Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 4 October	6 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NetCrunch

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

I am uncertain about notability, but pretty sure about promotionalism. This was nominated for speedy in bad faith, by an editor whose article was rejected , but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be kept. It needs an analysis of the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These is nothing here except promotions. Agree with Nominee. Light2021 (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete clearly the article is just a bullet list of promotional terms. The company would have a better argument for being notable as a subject; it looks like there was an article on the company that got nominated for deletion and then redirected back to this article. See this revision from a year and a half ago. Best scenario would be to reverse the redirect, and write a neutral tone article on the company, which has been around almost 20 years. Probably being based in Eastern Europe makes it harder for an English work. But not clear if anyone has the time and skills to do that now, e.g. userify these two and rewrite? W Nowicki (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. Nothing to salvage here & let's not encourage the spammers by keeping such articles (see
WP:BOGOF); this just wastes volunteer editors' time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and Salt as I meant to comment sooner, everything is advertising as the nomination show and the the fact there's been the noticeable state and persistence of advertising is self-explanatory. The only solutions for these situations is to delete them and make sure they are not restarted with unconvincing information and sources, as such is now. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 10 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARC Fertility

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

My extensive PROD was removed and this should never have been accepted from AfC to begin with because none of this actually contains substance and I found suggesting otherwise, therefore this so certainly this an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note - Nominating an article for deletion based on a good faith belief that there are not enough reliable sources to show notability is fine, but claiming without evidence that "therefore this so certainly this an advertisement" is a gross breach of that good faith. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reads like a promotion, created by an SPA ... there's AGF and then there "in the face of observable evidence" - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And then there's actually discussing what matters: if this company has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. And it does not. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - promotional article, bad sourcing, a basic
WP:BEFORE turns up extensive press releases and occasional passing mentions in RSes - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - when searching sources, this is the Californian one - there's also an ARC Fertility in Chennai - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - standard searches not finding enough independent significant coverage in reliable sources. In this case, the company founder David Adamson may be more notable then the company. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails GNG; just promo. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "this an advertisement" is exactly right. Nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How was this ever accepted at AFC? There is no significant coverage to pass
WP:CORPDEPTH here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm also amazed that despite the glaring COI issue, it was never clarified. AFC reviewers are supposed to clarify this first. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 10 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) 05:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Vie

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

Appears to be non-notable; searches failed to turn up coverage in reliable independent sources that establish notability under

WP:NACADEMIC. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her "Digital divide 2.0" is very well cited (183 citations on Google scholar, very high for humanities) but it's not enough by itself and beyond it we have no evidence for passing any of the
WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Off to a good start, as judged by GS citations, but far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as trivial school positions and there's nothing at all to suggest this one would be taken differently, listed information is not suggesting anything better at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 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 redirect to Black Veil Brides (album). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faithless (Black Veil Brides song)

)

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

Non-notable; appears to fail

WP:NSONG. A google search failed to turn up significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album; band is notable, this song in particular hasn't done anything (charting, coverage) that I could find either - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and redirect to album. Not enough content to warrant an article. TheKaphox T 13:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Veil Brides (album) - non notable song however redirect is always prefferred over deletion, The article should be preserved in the history so object to deleting and redirecting. –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 12 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) 05:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changwani

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

I couldn't establish its

WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete or merge into
we usually delete or merge such stubs. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya and other similar AfDs. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:17, 12 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sağra Öztürk

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

Fails

WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - passes
WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
GNG. A google search brings back next to no results
.

Of the sources in the article, the first is simply a stat page from the Turkish Football Federation, whilst the second and third sources are a couple of brief paragraphs. I see the odd mention of her name, but there is nothing approaching the level of significant, independant coverage required for GNG.

This is unsurprising, there is almost no situation where a 16 year old footballer, of any gender, playing in an amateur, third-tier, regional competition who has not been capped at a senior international level would have attracted GNG-level coverage. It is perhaps telling, re the notability of this level of competition, that none of the clubs competing at this level have their own article.

@Hmlarson: you state she meets GNG, could you please help by noting what sources you have found that provide this level of coverage. I cannot find them myself, though am perhaps hampered by the language barrier. Fenix down (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When

WP:FOOTY (men's football) as it excludes a significant percentage of women footballers around the world, doesn't it? Hmlarson (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't really understand what you are talking about. I'm not sure why the length of time women have been playing football in Turkey is of relevence to this AfD, a subject is notable or not, its age is irrelevant. NFOOTY is relevant as she is not a senior international but my focus was on GNG. You seem to be avoiding my request to show sources provide Significant coverage: coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, and is more than a trivial mention. (as specifically required by GNG). The sources in the article are at best a paragraph on her and at worst a mere mention of her name:

TFF - stat page from Turkish Football Federation, not relevant for GNG.
bizimyaka.com - very brief article on the U15 team, not specifically on this player. Ozturk is mentioned once by name, no further content on this player within
mavikocaeli.com.tr - general article on girls football covering a number of topics. Ozturk is covered in one sentence only which I believe notes she scored in the first minute. No further content within.
ozgurkocaeli.com.tr - very brief 69 word article on the player, not "significant coverage" per GNG.
haberturk.com - this is a
routine
match report on the U17 team as a whole. Ozturk is mentioned once by name, with no significant comment.

Can you please help me understand what I am missing here and why these equate to GNG? I don't see any indication of articles dedicated to her, interviews with her, career summaries. I'm struggling to even find a quote from here. Like I said above though, that may be the language barrier and I am happy to change my vote if you can show significant coverage, but all I am seeing is the briefest of mentions. Fenix down (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Context. It requires more versatile thought than adhering to a stale and severely outdated notability guideline that largely focuses on white men. Here's another one:

http://www.bizimkocaeli.com/haber/spor/fatma-sagra-ozturk-u-17-milli-takiminda/154975.html Brief - yes, however this is not uncommon with regards to media coverage about even top-tier female athletes around the world.

I don't have the time to focus on this right now - but it looks like there are more from a Google search based in the United States - not Turkey. Hmlarson (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is GNG focussed largely on white men? We're not talking about NFOOTY here, though you might want to have a look at WP:FPL again and get your facts right. 51% of the countries mentioned are populated in the majority by non-white people (though god know's why you are now bringing race into this argument).
You're right, that is brief, she is mentioned in three short sentences at the end, the rest is about the U17 team as a whole. I still don't see anything that is not trivial, nor do I see anything in the article that is not really contained within source 4 above which is a very similar team announcement content-wise.
If media coverage about even top-tier female athletes around the world is often brief, does this not make a point about notability in the real world? It's not Wikipedia's job to correct this by lowering the requirements of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that NFOOTY is largely irrelevant to women's football? That guideline with it's perpetually incomplete notability essay which you appear to closely monitor and edit is what the editor who created this AFD is citing. Hmlarson (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY is a subject-specific guideline. I feel it is very relevant to football in general as it sets in stone that regardless of gender all senior international footballers are deemed notable. The fully professional element is far from perfect, but no one has come up with a better alternative. The whole "top division players are notable" is a repeated non-starter for obvious and oft-repeated reasons. Whilst women's football is growing in popularity, it is an undeniable fact that, bar a few pockets, it is, on a global level, significantly less popular in terms of the audience and coverage it attracts than the men's game. That may well change in the course of time, but at the moment, that is the state of play.

That being the case, we are only left with GNG, which is the leading guideline anyway. The fact that the editor only cited NFOOTY by no means restricts the discussion simply to that, GNG discussion is always part of any AfD by definition. In terms of monitoring WP:FPL, I don't believe I have never added any content, I have only ever removed unsourced claims or sourced claims which have not previously been discussed on the talk page and consensus achieved, though I'm not really sure why any of this is relevant, we are talking solely about GNG in this instance.Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural questions - This article was not tagged with {{Template:Notability}} nor {{subst:proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} prior to this AFD. @
WP:BEFORE? Hmlarson (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

You should be aware that there is no obligation either to place templates on a page or Prod and article before taking it to AfD, in fact prodding should only really be used if the prodder feels the article deletion won't be contested. Additionally, per this it is only noted as coutrteous to inform article creators, it is not an obligation. You are right though that the article creator should be invited to participate, I have left a note at their talk page. Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi there again FD! My question was for the nominating editor, but thanks! Hmlarson (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying above and saw the comment. Looking at it though it does seem a bit officious, sorry about that. At least the article creator is informed though. Fenix down (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 16 year old who plays for a non notable club. Just being in a under 15 national team doesn't make you notable, I think only about 5-6% of u-15 or u-17s male or female have articles because 1) not a full national team and 2) 14-16 year olds rarely play games in fully pro leagues. Appearing on a few match reports is not enough for
WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:41, 10 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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Seattle Sounders FC Academy

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Seattle Sounders FC Academy

Articles for deletion/Seattle Sounders FC Academy (2nd nomination)

Seattle Sounders FC Academy (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)

Resubmitting this article for deletion discussion. My first suggestion that this league was a youth league was proven wrong, fair enough, it's an academy league. But I honestly do not believe that a 4th tier, amateur-level US soccer/football academy league meets
WP:GNG
standards on its own. Here are my arguments against this:

1) Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, all sports teams must meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requirements, so my following points will discuss those aspects.

2)
Notability is not inherent
. Arguments against this deletion often stated that "the consensus was that academy leagues are notable." Per policy: "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists" Practically all sources given for this academy team are local in nature, not regional nor national.

3)
Notability is not inherited
. There is not an argument that this academy league is indeed affiliated with its respective parent club, and it may have indeed produced notable players, but that does not, by definition, make the academy club itself notable.

4)
Fails depth of coverage
. Multiple, independent sources have not been cited to establish notability of this academy league. Again, sources are local to the team.

5)
Fails local unit notability
. Direct quote from this rule: "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area."

Now, I can agree with the opinion and would even support a Merge of this content to its respective parent club page. But on its own, this page fails. SanAnMan (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nom, merge into Seattle Sounders FC. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Seattle Sounders FC. That's what's generally done with other youth academies unless they can stand on their own. Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent article - but please note it's an academy team, not an academy league... Giant Snowman 08:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
WP:FOOTYN, then the article can be recreated. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into Seattle Sounders FC - no indication of separate GNG-level notability. Fenix down (talk) 17:34, 10 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) 05:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centina Systems

Centina Systems (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 do not see how the available references show notability;; there was p previous speedy tag added in bad faith by an ed. whose article was rejected , but it still merits discussion DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Declines the speedy as it was bad faith, and there was kind of a claim of notability. Fails
WP:CORP though. Joseph2302 20:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as certainly advertising with only saying what there is to advertise about the company; the history shows this was clearly simply started as an advertisement campaign, nothing else suggesting otherwise at all, certainly not substance at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches return routine announcements about deployment of this firm's products (noting false positives from other firms' products also named vSure), but I am not seeing the substantial coverage needed for
WP:CORPDEPTH, nor are the listed awards sufficiently specific to be notable in themselves. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as spam about 100% likely to have been created by a paid editor, which is against policy. With content such as "The Company focuses on helping businesses worldwide assure ..." this is strictly a investor and client prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 10 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. Sorry,
WP:N. Sandstein 07:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Josephine de Gersdorff

Josephine de Gersdorff (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 per
WP:GNG. The way it is currently written, the subject of the article is attempting to inherit notability from her father and brother. Nothing in the article really explains what makes her notable aside from her notable father and brother, which goes against WP guidelines for notability. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I am not done with this article. Josephine was my grandmother and her son, my father was the late Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post. Josephine received the French National Order of the Legion of Honor for starting an orphanage for parents during Nazi Europe to send their kids to Josephine for protection.

I'm sure that your grandmother was a worthy person, but that doesn't mean that she is an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. It appears that she was a chevalier in the Légion d'honneur, which is a higher honour than I have ever received, but, beng the fifth and lowest level of membership, is not enough to be the basis for an article in this encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There are a lot of people on Wikipedia that I feel do not deserve to be on Wikipedia. In my mind setting up an orphanage to help Jewish children escape the Holocaust is a pretty notable thing. She was also a descendant of the royal and imperial house of Habsburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbradlee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I also thought that she would be an important figure in woman's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbradlee (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a Wikipedia article is not some kind of badge of honour for doing good works, so has nothing to do with anyone deserving anything. And being the descendant of a royal house is totally irrelevant unless that descendancy grants any official position. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbradlee (talk • contribs)

22:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If you can provide a sufficient amount of reliable sources it may be enough to meet
WP:BLP guidelines. I simply was not able to come up with anything other that what was provided. You are more than welcome to add additional information and sources to the article, there is still quite a bit of time before the page will actually be deleted, if it is determined that it should. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you. I have a few more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbradlee (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and then let the editor submit it through the articles for creation process. To begin with this article seems that it should be at Josephine Bradlee since that is the name she used during her time of notable action. The article needs to say a lot less about the subjects parents, and avoid saying anything about earlier ancestors. We need statements about the subject. Right now this is a coatrack on the Gersdorff family. The editor needs to bear in mind that in Wikipedia we almost always used a subject's married name, thus we have an article title Mia Love, not under her maiden name Mia Bourdeau, or we have Hillary Clinton not Hillary Rodham.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We use the most common name in English language sources - whether it's the maiden name or a married name. And names are not always changed after marriage btw. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see below: Original comment; <s.Userfy as "Josephine Bradlee" -- a mess of an article which is mostly about other people. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the name and say a lot less about her ancestors. The only reason why I did that was because I have seen some articles that mention if somebody is a descendant of somebody important or a noble. I was just then going to mention that her father was a wealthy New York lawyer and just mention her parents with the dates next to them. I was hoping to keep that her great, great grandfather was a Baron, but I will take out the rest and add more about Josephine.

I've just spent a couple of hours digging out the sources that you cited and formatting them in a way that should make it easier for others to check them out. I've tagged a few as needing further information, such as page number, article title and year of publication. If you could supply that information, and also identify any of the sources that have more than a sentence or two about your grandmother rather than mention her in relation to other family members, then there is is a chance that we might be able to keep this article, but I'm not yet seeing any such coverage. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ (Updated below) and change the title is required. Personally I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. But I'm willing the give the article creator a chance. I would also prefer if the article goes through AFC and all
conflict of interest is properly declared. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I really don't see the point of userfying this. The sources cited in the article, and any that I can find elsewhere, are all passing mentions in passages about other family members, and there are over 100,000 chevaliers in the WP:ANYBIO. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (possibly userify). The French honour is not all that unusual. A programme to rescue French children from the Nazis might be significant: I do not know how many others there were. Being related to people who have WP articles is a classic case of notability not being inherited. I would recommend the author to go through the formality of registering with WP and to spend a little time working on improving articles not related to his family to familiarise himself (or herself) more with the way WP operates, before returning to this article and moving it back to main space, if it is userified. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a citation has been added to page 249 of this source, which does no more than say than name the subject in a footnote as her son's mother and her grandfather's granddaughter. We need more than such barrel-scraping. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on second thoughts. There's not been improvement to the article and it seems unlikely, as the subject appears to lack independent sources to confirm notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wanted to give a chance but the quality of citations added make me doubt if at all significant coverage exists. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete the article then. I thought that a women in those days earning the French Legion of Honor was a pretty big deal as well especially for what she did. I also thought that all people new that women did not women did not really get a chance to accomplish much in those days, which is again why I thought this would be an important article. I have also seen articles here where they talk about people with what they did, which is not that much, but they mention there very noted ancestors. So whats wrong with me doing the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbradlee34 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch McCarthy

Mitch McCarthy (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 WP:Notability. TheKaphox T 18:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a sound engineer and just one of the many people who have worked to create all those artist's album. That does not give him any notability for a Wikipedia article. He fails WP:NARTIST/WP:NMUSIC if he can be categorized in those. There is zero coverage on him in RS anywhere, there are not even some blog who talk about him. He fails GNG this way too. The article has been created by a single purpose account and there is probably just there for WP:PROMO. It should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He was viewed as notable enough to cite within other wiki articles of the albums he has worked on. For example, Emotion cites Mitch along with other mix engineers who worked on the same project who also have their own pages Manny Marroquin, Robert Orton, and Rich Costey. If they are notable enough for the same work to have a page, what limits Mitch's notability? Mvandehei (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvandehei: You were the one who added the links to Mitch McCarthy on the articles such as Emotion (Carly Rae Jepsen album). There are hundreds and hundreds of people involved in working on albums such as Jepsen's, and the vast majority of them aren't notable enough to have their own articles, such as McCarthy. TheKaphox T 19:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TheKaphox: I linked it back to his article but his name was already listed a long with all the others cited. What makes McCarthy any less notable where he should not have his own article but Marroquin, Orton, and Costey should? Mvandehei (talk) 15:447, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Alternative Press. TheKaphox T 20:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@TheKaphox: I will again cite that the article meets the General Notability Guidelines including the point that "determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." Please see the continued addition of secondary sources and the fact that a mix engineers role on a project is not for personal opinion but a well credited engineer should be noted as such. Mvandehei (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google suggests that he has a decent YouTube presence, but that's not the same as being notable. Like Dead Mary, I couldn't find any RS. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His sources come from credits on the tracks he has mixed. The various links from other wiki articles ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4], along with Discogs and AllMusic prove the credibility of his work citations. Mix engineers are not highly publicized but equally notable. The article meets the General Notability Guidelines including the point that "determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." Other mix engineers on the same albums Mitch is cited on have their own wiki articles and similar, if not less, sources (see above comment). mvandehei (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2016

Delete Article lacks independent, third party sources ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - arguably, based on the large number of credits, there ought to be more and
releiable sources on this subject. I'd give the editors a week to work on it, or possibly userfy it. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Do Not Delete Sound Engineers are largely under reported on but Mitch clearly has a large number of credits, not all of which are listed here, based on the AllMusic and Discogs links. He is credible based on the source from a reputable management company linked in his bio. He is referenced and linked to numerous artist and album profiles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvandehei (talk • contribs) (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2016 Mvandehei (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)mvandehei[reply]
@Mvandehei: All the articles that link to Mitch McCarthy (as seen here) are links that have been added by yourself. Infact, on the commons file for the infobox image, the user states that the page was created by "the management team of Mitch McCarthy". TheKaphox T 18:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TheKaphox: I have added in external links from outside sources, none of which I have access to editing, where his work has been cited to prove the credibility and acuracy of the article. The image is owned and was uploaded by his management team and is cited on their website ^[5] Mixers are generally not heavily talked about in media outlets but that does not deny their notability nor their role on a project. Numerous other mix/sound/audio engineers have Wiki articles such as Jeff Ellis and Jim Anderson and they too have limited sources with their names attached. mvandehei (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2016
@
WP:PSTS. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. The website you linked to, "Rebel One", seems to be directly affiliated with Mitch McCarthy, which makes it a primary source. TheKaphox T 19:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@TheKaphox: That one source is primary but the sources such as the article from Audio Technology Magazine and all sources relating to his credits are secondary sources and not affiliated with him. mvandehei (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2016

Do Not Delete "The word "notable" is used on Wikipedia to mean that independent reliable sources have taken notice of the subject." Not to mean of celebrity status. This is an unbiased account of Mitch McCarthy's work on notable and well cited projects. mvandehei (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2016 Mvandehei (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)mvandehei[reply]
Please contain all your comments in one bullet point, instead of replying twice. TheKaphox T 18:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TheKaphox: sorry about that, still learning how to work on a talk page. Will take note. Mvandehei (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)mvandehei[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Alma (radio personality)

Blake Alma (radio personality) (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've found no evidence this subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, per
too soon to have an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added additional non-affiliated sources. I believe he is notable, due to the fact he is a young, international radio show host, the founder of an outdoor media site, and an outdoor writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigman2700 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most references appear to be "about the author" blurbs, which are generally self-written. Goodreads and other user-generated sites and blogs are
"Golden rule" of Wikipedia for a brief overview of what articles needs. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you know all those "facts" for sure? He has notibilty to his profile, whether those sources are what you say they are or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigman2700 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is a measure of the quality of sourcing. There's no such thing as "has notability to his profile" — our notability criteria are passed or failed by the quality of the referencing that's present to support the article, and nothing that can be stated but not properly sourced in the body text, not even "second coming of Jesus Christ", ever confers an exemption from having to be
reliably sourced to coverage in sources that are independent of the topic. Bearcat (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are even close to being indepth, reliable sources that are indepedent from the subject. They are either by him, or about the subject blurbs. We need things a lot better to justify having an article on a 16-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has all the appearance of self publicity or publicity by an agent. Somebody is certainly very active in tampering with this debate, which is never a good sign. I can see no
notability here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The sources here are all
reliable sources that can carry notability. And his radio show is "international" only by virtue of being on an internet radio stream, not by real terrestrial syndication. Bearcat (talk) 07:55, 12 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. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of teams and cyclists in the 2016 Tour of Britain

List of teams and cyclists in the 2016 Tour of Britain (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)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Consensus decisions#Race start lists Bald Boris 10:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior consensus noted at
reliable sources. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior consensus and that Grand Tours are the only exceptions to this. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:16, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Olden

Michael Olden (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 GNG: Unable to identify any demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpb^T 17:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands not well sourced enough for a BLP, no evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Article doesn't include (and cannot seemingly find) reliable sources that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. To meet GNG and SIGCOV, at least some of the supporting material would be about the person (ie: the person would be the primary topic of the article/book/whatever). Here however we only see/find material which mentions the person (ie: something else is the primary topic of the articles/etc, and the person is just mentioned). While the latter type of material meets WP:VER for inclusion of content about a subject, it does not meet WP:NN for creation of an entire article about a subject. Guliolopez (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The line about "as a historian Dr Olden would have contributed" is a shouting line saying there are no sources and nothing to cite. The acticle lacks sourcing to justify it existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think heading a small seminary, even if it's the main one in its country, is enough for
WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I think this is a significant enough institution to qualify under
WP:PROF, maybe not in size but certainly in stature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete -
common enough that they are not automatically notable. Fails my standards, but I'm willing to be convinced overwise, so ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - president of the "National Seminary for Ireland" seems significant enough that there should be plenty for GNG even if it isn't online, and it may qualify under WP:PROF#6. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. clearly meets WP:PROF as effective head of a major theological college. Nothing more needs to be shown. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more note about Maynooth, almost(?) all of the former presidents have pages. Most are notable beyond being president of Maynooth, but not all. Some pages are stubs.Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF, but also separately notable as president of a significant national institution, ~~and in my personal opinion only, also independently notable as a catholic archbishop.~~ Thparkth (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he isn't a Catholic archbishop (or even a bishop); had he been then he would be notable beyond any doubt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're quite right - I misread the relevant section of the article. Thparkth (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep as the President and Chancellor positions at 2 different schools is enough by all means and there's enough for WP:PROF alone. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- notability has been sufficiently demonstrated. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 23 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Razumikhina

Daria Razumikhina (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. The most likely candidate from The Telegraph is a piece written by her husband. The others all appear to be regurgitated press releases with pretty family photos and studio mug-shot. Nothing here convinces me of any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete lacks indepdent sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a great fan of this designer I contributed to the article, please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brun2015 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment Above user obviously has a
COI issue with the subject. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:GNG --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep sorry, but Daria is one of the most well known Russian designers, who did not have a wiki page, I do no understand what is the problem with GNG here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzer2007 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 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) 05:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas anthony denmon

Nicholas anthony denmon (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 enough coverage in
WP:NAUTHOR. He blogs at HuffPo and his bio is the only place I found on the web that discusses him. Jbh ^Talk 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There do not appear to be any public, independent,
we are not a webhost for authors' publicity purposes. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is in fact actually speedy material since the "best known" claims are certainly questionable and give no actual substance for an article, everything else listed is entirely trivial. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 10 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) 05:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Losebinne

Losebinne (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 was PRODded but I'm bringing it to AFD because I didn't feel 100% confident in pulling the trigger on it. The subject is a Chinese writer known only by the pen name Losebinne, who (the article asserts) is a famous novelist.
The PROD nomination was rather long but I'll attempt to sum up the arguments here:

The article doesn't assert notability

The article is badly written and reads like an ad

There appears to be no Chinese Wiki equivalent article

Searches turn up little evidence of the subject

Personally, I disagree with point 1 (the article clearly asserts notability) and point 2 is not a reason to delete an article. I'm just not sure about points 3 and 4: I found a lot of hits for the subject when searching in Chinese (消失宾妮 ) though not many for the Pinyin transliteration (xiaoshibinni), but Chinese is all Greek to me. Some of the article's references can be dismissed out of hand, as they're sourced to Baidu Baike, another crowd-sourced encyclopaedia. But I'm not certain of the others and it would be very helpful to have a Chinese reader weigh in. A Train^talk 15:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since my original nomination was rather equivocal... I support deleting this article based on the reading of the sources by Madalibi below. A Train^talk 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. A Chinese speaking friend sent me this interview with the article subject from Sina.com, one of China's major news portals. I might just retract this nom. I've already pinged WikiProject China for an assist. A Train^talk 16:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC) See newer comments below. A Train^talk 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm my extensive PROD here and, unless actual good sources can be found, which seems unlikely given the listed information, I'm not seeing the substance we would need. SwisterTwister talk 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of many thousands of online writers in China. She should be notable for an entry in the Chinese Wikipedia but most likely not here. Since the vast majority of our readers are outside of China, it is extremely unlikely anyone is going to intentionally search for the subject and there are language problems all over the article. Above all, despite I think the materials in the article are generally true, the sources given are of very poor quality, mostly Baidu Baike (as mentioned) and Douban (which is a forum/Q&A Social Media site).
| Talk 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not a single source cited in the footnotes would be considered a
Douban.com, which Wikipedia presents as "a Chinese SNS website allowing registered users to record information and create content related to film, books, music, and recent events and activities in Chinese cities". Note 5: a thankfully brief collection of platitudes allegedly said by that writer, and presented in the third person ("likes trying all the flavors of milk tea, doesn't care if she will get fat"). Note 6: a reader's assessment of one of the writer's works on book.douban.com (part of Douban). Note 7: Losebinne's blog on Sina.com. Notes 8, 10, 12, and 13: brief entries on her works on Baidu Encyclopedia. Notes 9, 11, and 14: brief entries on the author's work on book.douban.com; no information: just readers' ratings. Summary: a mix of self-published sources, promotional material, and fan content. Not the stuff an encyclopedia is made of. Madalibi (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Madalibi, thank you very much for the Chinese reader's perspective. I think that's pretty conclusive. Does this article move the needle in either direction? A Train^talk 17:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome,
WP:AUTHOR. Madalibi (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks again, Madalibi, really. It's good with articles like this that we aren't just reinforcing our default Western bias and checking with people who can actually understand the sources. A Train^talk 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome again,
reliable sources on this topic, in which case I will gladly reverse my support for deletion. Madalibi (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:56, 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 Speedy delete. As blatant a piece of promotion as I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk) 16:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Mohammad Umaid

Mohammad Umaid (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 appears to be a resumé. Nadair5 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It is a resume, which, by definition, is a form of
advertising. Tagged for speedy deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete. Could not be more clearly a candidate.--Rpclod (talk) 16:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Harter

Mathias Harter (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)

Another non-notable small-town mayor. Coverage from local media on local issues only. No significance whatsoever outside his own small town. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but
WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
most mayors of such small cities are too common for each to have their own article. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree with Bearian almost to a tee. Dolotta (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being mayor of La Crosse does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 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. If
WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Miss Supranational Ukraine

Miss Supranational Ukraine (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 had been
PRODded but it's ineligible: the article was previously PRODded (and deleted
) in 2014.
The article covers a regional beauty pageant in Ukraine that feeds into a global Miss Supranational contest -- whose article was deleted at AFD in 2014. All of this article's cousins have been deleted for lack of sources and notability, Ukraine is the last supra-man standing. A Train^talk 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no authoritative references. Per nominator, the apparent parent has already been found non-notable.--Rpclod (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No significant coverage. The parent article was deleted.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could just be my filter bubble, but I found literally one hit in GNews, which is a fluff interview with a contestant. Consider salting to forestall rising yet again - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty pageant title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT Parent article was deleted as not notable. This pageant isn't notable either and if the article isn't SALTED it will be back....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 6 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) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QantasLink Flight 1623

QantasLink Flight 1623 (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)

Proposed deletion that was contested without a reason given. The PROD rationale was: Coverage of this seems to amount to "something could have happened, but nothing really did". Does not meet
WP:EVENT Sjrct (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - this event does not meet
inclusion criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article just screams of
WP:RECENTISM. It was a flight that was diverted due to plane trouble. No one hurt, and honestly a big deal over nothing. Had this event occurred prior to the advent of immediate news of every little thing, this would be a 1-2 minute blurb on the news and forgotten. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable. Relatively minor event that happens frequently. See
WP:NOTNEWS. MB 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete - not at all notable, this sort of thing is literally an everyday occurrence in aviation - aircraft develops [insert problem type here], aircraft lands, no problem. Media in Australia tend to get hysterical about anything at all involving the airline of the flying kangaroo; having said that, I hadn't even heard about this. ~~YSSYguy (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy Delete under Category G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 1623. YSSYguy (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YSSY: if you want G4 you should tag the article with {{Db-g4}}. Has an article with this title been created before??--Petebutt (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the speedy delete template, hopefully an admin can sort out the AfD, which is essentially redundant--Petebutt (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#G4 does not apply to recreations after speedy deletions; the previous AFD was closed on that basis rather than on the merits of a discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
There isn't a Speedy Deletion criterion that would apply to any first iteration of an article of this nature, so surely the previous deletion had to have been as a result of the discussion. YSSYguy (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Actually CSD A7 would apply, that being an non-notable event {{db-event}} being the exact tag to be used. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)~~ Ignore this, I misinterpreted it. The original article was deleted through A7 though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As A7 was misapplied to the first iteration article - it being not an organized event - it is clearly inappropriate to G4 Speedy this version, so I am again arguing for deletion based on lack of Notability as per my struck-out comments above. YSSYguy (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:GNG--Petebutt (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - completely non-notable aviation incident. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 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. Sandstein 09:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AXiomatic

AXiomatic (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)

Queried speedy delete as advertisement Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)d[reply]

Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and subject does not meet general notability requirements Meatsgains (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, clearly notable based on the amount of coverage, which includes the
LA Times, ESPN, and Sports Illustrated. Given the status of this page as a stub it may be a good idea to redirect somewhere though.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Changing to Redirect or merge, what little content there is can be covered in the Team Liquid article.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect to Team Liquid if needed, because even the 2 links suggested above as being convincing are in fact not, simply they simply focus with the ownership of the team, what ever else is listed here is simply trivial and unconvincing PR, also focusing with what the company would say about itself therefore certainly not convincing, and it's not surprising since this is advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the "RSes" fail to provide
WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 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.

I redirected it to Team Liquid#Ownership. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

64 Studio

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/64 Studio

Articles for deletion/64 Studio (2nd nomination)

64 Studio (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 topic of this article does not meet WP:GNG; there are too few non-trivial third-party references. The piece cites mainly dead links and primary sources. Mentions in catalogs or exhaustive lists aren't claims of notability. The project has become defunct. Mikeblas (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find only
WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as I'm literally finding nothing else so all we have close to independent sources are the three listed sources, the 2008 AfD is an example of how minimally thoughtful it was then, and this article has no other signs of actual independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of NVMe Solid State Drives

Comparison of NVMe Solid State Drives (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-Too technical for an average user to understand!!Doubt whether there is any importance of the classification!
❯❯❯ Vanguard 13:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia is not a product guide. This kind of snapshot table gets out of date very quickly. Someone looking at this ten years from now might consider these products not notable at all. W Nowicki (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article, belongs in a tech magazine. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as wikipedia
is not a technical guide.Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eustacia Andrapov

Eustacia Andrapov (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 minor fictional character from a series of computer games. No evidence to notability, no sources. Fails even basic
WP:GNG. My Pants Metal (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is a good case for WP:Fancruft, relevant things have already been said in the nomination, she is just a side character in a game series. There is no independent coverage of this character anywhere. She does not pass WP:GNG and the article should therefore be deleted. This article should be put into fan wikias (it actually already is). Dead Mary (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article fails
Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 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. Sandstein 09:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Shorto

Charlene Shorto (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)

Fame
notability. Article does not demonstrate any notable act or role for this individual. giso6150 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Attempting to inherit notability by association. Per nom above, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BhavyaBharat

BhavyaBharat (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 website is nothing notable. Sources are promotional in nature!
❯❯❯ Vanguard 11:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@ARUNEEK This is first kind of application providing more than 30 online services and basically providing online services to rural part and it is approved by digital india by indian government and it reduces unemployment and anyone can make money without investment by providing online services to public. Please check all these media articles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZed9U_T2OE - Telecasted in Public Tv Kannada News channel. http://www.bfirst.in/news/itbt/9424/honey-they-shrunk-world http://www.pocketnewsalert.com/2016/06/First-of-its-kind-in-India-Jobs-through-your-Smartphone-App-that-provides-33-services.html
and The application used by rural population in india. and this application founded by Dhananjay Acharya from small village
Paytm is created in wikipedia no use of this.. but this one application providing online services to rural part and reducing unemployment.

This App helping and providing self employment.. but what Paytm company providing they are making money by providing services. but you people keep that page in wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietdhanu (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note - Hi all, for what it's worth, I just indeffed Quietdhanu for spamming newkannada.com across multiple articles. I believe he's part of an advertising ring and/or is engaging in sockpuppetry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hve removed much of the advertorial the article contained; unfortunately that leaves insufficient content of any substance to allow it to pass [WP:NORG]]: no 'significant coverage in
^Pocketed 09:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Varun FEB2003 11:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Varun FEB2003 12:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in a basic
WP:BEFORE I found literally no other sources than Wikipedia and their website - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

speedy delete complete waste of time even thinking of keeping it. This one definitely has existential problems Light2021 (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as solely advertising, this is a newly started company which is simply looking for PR especially considering the factors listed here, the information and sources only consist of republishing what the company's own comments and words are, therefore especially not convincing and everything else is simply trivial therefore there's no salvaging an article like this. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Not sure why speedy deletion was declined. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 10 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood Energy

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

Not a remarkable company!!

❯❯❯ Vanguard 11:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Its the first local authority energy company in the UK since 1948, that makes it notable and virtually all the other smaller energy companies have wikipedia pages, Ovo Energy, Good Energy, Ecotricity, LoCO2 Energy, Flow Energy, Spark Energy, Cooperative Energy. If Cooperative Energy gets a page for being remarkable in the sense it is the first energy cooperative then Robin Hood is remarkable for being the first local authority energy company since just after the second world war. User:Silverwargreymon 12:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the first Not For Profit Energy Company in the whole of the UK that makes it remarkable User:Silverwargreymon 13:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This company got plenty of initial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The Guardian [1]], BBC News [2], and The Times ('Robin Hood finds the energy to pick a fight with Big Six', The Times, 8 Sep 2015) all gave it a complete article and there was a lot of lesser coverage: for example the Money section of the Daily Mail/Mail Online [3], regional press and the Daily Star [4]. It looks as if coverage will continue: for example [5], [6] and [7]

Hi Silverwargreymon, you make fair points but you may like to look at this policy page on notability for ideas about how to choose references for a Wikipedia article. Lelijg (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Makes sufficient claims of notability and has plenty of reliable sources to pass
WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

leaning keep it's not a good article, but they've actually been pretty impactful - both notable and in fact noted - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep -- makes a sufficient claim of notability as being a not for profit energy company in the UK. Here's very recent coverage from The National: Edinburgh poised to make history with council's sustainable energy company plan, so I believe that it's likely to increase in notability in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 10 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) 05:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Bowen

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

I can't find any hits on Google News for this guy, let alone significant independent coverage. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a non-notable individual who never achieved anything significant enough to be included into Wikipedia. Winning a single medium tier marathon in 2002 is not enough to establish notabilty per WP:ATHLETE or specifically
WP:NTRACK. He participated in more marathons in the aftermath, but never won anything notable (or got a good result) afterwards. The big problem is also the total absence of RS's to cover WP:GNG, there is nothing on him out there in the news. The San Francisco marathon win falls under WP:SINGLEEVENT and I couldnt find much coverage on that. This article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning the San Francisco Marathon is not grounds for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 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. Regardless of notability standards for schools, there's no other way this can be closed if third-party reliable sources are not available. Hut 8.5 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer Integrated School

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

Found this article in the underlinked backlog.

Subject is a Philippine primary/secondary school. It cites no sources at all and makes no claim to notability. Per

tend to be redirected at AFD, but as this one cites no sources at all I'd argue that deletion is the better option. A Train^talk 10:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. Clear evidence of its existence can be found on even a cursory Google search. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you found anything like a reliable source in your Google search it'd be great if you could post it. A Train^talk 15:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, which isn't a option I take lightly for a secondary school. This is a little lengthy, so bear with me. Until very recently, education in the Philippines was on a 10-year system rather than the global K-12 standard. According to consensus guidelines, any SHS--Senior High School, offering the grade 11 and 12 curricula, at a minimum--or any fully K-12 school would have a presumption of notability and should be quickly kept at AFD. The question thus becomes whether this institution qualifies. The Philippine Department of Education provides a list (in several parts) of schools with eligible graduates: those institutions whose diplomas are fully accepted for entrance to university programs in the Philippines. Sawyer (in any variation of its name) is not on that list. The Department of Education also maintains a much longer index of all recognized K-12 program schools in the country (many of which have not fully completed the transition to the 12-year program). Sawyer is also not on that list. Based on available evidence, the only conclusion is that Sawyer is not currently an "independently accredited degree-awarding" high school as defined in
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and so gets no exemption from sourcing obligations. The potential counter-argument, and reason for the weakness of my delete !vote, is "once notable, always notable"; it is possible that the secondary education program as Sawyer Integrated School (from 2010–11 until the K-12 legislation) would have qualified it under SCHOOLOUTCOMES. But that was not necessarily the case (if it offered a Grade 8 curriculum, it would have had a secondary education program, but would not have been a degree-granting school, for example). In any case, the absolute dearth of reliable sources doesn't provide a lot of room to give it the benefit of the doubt. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The wording in

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and thus by consensus notable once sourced. PamD 17:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Admittedly, situations aren't always analogous, especially as there's never been a "middle school" distinction in the Philippines. A school in the United States that offered no higher education than Grade 7 would not be considered a "high school" and wouldn't receive the lower inclusion bar of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. However a private school offering (under the old system) a Grade 7 curriculum in the Philippines would rightly have been described as having a "secondary education program". But I hardly think that's what the guideline intended. And its current status isn't clear at all. If it offers the full 7-10 "junior high school" program (and we had some sort of halfway reliable sourcing to that end), then I'd likely not argue for deletion, since we apparently do retain, solely on existence, American schools that offer 9/10 programs but no higher (and, it seems, their UK equivalents). But we don't have sources to say it does. All we do know is that it doesn't offer Grade 11-12 curricula under the country's new education system, and that it doesn't appear in reliable sources. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is designed to give a lot of benefit of the doubt to education institutions, but not this much. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if a reliable source can be found, and added to article, to verify its existence as a secondary school (not necessarily with the equivalent of a UK sixth form). PamD 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:VERIFY in its present state, and a Google search does not suggest the presence of adequate sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Simply stating Keep per SO is no longer enough and simply saying "there's sources on Google" holds no weight either, I can't find anything to confirm this schools existence and clearly neither can anyone else so it should be deleted accordingly. –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 12 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: a blatant hoax, created by a vandalism-only account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 11:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hånsdokå

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

Nothing notable to be included!A search over the internet resulted in nothing!!

❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete - as this is an obvious hoax (G3). —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:31, 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 that this passes

talk 00:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Zac Brooks

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

Not

notable. Offseason and/or practice squad member only duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Passes
WP:GNG in my opinion. Also he's currently on the practice squad and could be promoted any time. Seems too soon for this AFD.--Yankees10 16:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep "Offseason and/or practice squad member only" doesn't means he's not notable. He passes GNG. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets
WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Clearly achieved notability from college play and passes
WP:ABELINCOLN, not playing in the NFL does not equate to deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per WikiOriginal-9's sources as a
WP:GNG pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Passes
WP:GNG per sources found by WikiOriginal-9. Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 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 Withdrawn.

talk 00:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Indian pariah dog

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

At first glance, this might appear to be a strange AfD, because the article contains a number of sources, and there are a handful of others online. However, I still believe this is deletion worthy, essentially because there is no clear cut evidence that this dog breed exists as a single breed, and the article is therefore composed partly of original research and partly of fringe theory. It is not recognized as a standardized breed. Its characteristics have not been described in a systematic manner by any reliable source. The sources that do mention it fall into three categories. First, reliable sources giving it the briefest of mentions. Second, sources that all trace back to a single website, indog.co.in, which is not reliable and clearly has an axe to grind. Third, sources that are circular references to Wikipedia. Having spent a long while parsing through this mess, I have no option but to say delete. Vanamonde (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After substantial thought, I would like to withdraw this AfD. I stil stand by my nomination rationale, and indeed, only one of the !votes is substantively helpful to somebody who wishes to rewrite the article. However, this discussion is not helping us fix the mess that the article is, either via
WP:TNT or by rewriting it based on scientific sources, and is obviously not going to be closed "delete"; with my withdrawal, this is eligible for speedy closure, and I would hope that the "keep" voters would then lend some assistance in fixing the mess that I found. Vanamonde (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep I found this and apparently Darwin also wrote about it in one of his books. It seems to be considered a landrace instead of a pure breed. I wonder if there are Hindi language sources. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@White Arabian Filly: that is the source I was referring to when I said "circular referencing." I am fairly certain it was copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article, which had the same wording in the lede well before that book was published. Negates it as a source, don't you think? Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that the content was the same. Frankly, I think such copying from Wikipedia should be illegal, when they're putting it into a book and then selling the book...making money off our work! Due to the Darwin book though, my !vote remains the same. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:REUSE) and the license ported ("SA" for share-alike). That book fails to do so (its copyright notice is weird, it says "all rights reserved" just before "CC-BY-NC", but in any case does not mention WP and mentions the wrong license). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, but that article is sure in need of some TLC. Even just looking at scholarly journal articles, there is discussion of its role in social history, its possible relationship to Australian dingos (a controversy with tons of references on all sides), osteometric history and dog burial data, and even a 1912 paper about parasitic liver flukes in Indian pariah dogs. I can't say that what we have is an article to be proud of, but it doesn't seem TNT-level bad, and there's simply no way I can advocate for deletion on a topic with this much high-quality sourcing available, even if editors haven't taken advantage of it yet. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it is systematic of Wikipedia that articles on pedigree breeds are typically strong (or at least coherent, if inevitably full of fancruft), where articles on landraces ramble on in a patchwork manner. Nonetheless, we shouldn't maintain articles which synthesise subjects out of sources that contradict each other. If a strong claim can't be made to this being reliably distinguished from
pariah dog in general, a merge is appropriate, with poorly- or un-sourced material removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Chris has expressed a number of my concerns, but here are some more. I can see your argument, but I would invite you to dig a little deeper into those sources that you found. Here is my conclusion from reading several sources, and previewing others. There are several sources saying that dingos are descended from dogs from India, without naming a breed from there. There are other sources examining pariah dogs/free-roaming dogs/street dogs in general, without specific links to India. And there are sources on Indian street dogs, which nonetheless are concerned with behavior, and not with phylogeny/taxonomy. Additionally, I would tend to give little weight to old sources (even Darwin, to an extent!), because their science, and their taxonomy, is very dated. When their findings were of interest, you would expect followup, as is the case with most species/sub-species described back then. Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every source I cited above specifically refers to "Indian pariah dog" by name (some of them capitalize it). I can cite a half dozen more than compare or contrast it, in various ways, to other indigenous dog landraces. As to the idea that the relationship tree (landraces aren't really quite the same thing as species/subspecies, after all) of dogs, including the Indian pariah dog, hasn't received modern attention, that's simply not true. Indeed, the Indian pariah dog was included (with other indigenous dog landraces) in a mitochondrial DNA sequencing study of Indian wolves in 2007. I get that this article is a rambling mess, but there's been actual science done regarding these dogs, from the 19th century all the way to right now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no doubt among experts that this is a genetically isolated gene pool and
Cocker spaniels
or any famous and officially recognized dog breed you can name.

Every once in a while, someone comes along to articles about dogs such as these and wants to delete them, perhaps because it just seems wrong that a mere dirty trash-eating mongrel village and street dog should be important or interesting or worthy enough for an article.

In some cases, they may be right, but not this one. The Indian pariah dog may not be a lesser animal to many or most, but the references contain overwhelming evidence that it is one of the most numerous and scientifically important genetically pure coherent branches on the dog family tree. Chrisrus (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:TNT still applies. If somebody else is able to clean out the crap and replace it with what science there is, well and good! I'd love to see that outcome. Vanamonde (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

In that case you should be calling for article improvement, not deletion. It is improper to delete an article on the grounds that it's not very good. Chrisrus (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, that would be true, but in this case I see nothing worth preserving in the article as it stands, and additionally it violates

blowing it up and starting over. Vanamonde (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Nonsense. There is plenty of value here. I'll work on it a bit, but discuss this furhter on it's talk page where the topic is article improvement, not distruction. We do not delete articles because they need work. Do you know the hassle involved in getting it recreated? Chrisrus (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agreeing it is misguided to attempt to delete and then (possibly) recreate an article based upon perceived faults within the article. All this could be sorted in a talk page discussion itself. There is good content in the article and it is certainly not a hoax. Fylbecatulous talk 11:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the above discussion and support improvement of article as is JarrahTree 01:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 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 that this passes

talk 00:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Kyle Coleman

AfDs for this article:

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

Not

notable. Offseason and/or practice squad member only duffbeerforme (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Passes GNG [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bhas never played in a regular NFL game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not badgering , but that has nothing to do with him not being notable. The question is if he passes GNG. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:GNG means nothing if he's not notable as a football player, which is the main focus here, and because he's only played with 1 team and that's only as a non-game player, he's not notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not passing

WP:NGRIDIRON does not make someone not notable. GNG now applies WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with WikiOriginal-9, GNG reigns supreme and means everything. As seen from my comment below, I do think he passes the notability hurdle in the football realm, but maybe not necessarily for his play alone. RonSigPi (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Keep easily able to find a good amount of regional and national coverage of the subject, more than enough to pass the
inclusive, not exclusive. this means that just because a subject does not pass the muster of one notability guideline (in this case, GRIDIRON), that does not mean that they cannot meet notability through another means (such as GNG).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep appears to pass GNG. Worth note that I am swayed by the coverage that has to to with him transferring to the school where his father, NFL player Monte Coleman, coaches. That special circumstance gives more non-routine coverage than might be normal for a practice squad guy that didn't play at a power five conference school. I think a lot of the Seattle-based coverage is routine. RonSigPi (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to clarify why I went Weak Keep instead of Keep. The coverage of him going to his father's school was only in two sources. My standard is three distinct sources and have seen that elsewhere (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 BWF World Championships). By strict interpretation of the rules of GNG, the term 'sources' requires only two. However, I would prefer to see three (or four would be even better). Additional sources would need to be detailed and not just a repeat of the other sources. Willing to strengthen my viewpoint, but would want to see from more sources. RonSigPi (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WikiOriginal-9's sources as a
WP:GNG pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:08, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vent (building)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary!!

❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Not just that, but also the fact that the information within that article is already mentioned within this one. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 12:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think
talk) 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Also the article seems to be wrong in that it says vent applies to liquids, which I see is not covered at
talk) 18:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete An unsourced and unnecessary fork of Ventilation (architecture). 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:57, 12 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) 19:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Cleary

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

Non notable translator. references only to books translated, no notability shown. Killer Moff (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See for example, the comments of the Buddhist scholar Professor Cuong Tu Nguyen

“Once again, Cleary’s combined expertise in Chinese history and Zen literature shines through in this highly accessible volume. Among other things, he shows convincingly that the Zen message in these teachings are timeless and that “engaged Buddhism” has always been an integral part of the true teaching, not a creation of modern Buddhists.”—Cuong Tu Nguyen, George Mason University

^[6]

Delete a non-notable translator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very
not reliable. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 13 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michiana Paranormal Investigations

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

Fails

WP:ORG. Virtually all coverage is from Metro South Bend Elkhart. No indication of any coverage outside North Central Indiana. John from Idegon (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

leaning delete per nom, extensively sourced to local fluff pieces - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails
WP:ORG, sources aren't impressive either. Yintan 22:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Sources cited are credible. There are numerous paranormal groups listed under the topic "Paranormal Investigators" that meet the same criteria as this group. If you delete this then you need to delete all other groups as well. The group is based out of northern Indiana, which is why the articles cited are from the metro South Bend area. All sources are credible news agencies and media organizations. - Uediver (talk) 11:11 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The following is the attached location of where other groups similar to Michiana Paranormal Investigations is listed. There are other groups listed have less citations and references than this group does however are not being considered for deletion. If you believe that this group needs to be deleted then I would and expect you to follow suit with every other group listed as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Paranormal_investigators Uediver (talk) 01:01 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been considered a good argument at AFD. We know there are lots of bad articles on Wikipedia, this is why there's a deletion procedure - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 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) 05:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Tu Quang

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

Possible autobiography (from 2007) with serious NPoV problems. As written it does not establish notability; even with serious help from Google Translate (as all mentions of his name are in Vietnamese), I can't find much more than incidental mention of him, and that not necessarily in

WP:RS. FalconK (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the history and information shows the PR intentions and actions, therefore nothing can be taken as guaranteed non-PR and that's exactly what the solution is by deleting it; the fact everything emulates an entire job listing explains enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 10 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 Anacortes, Washington. Opinions are split between 3 delete, 3 merge and 1 keep. This only gives us consensus not to have an article. What I do in such cases is close as a redirect to the possible merge target, which allows editorial consensus to determine whether and how much content to merge from the history. Sandstein 07:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the Heck Fest

)

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

Not

notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Search found nothing beyond routine event listings. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete no assertion of notability independent of Anacortes, independent of sources directly related to or affiliated with What the Heck Fest. —Mythdon 12:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (changed to merge, see below) no claim to notability made. Town has a population of 16,000. ¡Boz zio! 05:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found and listed these sources when I deprodded this: [22], [23] ~Kvng (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources need to be analyzed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with the city that it was held in.--
talk) 16:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Why is this a good solution? ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New sources still haven't been discussed,. I'll ping users who have commented previously. A Train^talk 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources help, but I would still merge it with the festival section for the town it's based in.— JJBers (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above sources are just routine event listings. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [24], [25], [26]. In sum, I do not consider this to to be
WP:ROUTINE coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- the sources offered above are unconvincing; all are either passing mentions and / or from extremely local sources (brooklynvegan.com; The Spokesman Review; etc.). This does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. The merge to the city does not make sense, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing your "passing mention" complaint is associated with

WP:CORPDEPTH applies to this subject. ~Kvng (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. I was asked to evaluate the new sources provided by Kvng. The new sources are an article on brooklynvegan.com and an article in WP:GNG. I think JJBers Public's suggestion of a merge is a good one. ¡Boz zio! 15:25, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AdRoll

AdRoll (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)

My extensive PROD here still applies as the mere few sources (2) listed now are not at all actually convincing since the one book seems to be a company-supplied informational listing and guide and then the Fortune article, now only is not largely focused with them, but whatever is, is simply then trivial and unconvincing PR and such, note how the article actually ends with listing all of their involved clients and investors.... SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not !voting at this time, but to clarify, below is a summary of the sources I added to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Allen, K.R. (2015). Launching New Ventures: An Entrepreneurial Approach.
ISBN 978-1-305-44571-0
.

Note that this content within the book is not based upon company-furnished information whatsoever. The book content is derived from the following source:

Finkle, Todd A., Professor of Entrepreneurship, Gonzaga University (2013). "AdRoll: A Case Study of Entrepreneurial Growth". New England Journal of Entrepreneurship. Volume 16, Number 1. 4 pages.

2. Primack, Dan (April 21, 2014). "AdRoll raises $70 million as its expands 'retargeting' into mobile". Fortune. Retrieved October 5, 2016.

Comment sorting out these articles is terrible ... are they notable in advertising? Where of course even the good sources are written like ads because that's all they know how to write. The article needs a serious cleanout, but it's plausible they are notable - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the 4 references currently in the
WP:RS material available to help any article cleanup needed. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Simply repeating the Fortune article since it was listed above and is not anything different at all, and this is because the Fortune magazine is literally interviewed information by the company in that it only lists their own business plans and it goes finish with listing clients and investors, that's not independent especially not when the article was actually an interview. The Forbes is then simply a "subscriber contributor", so not an actual employee, and as it is, Forbes is becoming notoriously used by companies to host their own PR, given the fact there will not even always be a staff employee, and instead someone else which often even includes the company person themselves. The SacredHeart link is still questionable because it cannot be guaranteed it was not company-supplied information especially given how it lists a "business-listing page". Although the link says they were a fastest-growing company, we would have still needed other links because one mere link like this, especially coming from a non-news substantial source would still be questionable. The Forbes itself is only a mere 2 paragraph about it, clearly simply stating the general information to know about it, so it's certainly not in-depth. SwisterTwister talk 16:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is entirely unconvincing and seems to show a bias that is not appropriate for AFD discussions. I remain with my keep !vote. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Fortune article is a promotional interview, no matter where published, and the rest of the sources are at least equally useless for notability . Even more important, the article is essentially advertising, and should therefore be deleted even if it were slightly notable. Listing of the really trivial prizes is a fairly reliable indication of promotional intent. (and , for that matter, very often paid editing, though there's no way to prove it in this particular case) DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on a marginally notable company. With the lead opening with:

...privately held global technology company. It provides advertisers
display advertising.^[7]^[8]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_Baby_(album)

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_(Carly_Rae_Jepsen_album)

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_Vu_(Giorgio_Moroder_album)

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_a_Bottle_(Fill_Me_Up)

^ http://rebel-one.com/mitch-mccarthy/

^ http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/zen-under-gun/praise

^ "AdRoll Features". Retrieved 20 June 2014.

^ "AdRoll Offers Mobile Ad Retargeting On Facebook". Retrieved 20 June 2014.

the article is not in compliance with
WP:NOT and should be deleted. The case study listed above is possibly a fluke and is not an indicator of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for noting that the company is "marginally notable". Notable is notable, marginal or not, and means it passes
reliable source when you did not expect it? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment -- I mean "marginally notable" in a pejorative way. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the article created and extensively edited by an account with no other contributions (
WP:BOGOF; let's not encourage the spammers by keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

That's an issue for
WP:ANI. It has no bearing on the notability of the article subject, which you yourself have continued to acknowledge is notable. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Clarification -- the article should be deleted both because it's spam and due to the subject being non notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ as promotion for a non notable company. The Awards section is indicative of both -- these extremely minor awards for best local workplace arethe customary way of writing such articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is patent
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 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. Michig (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Zielke

Patrick Zielke (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)

ails
WP:GNG. He apparently served in the position for 22 years, but even with that I don't find much coverage in RS. MB 04:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. It doesn't appear to meet
WP:politician.Dolotta (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but
WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete another non-notable mayor of La Crosse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 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. Michig (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Johnsrud

Mark Johnsrud (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 MB 04:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but
WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete La Crosse is far below the level at which a city's mayor is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 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. Michig (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W. Peter Gilbertson

W. Peter Gilbertson (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 MB 04:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC) MB 04:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete I agree with User:MB for the reasons stated above. Dolotta (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but
WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete mayors of La Crosse are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, after watching these as this nomination has continued, there's simply nothing for any actual WP:POLITICIAN notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 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. Michig (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Ahrens

John Henry Ahrens (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 MB 03:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep La Crosse is Wisconsin's 12th largest city, a county seat and Wisconsin's largest city on its western border. Ahrens was also mayor during an important time in American history. The article need to be expanded, not deleted. Igbo (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a mayor is not contingent on the city's ordinal ranking as a population centre — it's contingent only on the raw population number itself, and 50K is not large enough to give its mayors an automatic "include because he exists" pass if they're not sourced well enough to pass
WP:GNG. And "served during an important time in American history" is not a credible notability claim either, if you can't demonstrate and source that his mayoralty had any direct bearing on making it an important time in American history. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but
WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article runs afoul of the "no original research" guidelines. The sources are A-the social security death index, which merely establishes someone claimed his death benefits, and is not even a secondary source. 2-the 1930 US census, another non-secondary source that can say nothing substantive of the subject. 3-an autobiography. At least this is moving out of original research, but it still is in the not indepdent of the subject and by no means reliable area. Thus I am unconvinced we have any secondary sources, reliable or not, all sources are primary. Lacrosse only had 47,000 people in 1950 when he was mayor. Even if we allowed for ordinal inclusion, I fail to see how we would ever allow default inclusion past maybe the 10 largest cities in any state, and even that seems unwise. The "important time in American history" argument makes no sense to me. How is 1949-1955 "an important time in American history"? How is it more so than any other given time in American history? I have to admit that this is one of the worst articles for sourcing I have come across. No original research is rarely so fully violated. Wikipedia editors should not be drawing sources from the US census or social security death indexes. No Wikipedia article should EVER cite the census report on an individual as a source. It might mention something said in the census, if that has been mentioned in a secondary source, but people should not go digging through the census to learn about individauls.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- being a mayor of Wisconsin's 12th largest city is not exactly a claim of notability; merely a local politician. Sources would need to be much stronger, indicating they were notable for something else, to be able to keep this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 11 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) 05:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Web

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

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

Inadequate refs for notability. Almost everything here is their own site. I couldn't find the Wired UK item, but it alone wouldn't support this article. And promotional writing--the tell-tell "to improve your personal and professional life" is representative. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not finding any
sufficient notability. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and this is an amusing one because it's largely used by companies of which we delete themselves entirely, so there's therefore questionability of guranteed non-PR, since that's exactly why churnalism exists and is exists quite so. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with SwisterTwister . People/ companies are using this as source for their notability. Nothing here itself. Light2021 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands - given it is in fact a minor RS, I'm actually surprised there's nothing about the site or company itself that I could find either - David Gerard (talk) 09:16, 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) 05:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avenida Plaza

Avenida Plaza (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)

Building development that fails
WP:GNG. In fact, it doesn't even exist as the article says it is an "upcoming" development. There is no in-depth coverage to satisfy notability. G11 already declined. CNMall41 (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On top of failing
WP:GNG it seems almost promotional with the "Restaurants" section included in there. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thought so too. I went G11 but it was declined unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. One reference to a future development does not confer notability. MB 03:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:16, 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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Representatives of Indonesia to international pageants

Representatives of Indonesia to international pageants (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 duplication list to include non-notable contestants to non-notable pageants. Indonesia's representatives to notable pageants were already listed in the yearly editions of Miss Universe Miss World, Miss Earth, Miss International. Likewise, the national winners and representatives were also listed in the Miss Indonesia, Puteri Indonesia, Miss Earth Indonesia articles. Notable pageants for men have also another lists like the Mister World. This article is just an expanded list to include non-notable pageant contestants without sources. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:DEL7, with WP:IAR added to bring WP:DEL7 to consistency with failure of the core content policy WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOREFS Davidelit (Talk) 04:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article lists people who were representatives to the like of Miss Scuba International.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire; unreferenced
WP:LISTCRUFT only. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 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. Michig (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kabat

Tim Kabat (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 doesn't meet wp:politician and doesn't meet the broader wp:anybio requirements (just the city's web site and the local newspaper as references). Dolotta (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and add some stuff. the former mayor Mathias Harter has a wiki page I think we just have to make Tim Kabat's better - Wikideas1 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. Now also nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find a few articles via google search and google news that seemed notable. Couple that with the comment above - I went ahead and added some sources and info. I think expansion first, then revisit the
WP:GNG question. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Even with the references above, everything is routine local coverage of a small city mayor and not sufficient to establish notability. MB 04:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but
WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all convincing for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 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) 05:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MobilityWare

MobilityWare (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)

My extensive PROD boldly removed with no actual explanations and my concerns listed there still apply and I'll note again none of this is actually convincing as it's only trivial and unconvincing sourcing and information. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - there are some RSes but I'm unconvinced. If kept this would be culled to a paragraph - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable gaming company, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_October_5&oldid=1142620697"

[6]

[7]

[8]