some had been kept at AfD, e.g. Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. (albeit by no consensus), because they were receiving ongoing coverage many years after the event. This remains the case. This match tied a winning margin record: the existence of individual articles about matches that set winning margin records doesn't create consensus for the retention of all articles about sometime record holders. No prejudice against re-creation if it receives significant coverage; as yet, it hasn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's a record performance, and the fact that it's a rivalry (and thus could theoretically be merged to the rivalry page) makes it more notable if anything, and certainly not less notable that it should change anyone's vote from keep to merge (with the rivalry page). Just because we can merge it there doesn't mean we should. The performance gathered significant attention, and clearly satisfies all relevant guidelines, like I said before in the last AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It did not receive significant news coverage. It only received coverage from the New York area. Also it doesn't deserve an article that is as long as one for the MLS Cup Final or Another major international final. A simple google search refutes Fenix's claim from the last Afd. It's not a game that anyone is going to ever look back at and say that it was important.


  • Keep - If this was just a record performance, I would have said a redirect. But this is notable because its a club with a long history and a roster that has been consistant for a long time, coming up against a club who have a lot of money and marquee players, but really are a club with no real core, just really Khaldoon Al Mubarak's American branch. Any onlooker would look at the prestigious names in the NYC FC line up (i.e David Villa, Andrea Pirlo, Frank Lampard) and say it should be an easy win for New York City. But it wasn't. It was a caterstrophic loss. This is more than just a 7-0 loss. Its a massive rethink of the way the world looks at football. Many owners look at the disaster that happened at NYC and see that you cant just immediately spend a billion million dollars and buy a good team and expect to be champions in your first year, because that's just not how football works. Meanwhile you look at Germany and at RB Leipzig, that's an example of a team built from the bottom and that became very sucessfull, and in 8 years its now a major powerhouse in German football after coming from the very bottom, the semi pro leagues in fact. In 5 years I suspect it will be near on par with the Bayerns and Reals of the world. But in 5 years time NYC will probably still be getting smashed 4-0 at home in a stadium that's barely 10% full, and they have probably spent and lost more money. Its a lot more than just a result, you see — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Mr Tombs. This is a very notable result, but perhaps the page could have a name change? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody has been able to present any evidence to show that this game was notable. A consensus is not based on a democratic vote, so it seems clear to me that the consensus it to delete the article and add the content to the Hudson River Derby article. None of the users who have argued to keep it have provided evidence to support their reasoning. The argument to delete it is supported by facts. This game should not receive the same article length that the MLS Cup Final gets.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @AllSportsfan16: What evidence would satisfy you? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was featured on CNN's website (many notable sporting events are), sports illustrated magazine, USA Today, ESPN (not just ESPNFC). I've already researched it and did not find it mentioned through any of these sources.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in comparison to articles like Doc Love being considered for delition. Why does the petty stuff matter and the important stuff doesn't? 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claim is special interest in this a particular game , and I do not see it demonstrated. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The original editor blanked the page, which would trigger speedy deletion under CSD G7, but I'm going to go ahead and say the article wouldn't have survived AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diserpier

Diserpier (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 considered this as a speedy delete under A7, but anyway, this an autobiographical promotional piece about a non-notable musician/photographer/engineer. As far as I can tell his musical career so far has been some remixes of other songs, some of which may not be official – there's no evidence on his social media that he has DJ'd at any major club, even within Colombia, at all. He's not mentioned by name anywhere in the links for the engineering prize or the French photography exhibition so we can't verify these claims. Good luck to the guy and I wish him well with his career(s), but there's absolutely no evidence of notability within any of his fields to date. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom me neither. Looks like a bad machine translation from Spanish, leading me to suspect it's a copyvio too - David Gerard (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard – no, I don't think it's a copyvio, I think it's written by the subject himself, and it's just that his English is a little shaky – the article states that Diserpier's real name is Cristian Javier Mejia, and the article author is CJMejiaB. I'd actually be really interested to meet him in person: we live in the same city, he plays exactly the type of dance music I love, and we both have family roots in the department of Nariño in the south of Colombia. But with my Wikipedia hat on, I have to be impartial and say this doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at present. Richard3120 (talk) 15:57, 2 October 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 01:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlaTest

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. Light2021 (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 04:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

99.co

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. Light2021 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Article has been speedied G11 by Jimfbleak, so there's nothing left to discuss. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urbery

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. saga written like advertising. news is just blogs and press. Light2021 (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Currently, this service is only available in the downtown Toronto core..." To me this highlights the lack of notability the startup has, Per nom, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (

Anup [Talk] 10:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delhivery

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media about discussing future plans, investments other press material. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:05, 1 October 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. There is not even a claim of significance here. It shoulc have gone to speedy in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 13:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foodist

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. 1 paragraph to say Light2021 (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete doing a basic
    WP:BEFORE I can find only funding rounds, someone bought them and a bit of churnalism - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 04:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis & Hayes

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media about discussing future plans, investments other press material. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say and other are non-notable history and discussing business models. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 04:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Delgado (record producer)

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

It fails to meet the expectations of

WP:MUSICIAN. DBrown SPS (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources indicate existence rather than notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 22:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giulia Gwinn

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

fails

WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Footballer from Ailingen aims high - lengthy article on player in preparation for U17 world cup
  2. Giulia Gwinn Wechselt zum SC Freiberg - Article on move to SC Freiberg
  3. Giulia Gwinn is nominated relativley breif but nonethelesss useful article on player when aged just 13
  4. Janine Minge and Giulia Gwinn create Penalties - article on performance for German U15 team
  5. Gwinn and Minge face EM-Quali - specific article on this player and one other in preparation for the U17 European Championship
  6. Gwinn and Minge draw attention to themselves - further article on player's youth international performances.
My German is not that strong, but these don't seem to be
routine match reports and the reporting seems to be done by news outlets at least at a regional level, so seems to me to have received sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. Additional primary sources in the article such as this can and are used to provide additional detail. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep Plays in a top-level league in her country. The fact that women's football is underpaid as compared to men's, and therefore are officially "non-professional" is a ridiculous notion for notability. As long as a player who plays 5 minutes in a dead rubber top-level men's league is notable for an article, so should be a woman of the same. --SuperJew (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 04:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Data Access

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

unreliable sources for notability.Only article from creator so it seem possible that there is some conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 20:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article itself was unbelievable and unwisely accepted from AfC, and I know I myself would not have accepted this, the sources and information are PR, and it's also clear this was part of a PR article campaign, because of the mere sheerness of specifying what there is to advertise about the company. It's not surprising the involved user was, not only persistent about the company, but then had no other contributions or activities at all. This is a company who noticeable seeks PR and that's of course why this article would exist, because there's certainly enough suggesting this is neither a convincing article or actually improvable. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree, as usual a little more care allowing articles to be created meeting style guides would have much trouble. After thirteen years the company might be notable, but this article is close to the usual litany of "awards" that mean someone took a poor journalist to lunch. W Nowicki (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 2 October 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. Delete all post-hijack revisions and restore original article to its intended location. Deletion or merge of that one is for a separate discussion. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BEHR Group Holdings

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

No evidence of any notability. One ref is a project brief involving the company is the other is a dead-link unrecoverable through Wayback machine which would have attested to other US operations owned by the company's vice president. Even if available , this would not have conveyed any notability. Searches yield even less - facebook pages Linkedin pages and Vimeo pages but nothing of any substance  Velella  Velella Talk   19:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This was formerly an article on the German engineering firm Behr GmbH & Co. KG and part of the text and the references pertain to that firm. In a process begun with this edit in May and later with this move the article has been repurposed as one on a US financial firm BEHR Group Holdings. I am not seeing an association between the two firms and @Niaguru1968: I am unclear why this was done? A newly-created article on BEHR Group Holdings would probably not survive CSD A7. Were it not for this AfD, I would suggest this should be reverted to the original title and revision as of 18:07, 3 March 2016; that said though, I am not sure the German firm is notable either (though it does have a German Wikipedia article). @Velella: thoughts on how to proceed at AfD on either/both firms? AllyD (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposed. The article's previous incarnation as the equivalent to de:Mahle Behr may or may not be a worthwhile subject on EN Wikipedia. but we do have Mahle GmbH, the English version of de:Mahle (Unternehmen), so interested editors can incorporate material relating to Mahle Behr there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research. If this is a hijack article then it should certainly be reverted to its original form and moved back again to the old name and re-evaluated there. I would be content for this AfD to be struck out in the event that the old article is restored. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   10:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An edit conflict has confused the time line of thread slightly, but the comment by Michael Bednarek looks to be the better way forward.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Michael Bednarek. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revision Delete to point of hijacking and then rename to Behr GmbH & Co. KG. Then think about notability/merging ect of those two articles. Agathoclea (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of BEHR Group Holdings and do not understand why it is requested to delete it. I was a former client of the firm and it has been around since 1999 and this AfD should remain as is, it is preposterous that you are making an arbitrary decision without looking at facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.29.40.219 (talk) 03:31, 3 October 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. Discussion is a bit light on policy based arguments, but rough consensus is to keep. No prejudice against ongoing discussion to merge/redirect.Mojo Hand (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auli'i Cravalho

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

WP:NACTOR. If and when Cravalho receives coverage for other significant roles sometime in the future, the article of course can be recreated, but at this point in time, she notable only for starring in just one not yet released film. Sro23 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage is not sustained enough to pass the general notability guidelines by most interpretations. Since the film has not been released the one role is not enough for Cravalho to be propelled to fame that way. Anyway the main acting way to notability requires 2 films, not just one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The guidelines I was thinking of primarily apply to people involved in live-action film. A voice role like Cravalho will have in the film Moana does not even add towards notability as much as a live action role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I respectfully disagree with the above comments with regards to the actor's notability, for two main reasons.

- It has been noted that she has only starred in one as-yet-unreleased film. I would like to direct the other commentators' attention to the likes of Peter Ostrum who appeared in only one film (Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, a big budget film, which featured Gene Wilder. Ostrum has never appeared in another film but has a reasonably long Wikipedia article. His film and Moana can be seen as having similarities, as in both cases a large budget is involved and the younger actor is in a film featuring someone very famous. In Cravalho's case, it is Dwayne Johnson, in Ostrum's it was Gene Wilder.

- Secondly, despite the fact Cravalho is currently an "unknown" actress, her Wikipedia page itself has been getting many daily views. On average, the Auli'i Cravalho page seems to be receiving ~700-900 views per day. In the week following the most recent trailer release for Moana (16th September - 23rd September 2016), the article was viewed 21,682 times. I also reject the idea that she should not have a Wikipedia because she has not appeared in other major productions. Actors such as Paul Reeve (of Superman fame) was relatively unknown until he received his role in Superman. There is clear evidence from the views on this page alone that there is a lot of interest in her as an actress. Moana is a major Disney film which will be released in around a month's time. To refer to the numbers of article views again, I note that the Moana (2016 film) is currently receiving ~ 5000 views per day, though it has received ~ 15,000 per day in the last few weeks.

To conclude, my position is that while Auli'i Cravalho is not yet famous, she is a notable person. There is a lot of interest in the movie and the actress which I believe will only increase in the weeks to come. I am not sure I understand the sense of deleting the article when it will likely be recreated by someone else when the film is closer to release (i.e. most likely within a month or so from now). The film is currently set to be released in at least 32 countries by the end of the year. Currently, it serves to compile information about a rising actress, who, in the next three months, is likely to become very well known. EmWinn —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom, as well as the lack of
    Pocketed 12:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment This is directed at Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and any others who believe my points to be not based on policy. I made my comments in relation to what had already been said by Sro23. If you read
    WP:BLP1E
    , you will see that the policy states all three requirements must be met for there to be a violation. My comments relate to the second requirement outlined, namely that the person is likely to remain widely unknown after the event. As I have already stated, I believe this is unlikely to be the case.

I would also appreciate someone (preferably Sro23) explaining how under requirement three of the above mentioned policy is violate by the article. I fail to see how the event is one of low importance (at least as far as films go). Cravalho plays the main character in the film. It seems to me that neither requirement two nor three is violated by this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmWinn (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Cravalho does not "play" the main character in the film, she "voices" the main character in the film. There is a very large difference. Also, the film has not been released yet, so comparing it to films that have already been released is flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Moana (2016 film). Any interest in Cravalho at this point would have to be related to her role in this film, which is not even going to be released more than a month. If and when there is more to say about her that isn't related to her role in Moana, the redirect can be turned back into a proper article about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)'[reply]
  • CommentJohn Pack Lambert Thanks for your contributions. I think you misunderstood what I meant by play (perhaps a difference in the types of English we speak). I meant it as per the Oxford Dictionary online https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/play under the 4th heading, play is defined as to "represent (a character) in a theatrical performance or a film", i.e. assuming the role of Moana, rather than that she physically appears in the film. You may also be interested in the video Walt Disney released on their YouTube channel "Casting Moana- Introducing Auli'i Cravalho" which features footage of the actress and currently has ~ 4 million views. It can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pylCYlsjEK0

This will be my final comment on this AfD and I would like to comment generally on it. Firstly, thank you to everyone who commented or made suggestions. One thing I would like clarified (and maybe a more experienced Wikipedia editor can assist here) is why the Moana Auli'i page is up for deletion and the Moana (film) page is not. It seems many of the points that have made here could also apply to the film's page (notability, crystal ball etc).

I will watch this topic with interest when the film is released in ~ six weeks.

Again, thanks to anyone who contributed. Enjoy the rest of your weekend/upcoming week (depending on where you are in the world).  :-) EmWinn (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, or failing that redirect to the film. BLP1E is for otherwise non-notable people, but actors are public figures; substantial coverage of them is sufficient for inclusion even for just one role.  Sandstein  12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess
    WP:NACTOR. I would be willing to support redirecting to Moana (2016 film) at this time. Sro23 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment She clearly does not meet NACTOR point 1, which requires Multiple roles, however point 2 "has a large fan base of a significant cult following" does have some potential. However that will be hard to justify before the film is released. It does explain why we have an article on Ostrum as mentioned above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have become convinced that we have a wide enough number of articles from reliable sources to pass the GNG. Also, I think there is enough evidence of pre-release following that this one role will propel Cravalho into some level of significant following. Maybe not quite the level of Idina Menzell and what voicing the role of Elsa in Frozen has done for her career. OK, that is a horrible example, because Menzell had the lead role in rent on broadway back in 1996, and even in film had not only held that role in the film adaptation of rent but had also had the second highest female role in Enchanted. Frozen was her 8th role in film. So it is not comparable. Also, I doubt that Moana will reach the level of popularity of Frozen. Still, I think Cravalho has enough coverage to date to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Moana as per Metropolitan90. -rayukk | talk 22:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Voice acting is acting. She's the lead in a Disney film soon to be released! Bearian (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect She is currently only notable for the movie. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She's somewhat notable at this moment, but only in the narrow and specific context of a movie that's not even been released yet. This is a crying example of being 'too soon'. I'd rather we wait to see what her actual career shapes up to be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's fairly clear that a new major Disney film will be notable, and that the star of it will be also. Refusing to recognize this is an illustration of the overliteral misuse of NOTCRYSTAL. Some things don't need magical devices or guesswork, just obvious analogy. Pragmatically, the work involved in discussing it, removing it, and rewriting itis much greater than the work in letting it be and just keeping track of it. This is deletion process being used for the sake of deletion process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Keep She's in a major movie with a lead role. Even if she only has this for her entire career, it's still a major role. Peter Ostrum had only one role, yet we have an article on him. Puget Sound (talk) 00:09, 19 October 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 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genki Ishisaka

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

The football player never played in a fully professional league and thus fails

WP:NFOOTY. Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of independent notability. Eldumpo (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 05:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elephantosauripus

Elephantosauripus (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)

Needs references for

verification. ubiquity (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The source provided is something like the Korean version of answers.com, and so is very far indeed from being a reliable source. Like other -ipus genera, this is intended to be an ichnotaxon (a trace-fossil "genus" based on dinosaur tracks). Others are indeed valid. Ultrasauripus is a substub, but at least minimally referenced. Megalosauripus is currently no better than this article, but has a complicated history that could easily be fleshed out into a real article. Elephantosauripus, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any currency in academic literature; all references to it that I can find are from dubious Korean sources. Google Scholar returns a big fat goose egg. I suspect this ichnotaxon was proposed by someone, probably in a dissertation or maybe a minor conference poster, but never received any traction nor acceptance. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Un-convention

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

Per

WP:ORG, no significant independent source coverage. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 05:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Activate, Inc.

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

nn business - üser:Altenmann >t 16:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete on balance - the principals are both notable, which is why the news coverage I've been able to find is all "gosh, Wolf and Dash doing something!" Nothing actually about the business though - David Gerard (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have doubts the principles are notable; at least not according to wikipedia guidelines. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • They both have articles which I would judge as very unlikely to be deleted at AFD - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The coverage provided and found is a mix of routine announcements and material/mentions of presentations by one of the firm's principals. Notability is not inherited and, as other have said above, this is more appropriately covered on the existing pages on the individuals. Fails
    WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - there are a couple of good sources, but whether they are "in depth" is open to interpretation. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:ORGSIG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 21:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaram Sloyan

Kyaram Sloyan (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)

Death of youth in a war is tragic, but not necessarily notable by Wikipedia's definition of

Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see why this should be deleted. This article was sent to deletion in the first week or so of the conflict and even then it garnered nine keep opinions as opposed to just four delete. With that said, I don't know why it was closed as no consensus when there was an overwhelming consensus to keep. At any rate, my opinion hasn't changed. His life and tragic death are covered by many notable news media outlets including
Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The quotation from
WP:SOLDIER is "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times". How did you manage to miss the "multiple times" requirement? I have no personal axe to grind about any ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus region, but it's pretty obvious that there are several editors distorting the truth according to their personal nationalist prejudices in recent deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment if this is part of an investigation of a war crime, then perhaps coverage of the case against an accused individual could use some of this material. However, in reading
WP:CRIME this article fails by that inclusion standard as well. EricSerge (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
People don't get awarded the Navy Cross multiple times, they receive
Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Stop the sophistry. A star is a second or subsequent award of a Navy Cross, but a first degree of the Order of the Combat Cross is not a second award, but simply the level of the first award. Maybe, as said below, this is actually the top award for valour in Armenia, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you misrepresented
WP:SOLDIER above, and so may also be misrepresenting that information. Why do you (Personal attack removed) insist on overstating your case when you have a perfectly good case even without such misrepresentation? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, now you're just showing signs of disruption, and that's pretty concerning. Ease up on the personal attacks, will you? No one here is an Armenian nationalist. Hell, I'm not even Armenian. And I did not say he received the order twice, I said he received its first degree, which is much more significant than receiving its second degree. To clarify: getting a star for a Navy Cross is, in my opinion, more or less the same significance as it would be when receiving the Combat Cross. And again, in light of TonyBallioni's comment, which provides a pretty good conclusion as to this medal's significance, my vote still stands.
Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination's withdrawn and no votes for deletion. Further discussion on contents can of course continue on the article talk page. Cavarrone 08:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VIEW Conference

VIEW Conference (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)

Promotional, (tagged for 5 years) non notable event, supported by a single reference to their own website. Fails

WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

If others are happy, I am willing to withdraw the AFD after Cavarrone's re-write with secondary sources, albeit IIalian ones. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will keep on expanding the article and adding sources in the next days. --Cavarrone 14:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need to look more in depht through the sources but at first glance there are 6,760 "recent" news articles in Google News and several additional hundreds or thousand articles in Google News archives. Surely the page needs a strong cleanup or even to be stubbified, but apparently there is enough material for a claim of notability and for writing a decent article. Cavarrone 20:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's plausible that there could be an article about a notable thing at this title, but if the present page at this title were "rewritten" to focus on RSes it would literally not exist. If you're volunteering to write the article ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello You can find all the references of this page here: http://www.viewconference.it/ and View Conference has also an Italian Wikipedia Page: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIEW_Conference , that I used for writing the English page. Can you explain why you want to delete this article? This is not a promotional page, it is an informative one, and I was trying to update it for the current year (2016). I understood that Wikipedia is a space to inform people and make them learn something. Thank Elisa C —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not concerned with what the conference says about itself, only what the secondary sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add some information that is possible to find in this articles:
* http://redchilliesvfx.com/rcvfx/#!/news/view-conference-2016
* https://twitter.com/Cinetvlandia/status/780664801215311872
* http://variety.com/2016/film/global/trolls-directors-view-conference-1201861829/
* http://escapestudiosanimation.blogspot.it/2016/09/escape-studios-is-going-to-view.html?spref=fb
* http://www.guerrestellari.net/2016/09/28/roger-guyett-effetti-speciali-risveglio-della-forza-view-conference-2016/
* https://vfxblog.com/2016/09/28/the-vfx-supe-who-doesnt-really-think-about-vfx-and-how-you-can-learn-from-him/
* http://www.quotidianopiemontese.it/2016/09/26/i-maestri-del-cinema-e-del-gaming-digitale-a-torino-per-view-conference-2016/
* http://moonbotstudios.com/news/adam-volker-view-conference-24-28-oct-2016/
* http://www.afnews.info/wordpress/2016/09/26/non-spingete-alla-view-ce-posto-per-tutti-dal-24-al-28-ottobre/

But how can I do it without make any mistake? Thanks a lot Elisa C talkElisa C (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that blogs and Twitter accounts are not considered to be
reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, articles are not indescriminate collections of links. As noted above, there are thousand sources available about the subject, but we only care about the ones which are reliable, relevant and useful to back the contents. Cavarrone 16:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 05:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karunasena Hettiarachchi

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

The only coverage that seems to be available is trivial mention in press releases, routine announcements, photo ops, and primary sources. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources seem to be available, and these are required for

requiring high quality sources ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject is clearly not notable - no sources available that establish any indication of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of which is significant coverage, just trivial mentions in passing. Fails
WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David "Kawika" Maszak

AfDs for this article:
    David "Kawika" Maszak (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)

    David "Kawika" Maszak is an excellent personal CV but lacks any notability. The subject has never been more than an unremarkable business executive. sirlanz 15:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Peekshare


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

    Sources are mainly PR. But, Silicon Week and Phone Arena are enough, in my opinion. Faintly passes

    WP:GNG. Please discuss. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Delete as my PROD here stated all of the concerns, I also noted that this was clearly part of a PR article campaign, given there were other articles involved about this; the sources are all PR and PR-focused and that alone, no amounts of planned improvements would help still, because the company is hoping for such funding, it shows it has not even established itself. SwisterTwister talk 16:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: Google is really not helpful when it comes to searching news. This compares the app with Snapchat and Instagram and shares the info about the app's USP being "targeted to users who do not want their apps to drain phone data." This is certainly not PR. Hence, faint keep. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 17:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak keep Sources like El Universal and PCWorld indicate notability, but there's not a great deal of coverage beyond PR. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Google is the best source however for searching for news, aside from searching at every single major new source itself, and even the L2Inc being questionable as a convincing source, it's only merely a limited number of sentences, finishing with some interviewed information. The two sources later listed aboce, are then simple guides showing what the company is and what it offers, it's not substantial coverage and the vote itself states it's PR. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I want to note that not only is it clear this article is part of a PR article campaign, it shows in that it has been contributed by several SPA accounts, the last one then actually removing the AfD nomination template with "Citing journalists who choose to cover an app in response to press releases where the journalists took the time and effort to interview the company's founder are not "mere press releases", which is not in fact convincing because simply stating that journalists talked about it, is by any and all means not a defense or guarantee that no PR or PR intentions were involved, quite the contrary, it shows it is all PR in that none of the sources go anywhere else but PR and also what the company would only say about itself. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it's a publicity campaign, but it seems possible there is some COI involved. Certainly two SPAa are not experienced with WIkipedia. The article creator did not correctly use the translated article template, and now a second SPA does not seem to understand minor edits, the difference between a PROD and an AFD, where to use or how to fill in a PRODFULL template, or where to contest an AFD. Meters (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I removed the proposed deletion/dated tag. This article complies with Wikipedia's noteworthiness criteria. The articles cited show the app Peekshare has been covered in the press. Journalists from several publications have taken the time to interview the app's creator and write original articles covering the app's features and customers. This has been critiqued as a "PR campaign." This concept is not relevant to the criteria for noteworthiness. Mbridge3000 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — Mbridge3000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Peekshare by User:Meters
    Please read your talk page. For the 4th time, you were removing the AFD notice, not contesting a PROD. Meters (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The comment of stating that removing the template was necessary because it complies with notability and is convincing is questionable because the concerns have been listed as it is, including with my own PROD which was extensive and specific about it; this article, along with a closely linked article which has since now been deleted, all suggest this is simply a PR campaign, since the comment itself goes as far to state "that journalists interviewed them!" Also, saying that this is in fact a PR campaign is a fact, because it shows the concerns, one of which is getting largely noticed in that this is only being touched by SPA users. Once we start making excuses and compromising about accepting such PR, Wikipedia is damned as an ad-free encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I am new. Isn't one of the wikpedian principles "don't bit the newbies?" I am learning how to contribute to this AfD process and apologize for my incorrect deletions. I am attempting to use the correct AfD process. I thought this was a PROD because that is mentioned in the first comment on the AfD page: "Delete as my PROD here stated all of the concerns, I also noted that this was clearly part of a PR article campaign, given there were other articles involved about this; the sources are all PR and PR-focused and that alone, no amounts of planned improvements would help still, because the company is hoping for such funding, it shows it has not even established itself. SwisterTwister talk 16:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)"
    Why are some comments suggesting that interviewing the subject of an article contrary to good journalism practices? I am deeply confused as to what point about noteworthiness that comment is trying to make. Please help me understand. Peekshare has been covered by multiple independent sources. These sources are verifiable and have been cited in the article. The terms PR and Public Relations do not appear in the notability page. Please explain how these concerns relate to the notability of AfD process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Mbridge3000 (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — Mbridge3000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
    list of content for rescue consideration
    .
    • Keep "
      WP:PROMO
      but this article does not violate that policy. The article has a neutral point of view. The information is written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics are verifiable and independent. Those in favor of deletion on PROMO grounds need to explain how this article violates the terms of the policy. "Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
    Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbridge3000 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Mbridge3000 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's a real product, and whether or not the article is intended for publicity purposes I don't see the article content as being excessively promotional. However, I'm not finding sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The sources in the article and others I've found are generally blog and press release type coverage of a company's new app and do not establish notability. Meters (talk) 04:25, 3 October 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. both JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dale mandela

    Dale mandela (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 know that if I speedy this somebody will say there is a claim of notability, but imo the sources used show that this slim claim is....well, slim. Fails WP:GNG, in the jargon. TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because its a duplicate;

    Dalemandela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


    I also think that there is a Slim Claim, but I would like to do a little research myself because there are some sources that show very little authentic facts but they do exist.

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 17:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- an unreferenced BLP on a insignificant subject. Strictly a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article lacks sources. References are the subjects own website and social media. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Crazy People (Herreys album)

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

    Article does not assert any

    WP:ITEXISTS. — JFG talk 15:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge to the rather sparse article on the group. As a top 10 hit in Sweden it has sufficient significance, and likely enough coverage in Swedish sources, but could probably be covered in the group article. --Michig (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mazen Khaddaj

    Mazen Khaddaj (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)

    Prod removed by article creator. I see nothing here to convince my that this person meets WP:Artist. Au contraire. TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- After looking for citations, shows, and collections, there does not seem to be evidence that this person meets the criteria of a notable artist WP:ARTIST or public figure. Netherzone (talk) 01:27, 2 October 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. Opinions are divided about whether the coverage is sufficient to pass

    WP:GNG, irrespective of whether or not a more specialized guideline's requirements are met.  Sandstein  12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Emily Henderson

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

    Fails

    WP:NFOOTBALL, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match or in a fully professional football league. Hack (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Keep Plays in the top-league in Australia, a country in the top 10 women's football teams in the world. It's ridiculous to apply the same
    WP:FPL rules to women's football when there are currently only 3 fully-pro leagues in the world. --SuperJew (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Completely agree with @
      WP:NFOOTBALL excludes the majority of top division women's leagues around the world. Time for the requirements to be updated in line with other projects. Hmlarson (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Comment – To those voting to keep (@
      WP:ROUTINE coverage. If you want to claim that the subject is notable you need to prove that is so, rather than just arguing that a guideline (which is a mere presumption) is incorrect. With the current sources out there, is there much prospect of this article being anything more than a basic stub? Macosal (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • They should be. The unfortunate reality is that
      WP:N in order to justify an article. Macosal (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • @Macosal:, and a male player whose only appearance in a top-division league is a five minute cameo at the end of a dead rubber match is notable for an article? The notability baseline should move from fully pro leagues to top division + fully pro. --SuperJew (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, as I said above.
      WP:N. Again I'd ask, are there enough non-routine sources to make Henderson's article more than a stub? I can't see evidence of that, and without that no article should exist, irrespective of gender or professionalism... Macosal (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per
      WP:NFOOTBALL failure. The reason there are only three fully-pro women's leagues is because there is less interest in them, and therefore the players don't have the same level of notability. Number 57 20:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete - fails
      WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete - Fails
      GNG. Editors arguing keep would do well to review this current AfD for an example of a female player whoc has not played in a fully professional league nore at a senior international level, but still has a number of dedicated articles written about her. Having done so, if possible, they should observe where similar articles exist for this player. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • @SuperJew: Well, completely ignoring the fact that you are trying to compare a full senior international with a routine club player, let's have a quick look. Now, my Vanuatuan is not strong but a two minute Google search throws up this which seems to me to be at least one article of reasonable length and of a non routine nature that seems to focus on the player. Now could I ask you to refrain from the creation of further pointless, not to mention incorrect, strawmen and concentrate on this player. Perhaps you might be able to show an example of some significant third party coverage she has received? Fenix down (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to me more a routine announcement of his addition with other players to some squad, but also not strong with my Vanuatuan so we're just guessing here. My point is that this double standard between genders is ridiculous. The majority of top men's leagues in countries are considered FPL because the sport currently pays them more. The extra payment leads to more advertising, branding, more fans, more money etc. While the women's leagues are underpaid if at all. If you want money to be your deciding factor in writing a free open encyclopaedia, that seems counter intuitive to me. --SuperJew (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well money is an easy, though not perfect way of indicating notability. No one is going to pay if they don't get something in return if there isn't the attention on a league it won't attract money and if there isn't attention on the league then the players aren't notable and that has nothing to do with gender . That said GNG still trumps everything and there are many many female footballers who meet NFOOTY having played senior international football who have no article or justa stub. It always confuses me that those who talk of gender bias always seem to discuss it in AfDs for minor club players rather than getting on and creating content for the genuinely more notable female international players. Fenix down (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - There seems to be some recent precedent 1 2 for giving the "benefit of the doubt" in these sorts of borderline WP:GNG cases. Obviously it's a systemic bias issue. The delete votes here apparently cite WP:NFOOTBALL almost as a reflex, even though, as others have said, it's proven itself inapt in the case of articles about women. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How does the subject pass
    WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Nice attempt to distract from the points raised in regards to (the Men's) Football Project. Hmlarson (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly fails both
    WP:NFOOTBALL. I'm not deflecting anything. Hack (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:FOOTY fails women's football. Yep, that's the point. Hmlarson (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is not the place to have this discussion, but I don't think it does. At a base level, you need to have some way of presuming notability or not - there are simply too many footballers in the world to make constant, individual assessments on each one. So WPFOOTY has created a set of indicia for players who are likely or can be presumed to be notable. Pro leagues is not a bad way of doing this, but if you have an alternative you should raise it at
    WP:N. Macosal (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Please, Pro leagues is not a bad way of presuming notability for men's leagues. It's a terrible way of presuming notability for women's league. In what way are the Dutch, Swedish and U.S. leagues different notability-wise to the Australian, English, French, German, etc. leagues? Playing at a top-level (+non-top-level pro leagues) seems a better way to go for all genders. Also add to the fact that many women play in two leagues during the year (because they need to eat), so therefore twice as likely to have notability. --SuperJew (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And you avoided the question about why it makes sense that any male player who plays 5 minutes in a dead-rubber match in the top-level league of the main football countries is considered notable, even if they have the same amount of coverage as a woman player in same position. We should either apply this coverage question to all footballers, regardless of gender, which would bring to deletion of many fringe male players, or go with as I suggested above, change the presumed notability to top-level leagues (which I prefer, since I prefer not to go around deleting articles). --SuperJew (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are fundamental issues with the viewpoint of the core of editors and these are as follows:
    1. The whole "top-level league" argument is routinely raised and routinely rejected for the simple reason that no one in their right mind would consider a player, of either gender, sufficiently notable for a standalone article because they have played in the Niue Soccer Tournament.
    2. Subject-specific notability guidelines must be equal for all genders.
    3. Women's football, like it or not, is far, far less popular on a global basis than the men's game. It has much lower tv audiences, it has much more sparse television coverage, there is only a fraction of the money in the women's game than the men's, attendances are much much lower. These facts are all a function of the popularity of the sport and therefore of its notability.
    4. This factual discrepancy is reflected in
      WP:FPL
      , it is not perfect, but, noting the "all player's in top-level leagues should be notable" argument above, no one has come up with a workable alternative that doesn't results in a lower notability for the women's game based solely on gender.
    5. The solution to the gender bias is not necessarily to change notability guidelines but to actually get editor's writing about female footballers. There are hundreds of female footballers who pass
      WP:NFOOTY already due to having made full international appearances (see Egypt as an example) and this only includes current players. Additionally, there are many female footballers (see this AfD
      for example) who fail NFOOTY, but pass GNG who do not have articles written about them.
    What needs to happen is for these gaps to be filled first, let all GNG satisfying female footballers have articles, then there is purpose in discussing the subject-specific guideline. The way this argument is being presented at the moment is always to my mind about quantity of articles not quality. Anyway, like Macosal said above, here is not the right forum; why does someone not start an RfC on this and get some third party input? Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. As I said at the start of this discussion,
    WP:NFOOTY doesn't confer notability, it creates a presumption (or not). Of course there are broader issues here, but I can't see how anybody can argue to keep an article about a player with seemingly 0 non-routine coverage in reliable independent sources, regardless of NFOOTY. Macosal (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Therein lies the problem
    Japan (ranked 8th) are "not professional enough". Does it make sense that a player playing regularly in the top-league of the 2nd or 3rd ranked country worldwide does not have the same presumed notability as a player who plays even one minute in a country ranked 143rd worldwide (even in the second league)? --SuperJew (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    SuperJew, you seem to be making a major error here there is no guideline that states that a man playing in a top level league is notable, only those in leagues that are deemed to have reliable sourcing to fully professional status.
    Furthermore, the notion that simply playing one minute in a qualifying league is sufficient is also not true. You may wish to review these AfDs: Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. They are all examples of male footballers scraping over the NFOOTY line, but never really progressing and then being deleted as GNG failures. Undoubtedly, there are many more out there and I would encourage you to nominate them.
    Finally it obviously makes sense that we don't assume notability for players in the top ranked women's leagues in the same way we do for the men, because they are inherently less notable. A simple analysis of key statistics shows that. For example, The FA WSL may be ranked 5th in the world for women's leagues, but this from the FA shows an average 2015 attendence of a mere 1,076. On the other hand , this shows the premier league to have had an average attendence of 35,324 for the same season, 33 times higher. Even if you look at the HK league you cited above, for the same season shows average attendences essentially equal to the WSL.
    This is the reason in microcosm why WP:FPL, although not perfect works in the main: the 148th ranked men's league is just as popular (and I note in a country with a much lower population) as the 5th ranked women's league. There is no getting around this fact: the women's game, globally, attracts far less interest than the men's and is comparably less notable as a result. I reiterate though, for the millionth time, there are hundreds, if not thousands of female footballers who are notable not just through GNG, but also through NFOOTY via senior international appearances. I don't understand why no one picks up on this and starts writing articles for them. Fenix down (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. When you actually take the time to learn about the history of women's football / soccer, contribute to articles about women's football / soccer players, and earn some deserved authority, let us know. Here's a clue: DO NOT RELY ON WP: FOOTY. Women players are largely excluded by the project in every WikiProject-related regard, it should really be re-named Men's Football. Maybe the growth of women's football is threatening in some way despite the first FIFA Women's World Cup occurring in 1991 vs 1930 for the men. You can find plenty more of this type of thing and numerous conversations just like this re: notability in the project archives. Hmlarson (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See also this kind of IP hilarity: [12], 2.
    Your ad hom adds nothing to the discussion. I'm not sure why you can't engage with a simple statistical analysis. Some sort of refutation of the observation that relative notability is perhaps indicated by simple statements such the FA WSL attracting as many spectators as the HK League would be more useful in supporting your argument. Anyhow, to me the best way to deal with gender bias is not to criticise other editors in AfDs on minor players but to get on and create articles on notable women. I already pointed out Egypt above. There are more than 25 articles on female senior international footballers in the current squad just waiting to be created and the rest of African women's football is just as neglected as far as I can see. Fenix down (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll get right on that statistical report to summarize how many times this type of thing occurs and is "managed" by most of the same WP:FOOTY editors here, despite a project that is made up of approximately 400+ editors. Hmlarson (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want those listed, just add sources as requested Fenix down (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For an essay? Ok. I'll also add {{cn|date=October 2016}} tags for "fully professional" mentions in
    WP:FPL. Hmlarson (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Maurishka

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

    No indication of meeting the notability guidelines at

    talk) 12:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to

    flyer 13:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Obox-ob

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

    This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to

    non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Prince of Demons

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

    This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The "keep" opinions merely assert the existence of sources, without addressing the "delete" side's concerns about their quality and the promotional nature of the content.  Sandstein  12:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nannyshare.co.uk

    Nannyshare.co.uk (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)

    Nannyshare.co.uk is unbridled, blatant advertising by a firm with no notability. A plea for improvement was made four years ago with no one interested in doing anything about it. sirlanz 11:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep A quick search turns up notable sources like Guardian, Financial Times etc. The article needs a overhaul.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete Google hits aren't enough, you have to actually look at them. I see press releases, passing mentions and promotional
      WP:PROMO nature of the article - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • There is a "keep" !vote above, and I also found references in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:58, 9 October 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) 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Lovelock

    Adam Lovelock (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 boxer. Does not meet

    WP:NBOX or other criteria. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable boxer who's currently ranked #332 in the world by Boxrec. Just fought his 18th fight--against someone with one previous bout. I found no significant independent coverage of him that couldn't be considered routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- no claim to notability; no meaningful bio content & no RS offered or available. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable boxer....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 8 October 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. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America1000 21:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim Se-jeong (singer)

    talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    • no notable work yet, she have not any notable solo work to need separate page in wikipedia such cast member in tv ,actng drama,album etc,delete and redirect to her bands.(Pikhmikh (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
      Talk to my owner:Online 02:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Keep - She is presenter of TV show Talents for Sale and also winner of reality program. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A TV presenter that by sources verified presents notable shows are not non-notable. IDONTLIKEIT does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you show us the notability guideline that says that TV presenters that present notable shows are notable,
      WP:GNG. In order to pass GNG, there needs to be significant coverage of the subject, not significant coverage of related topics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Keep - Article is about a TV presenter, per sources that verifies she is presenting notable shows. per WP:GNG.
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 18:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    flyer 10:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    flyer 10:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MER-C 05:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyler Hankinson

    Tyler Hankinson (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 boxer. Does not meet

    WP:NBOX or other criteria. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not meet the notability criteria for boxers and lacks the coverage required to meet
      WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MER-C 05:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    E. D. Marshall Jewelers

    E. D. Marshall Jewelers (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 significant or important for anything. Having been robbed happens to plenty of jewelery stores even if there was some local news coverage. Fails

    WP:NOTNEWS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 17:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 17:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Princess Zein bint Hussein

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

    A non-notable royal. Notability isn't inherited. Perhaps redirect to her fathers' page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep. I'm not sure that there's any formal declaration of where we draw the line for "presumptive notability" for members of the royal families of reigning monarchs, for whom, after all, their potential notability literally is inherited. In this case, the article's subject is the daughter of a reigning king (rather than any of the more obscure relationships that can nevertheless lead to someone being a "Princess"), and I'd be inclined to consider that sufficiently significant; certainly so in comparison to the British Royal Family, where grandchildren of the monarch have articles. That said, I can't imagine that there hasn't been some minimally sufficient amount of coverage of her in the Jordanian press, although that's poorly represented online (and largely in Arabic, naturally). I know that, at the very least, there has been mention of her in the context of her own immediate family. Her son, Jaafar, is a successful Jordanian singer (with international coverage; he is probably notable in his own right). Her daughter Joumana is involved in the fashion industry and has apparently received some coverage in the Jordanian fashion magazine Layalina. From sources I wouldn't deem particularly reliable, I know that her husband is the brother of
      fairly implausible that such topics did not receive coverage from JRTV or any of the Jordanian newspapers. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for both your work on the article and your opinion. I'll keep the AfD open and see what others think. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is the English Wikipedia and there's people who flock to keep articles on royal fetuses of the United Kingdom. Having this helps balance things out. This article can be improved with Arabic sources. Here is one I found.
    [13] According to an online translator, the sentence with her native name (زين بنت الحسين) says, "And for women from Friday at the home of the deceased object in Amman or sumac southern area next to schools Manthoor girl Princess Zein al-Hussein Street Building No. (8)." So she might have a street named after her. BigGuy88 (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:47, 1 October 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) 22:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tomas Karpavičius

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

    Contested speedy deletion. Article on a civil servant, which does not qualify for inherent notability and must pass

    WP:GNG. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case here. Just a good, solid civil servant, who was selected as a "civil servant of the year" in Lithuania in 2015 and received some coverage for it(1 and 2). Unfortunately, that coverage is either very shallow (source 2) or not independent (source 1 lists his employer as an author, so it's effectively a PR piece). Finally, the article reads like a CV, the sources in the article are not independent and the article seems to be edited entirely by a COI editor (the username of the contributor and the username of the uploader of the photo suggest they are related to the Ministry of Communications, the subject's employer). No longer a penguin (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk • mail) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk • mail) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per
      WP:PROMO; a weakly sourced vanity page. No indications of notability or significance. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:06, 2 October 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 21:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Shuhei Matsubara

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

    The football player has never played in a professional league, hence fails

    WP:NFOOTY. Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:34, 1 October 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) 22:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rhythmicru

    Rhythmicru (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)

    Delete. Band with no strong claim to passing

    blogs which are never valid support for anything at all. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which any band is entitled to an article just because they exist; RS coverage supporting a claim of notability that would pass one or more NMUSIC criteria is required. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Local or user generated sources only. No other sources exist that I can find. Delete. Fieari (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per
      WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page with puffed-up language such as "They were known[by whom?] for their guerilla marketing,[1] live shows,[2] and passion (!) for supporting the hip hop community.[3]. Nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 5 October 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) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Heron Recordings

    Heron Recordings (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)

    An unremarkable music label. The article lists two citations (one is inaccessible, and the other does not mention the subject). In any case, the citations appear to be about The Ballad Of Britain not the subject. Likewise, I cannot find significant RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - a few notable bands, but does not seem to have been active "more than a few years" according to NMUSIC#5. I could find no reliable sources to justify keeping via GNG or any other notability guideline. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:25, 5 October 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. Materialscientist (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mighty Fighters Gym

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

    The notability for this article is being disputed. To be fair given this was created by a new editor I am going to use AFD rather than CSD. I was able to find the business and improved the article accordingly. [1] Now I'll leave it to the community to decide whether the business is article-worthy. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ http://mightyfighter.com
    • Delete. As far as I can see this gym doesn't meet
      WP:CORP. Yintan  08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:33, 1 October 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, with the caveat that serious concerns have been raised about the tone of the article. If these issues are not addressed, deletion on the grounds of its promotional nature becomes a more justifiable option. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    OurCrowd

    OurCrowd (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)

    Extensively informed PROD removed with an overpersonal comment yet I clearly and staunchly stated my concerns in that not only is everything listed here PR, but the searches such as this one are exactly finding PR itself, simply because a major news source publishes something is not actually saying the contents themselves are convincing; because in this case, not only are there actually press releases, there's then other trivial and unconvincing news such as what funding and financing the company has and how it's seeking additional funding and investors-clients (there's even such blatant PR as the company then talking about its locations and offices!), and as past AfDs have shown of course, that's a classic sign of a company, not only not being actually notable, but they haven't even established themselves with financing. Once we start accepting such blatant PR and advertisement "articles", we're completely damned as an encyclopedia because of such trivial sources being passed as "news", the article itself only ever actually focuses with things the company would only say of itself, not what an actual encyclopedia publishes. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Clearly notable, but joins the big basket of "notable article invaded by advertising PR agent" type ones we have.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @ SwisterTwister. I agree completely with "Once we start accepting such blatant PR and advertisement "articles", we're completely damned as an encyclopedia because of such trivial sources being passed as "news", the article itself only ever actually focuses with things the company would only say of itself, not what an actual encyclopedia publishes." We should not accept such PR and advertising. But we also can't throw out any article which gets edited by a PR agent. It's a big problem because we lose a lot of notable content because on the surface the articles look like non notable cruft. What we need really is an official team supported by Wikimedia to patrol the site looking for advertising or articles threatend with deletion and get them to rewrite the articles and salvage them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - That's exactly the thing: accepting articles that were touched and overall contributed by the company and its PRvagents itself, is then actually hosting said advertisements, and it shows the need sources above clearly simply republished the company's own contents, therefore unacceptable. There is no compromise to accepting advertisements. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep  Lots of sources from around the world listed here.  Note that rewarmed press releases are secondary coverage, carrying the reliability of the secondary source.  Churnalism or not, attention to the topic occurs when a rewarmed press release is printed.  Newspaper's corporate lawyers remain just as responsible for what gets published, churnalism or not.  And Wikipedia's verifiability should never be confused with TruthTM.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There is no "truth", especially not an encyclopedia, if we accept press releases, which are essentially contents all by the company itself, simply stating there are sources, yet not specifying which ones are the ones which would be used, considering the consensus above shows and states otherwise, also "rewarmed press releases are secondary coverage, carrying the reliability of the secondary source" is not the case at all since republished PR is still PR, no matter where published, that's what exactly we should not be accepted, not finding excuses to actually use them. If any attention to churnalistic PR occurs, it's because it's been carriaged as PR, and that's still nothing we would actually accept. In the case of "verifiability", that is exactly why we would not accept PR because we are simply using the company's own words, not what an encyclopedia should use itself. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our policies and guidelines are not "excuses", they are the rules by which we operate as a community.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and one of the best policies we have is not accepting advertisements, and this is something we will always use should we continue as an encyclopedia, that's exactly why the sources above are unacceptable, because they consist of PR. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NOTADVERT is a policy, but where does it say anything like what you suggest?  Some specific words are "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:".  So your claim that "notadvert" applies to sources has a direct refutation.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
          ]
    • Keep – Meets
      available sources. Some sources provide coverage that is a bit on a routine level, but others provide more in depth information, such as overviews about the company, its history, present activity, etc. North America1000 05:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Coverage like this [30] profile/interview in Forbes make this Keep a slam-dunk. Notability is supported by coverage in RS. It just is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum I hit that article by running a google news search on "Jonathan Medved" + "Our Crowd" as a way of checking whether coverage is as shallow as a user above asserts. in addition to that Forbes article you get stuff like this in Fortune (magazine): "OurCrowd, based in Jerusalem, has helped 100 companies raise $300 million since 2013. It has a network of 15,000 investors from 110 countries, about 2,000 of which are active in deals, says Jonathan Medved, the platform’s founder. Half of the site’s investors are based in the U.S.Not only has OurCrowd helped startups raise hundreds of millions of dollars, it’s enabled many to do so quickly. For example, Medved says OurCrowd helped one fintech company raise $4 million in 48 hours about two years ago. While that’s not the norm, Medved says, it isn’t unusual for companies to raise large sums of money in a matter of weeks, or a few months.“We can consistently raise millions of dollar for companies,” Medved says.Much like a venture capital firm, OurCrowd has created four investment funds that focus on sectors, regions, or the phase of a company’s growth. When investors invest, they also do so through so-called special purpose vehicles, or SPVs. Those are limited partnerships that gather together the investors as a single entity, which solves the problem of having too many stray investors in your company.OurCrowd also rejects 98% of the companies that come to it for financing, Medved says, and its vetting process plus its investment structure has garnered the interest of VCs. Well-known venture capital funds, including US Venture Partners, Spark Capital, Menlo Ventures, and Charles River Ventures, have invested alongside OurCrowd in its platform companies.“My biggest concern, and reason for not doing [Title III raises] is that in its current format, it does not allow for the SPV structure,” Medved says. “When you can aggregate everyone and represent them, you can act like a VC investor." [31]. This is not mere recycling of press releases. Next I searched "Jonathan Medved" in the Wall Street Journal [32]. Just keep and tag for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That Forbes link is not an edited RS Forbes article, it's one of their third-party blog posts. It's just a blog post, not RS coverage of any sort. See
      WP:SPS - however, anything on forbes.com/sites that doesn't explicitly say "Forbes staff" or "From the print edition" is just a blog - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Note the other sources that I brought. I am still firmly persuaded hat this topic passes
      WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Delete. Im honestly not impressed by this article. The language written itself does not show proper notability. It reads as if it is a new startup who just got funding. Regarding its sources, 2 are of its own site and 1 is in Hebrew. sigh. the others are weak. Pyrusca (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Articles don't have to show any evidence of notability for the topic to be notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For more information, see
      WP:NEXIST, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." North America1000 23:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete -- per
      WP:PROMO
      and no indications of notability or significance. With content such as:

    References

    1. ^ http://www.geektime.com/2014/04/28/ourcrowd-gets-25m-for-its-own-funding-which-it-will-pass-on-to-its-portfolio/
    2. ^ "OurCrowd Global Investor Summit 2016". summit.ourcrowd.com. Retrieved 2016-01-24.
    3. ^ "Via Singapore, OurCrowd brings crowdfunding platform to Asia". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2016-04-05.
    this article is not in compliance with
    WP:NOT
    , and only serves to promote the company, rather than provide encyclopedic content. Sources brought to the AfD are equally unconvincing. They are only about funding, partnerships and corporate events, with no indications of why this company is significant:
    • OurCrowd, Bayer set up $15 million agtech fund in The Times of Israel.
    • OurCrowd draws 3,000 to Jerusalem Global Investor Summit in The Jerusalem Post.
    • Singapore's UOB and Israeli crowdfunding company team up in CNBC. Etc
    The statement "Note that rewarmed press releases are secondary coverage, carrying the reliability of the secondary source.  Churnalism or not, attention to the topic occurs when a rewarmed press release is printed is very odd, for two reasons:
    1. Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources, not just any secondary source. When publications redress press releases, they lose their reliability on this topic.
    2. I completely disagree that "attention to the topic occurs when a rewarmed press release is printed", given that Wikipedia has a policy on
      WP:PROMO
      . When companies run ads in the same publications, this would also attract "attention", but we don't base articles on ads, do we?
    Likewise, the Fortune article extensively quoted above is based on the interview with the founder. This is not an acceptable RS for the purpose of establishing notability. Note how many quotes from the founder are there. These are all potentially unverifiable claims, such as:
    • "Medved says OurCrowd helped one fintech company raise $4 million in 48 hours"
    • "“We can consistently raise millions of dollar for companies,” Medved says"
    • "OurCrowd also rejects 98% of the companies that come to it for financing, Medved says"
    We'd literally be able to use nothing from the article as far as encyclopedic content is concerned. I thus advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Wikipedia is
      WP:NOTNEWS to be basing its article on uncritical news coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Some editors have becomes notorious for unwillingness to reconsider their initial opinion on notability, doubling down even in the face of evidence like "OurCrowd Aims to Widen Pool of Angel Investors to Main Street,"
      Wall Street Journal article by Yulia Chernova, a journalist on tech and venture cap employed by the Journal [33] I linked to it above, but many editors only consider articles that support their own intransigent position. Here is the link again, although WAJ is password protected [34].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Here is the only place in WP:NOT that discusses "soapbox":

    3. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb

    neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews
    allows commentaries on its articles.

    Unscintillating (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not read as an opinion piece, in my opinion. North America1000 05:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article indeed reads like a promotional
    WP:SOAP for the company. Hence, I advocated deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    These are news pieces that talk about what the company aspirations are "OurCrowd Aims to Widen Pool of Angel Investors to Main Street" and how it raised money: "OurCrowd Ltd., a website that connects investors to a pool of mostly Israeli and U.S. startups, said it raised $72 million to expand its operations and invest in other businesses." This is routine coverage of venture capital deals and does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tofusquirrel

    Tofusquirrel (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 honestly would've PRODed but it may be drive-by removed so we'll go with something heavier and AfD instead; none of this comes close at all for actual independent notability and substance, the listed links are trivial and unconvincing, certainly nothing for actual improvements and certainly nothing for convincing, searches quite noticeably found nothing, aside from a few other trivial and unconvincing links of course. I have never seen an actually convincing article for a "poster illustrator" but if there are some, which I believe I may have actually, they have certainly been better than this article. This was actually PRODed before, which I was going to use but it was boldly removed citing the "apparent sources", yet ironically, there's still nothing suggestive of improvements and they are not going to happen since it seems nothing major has actually happened in her career. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete per nom - nice pictures, got work, nothing actually about her - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Nothing much to be found apart from the usual MySpace, Instagram, etc. Refs mentioned in the article (sources that might have carried more weight) are all dead links. Yintan  10:46, 1 October 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. Deleted by

    non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Gerrard Jonas

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

    Non-notable, no refs, vanity page of 18-year old. Should be speedied but since the 3(?) editors working on the article keep removing the speedy tags, I have to bring it here. Yintan  07:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagged, will do everything to keep notice up. Clubjustin Talkosphere 07:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted, closing. Clubjustin Talkosphere 07:50, 1 October 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Moshe Begim

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

    This is a poorly sourced attack ad. It boils down to "this guy was head of a company and accused of money laundering." It is riddled with "citation needed" links, and is written as an attack. Its presence in Wikipedia adds nothing, especially since the claim of conviction is to a non-working link that looks to not be a reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Johnpacklambert is 100% correct in this matter, and he knows that I do not hestitate to disagree with him. I did a good faith Google search and found no evidence of notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia; a strange mix of "crime blotter" and
      WP:PROMO. No reliable sources to be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 2 October 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 per

    (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Codenamed bob

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

    Does not appear to be a notable film. Searching for sources results only in profiles and not significant coverage.

    csdnew 03:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    csdnew 03:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:27, 1 October 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) 22:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Amit Kleinberger

    Amit Kleinberger (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)

    Business leader, but doesn't appear to meet

    WP:BIO. Can't find enough 3rd party, non-trivial coverage. A few interviews, but nothing substantial. Mikeblas (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as puffery advertorial words for a non-notable CEO of a barely to unlikely notable company itself, I have removed some of the puffery listed at the company article, there's certainly nothing at all convincing how he himself is acceptable for an article when it's all simply showers of company PR. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are many independent reliable sources that cover the subject to a significant extent. Passes
      WP:GNG. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- The LA Times source offered is a puffed-up article based on the interview with the subject. It's not an acceptable RS for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, promotion, puff piece of non-notable businessman. Reads like a company press release. Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 5 October 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator. (

    non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Sri Sankara TV

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

    No

    WP:DIRECTORY. Ayub407talk 09:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep and Close I don't know what the issue is here. This seems to be a mistaken nomination. The nominator quotes
      before nominating. It is not the number of citations inside the article, but the RS that exist in general that determine notability in deletion discussions. On just a simple Google News query, I ended up with a few hundreds of reliable sources on this channel's original programming and reach: Times of India, The Hindu, News Today, Times of India, Times of India, Times of India... I've added some sources to the article too. Well, I actually got tired of the number of sources. There you go. Lourdes 01:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    This wasn't a mistaken nomination and secondly, I do conduct searches before nominating any article for deletion whether it is CSD or AfD. All the search results found tells about what new shows or specials the channel will air. There's no search results found that talks about the channel itself. Anyways, I withdraw this nomination. Ayub407talk 08:22, 1 October 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. (

    WP:NPASR). North America1000 21:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Fusion Jonda

    Fusion Jonda (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)

    Subject does not meet general notability requirements Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 01:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 01:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:52, 1 October 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.

    WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Ghermez

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

    The film fails

    WP:NFILM while is not notable. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 00:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just the one opposite !! Irbox (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think the means for obtaining refs for iranian hurdles tend to be more difficult due to transliteration issues not always being amenable as well as a lack of coverage by wester sources. In light of that, desite the article by and large containing no secondary sources, it is nonehteless on a footing similar to other iranian films, hence I'm hesitant at setting a new precedent. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to The Effigies. MBisanz talk 19:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloodsport (music group)

    Bloodsport (music group) (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)

    Admits in article that "They don’t receive significant consideration at a time".  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 15:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 15:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 15:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to

    flyer 13:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Talona

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

    This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to

    flyer 13:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Auppenser

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

    This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 5 October 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. I'll restore and move to the draft space on request if someone can demonstrate there are paper magazine sources for this band that weren't online, and they can commit to incorporating those into the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yacøpsæ

    AfDs for this article:
    Yacøpsæ (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

    {{ping}}) 09:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_October_1&oldid=1142620959"