Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 September	21 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FMJAM

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article which contradicts itself about whether the topic is a radio station or a radio program. No
WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:NMEDIA I was also unsuccessful in locating any reliable sources for notability verification. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --BCD 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Thailand. MBisanz ^talk 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apantree Prayuttasenee

)

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

Unsourced BLP (created before 18 March 2010). Brianga (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has a total and complete lack of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is really old. The Thai search term for the article is อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนีย์ . Google search [1] found several match, including a clip [2] from Thai Film Archive. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old magazines from 1969 with her photo on the cover: Magazine #1 Kwan Ruean [3], Magazine #2 Phadung Silp [4] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article is no longer an unsourced BLP. Pinging Brianga and Johnpacklambert. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still support a delete under

WP:BIO for lack of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Brianga (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: National-level major pageant winner from the pre-google era. Adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 08:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As best as I can tell the sources involve extremely passing mentions of her, nothing to suggest it is enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Thailand as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --

talk 02:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as there has been consensus that there's no automatic inheritance of an article for simply being a pageant member; none of this comes close at all for actually establishing independent notability or substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The magazine covers provided by Lerdsuwa suggest in-depth coverage exists and would be possible to find in a good library. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Thailand as suggested by Northamerica1000. I don't find her to be notable per Wikipedia's standards, but IMO redirection is almost always to be preferred to deletion if a valid target exists. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is not notable under more than one section. This is not even an acceptable stub article let alone a BLP stub. There is just not enough coverage. Placing in the top 15 in Miss Universe 1968 is not notable. One reference even states "But the ultimate success happens in the next six years later, when the name of "Apasra Hongsaku" was announced on stage at the Miss Universe held in Miami, Florida, USA", and she placed 15th? Otr500 (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Typically we keep articles that win their nationally-recognized pageant. Winning Miss Thailand in 1967 strongly suggests there are plenty of off-line sources to verify existence and notability to pass
assume good faith and keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and advise you read the article first before you decide the article should be deleted because you never heard of the subject. --~~BCD 05:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)~~
- BuickCenturyDriver has been blocked since March 2013 (log), and his vote should be disregarded. Rebb ing 21:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WOW! I guess I just naturally assume too much good faith to consider that I have to look at every editor to see if there is a !vote stacking vandal. New area for me--- how does one comment, or use WIkipedia at all, using what looks like an account, that redirects to a car article? Otr500 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ha! Well, you'd be surprised. I often double-check diffs for edits to talk pages, especially to make sure signatures and alterations correspond to the correct editors. The
      popups tool helps a bit. This isn't the first time I've spotted something like this; stealth editing of others' comments happens occasionally too.
      The vote was actually made by an IP, not a logged-in editor. Have a look at the diff. The signature was manually typed out. "On the Internet, nobody knows you're an article about a car." From what I gather, BCD was blocked years ago for seriously problematic behavior. He claims he wants back into the fold, but evading his block to cast poorly-researched votes at AFD is not the way to alleviate community concerns. I don't know why he added {{bots|deny}}. Rebb ing 09:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Comments" Alright, I looked at both references again (translated) after reading " no longer an unsourced BLP" and removed both. There was not even any extremely passing mentions of the subject. Listing a reference, just to show an article has one, is not cool. !Voting keep with "suggest in-depth coverage exists" is not backed by any policy, guideline, or even essay concerning a BLP. !voting keep with "Typically we keep articles that win their nationally-recognized pageant.", means we should take a far better look at beauty pageant BLP subjects that are not referenced or referenced with primary sources only, as there is no inheritability concerning notability on Wikipedia. A primary source can not be used to advance notability. !voting keep with "suggest in-depth coverage exists" might be alright on some article that is not a BLP. Because a source may be "out there somewhere" does not mean we can have an article on a subject. User Montanabw gave the only rationale that might be an actual consideration "Adequate indicia of notability" but again, this is a BLP and the many

Wikipedia:NOTNEWS

provides that if an event is notable then cover it but adding hundreds of non-sourced BLP's just because, does not help Wikipedia. I have no idea what the keep comments from user BCD means.

A closing admin will know we don't just use a "vote" count on Wikipedia and a !vote for "redirect" still means the editor feels (or better shows with rationale) that a subject does not warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. I have !voted AFD keeps based on some less than ideal coverage but this subject fails notability.

On the

WP:BLP states "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.", and this includes Tabloid journalism which is how many of these micro-stub articles are sourced. These things (just a couple) are what we are mandated (by a broad community consensus) to comply with for a subject to have an article on Wikipedia. I am a proponent of articles on local things, and also BLP's, that are more local (as apposed to national or international) but a non-referenced (under referenced or primary sourced referenced) one paragraph entry on a living person is against all Wikipedia stands for

.

Also, I looked at the Google search (first example by user Lerdsuwa) and there is still no specific mention of the subject. The second youtube Miss Donaldson's College. Prayuth Seni Miss Thailand is not specfically about the subject. The 3rd: The 20-year-old magazine Phadungsin No. 10 Friday, February 2512 cover of Pat's Prayuth Seni is about Pat's Prayuth Seni and I didn't look at the 4th. Otr500 (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be placing a little too much faith in Google Translate. Please use your common sense. Just because Google is unable to translate her name doesn't mean that all those links are about someone else. Why else would อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนีย์ be in the title? Also, both references that were removed from the article were actually directly supporting the citing statements: that she entered the round of 15 at Miss Universe 1968, and that she played the leading role in Saeng Sun on Channel 7. That they're passing mentions do not detract from the fact that they are verifiable references. I've reverted the removals. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to Paul 012 : I could get translations on every other name but the subject in both references. You admit there is no notability, per the references supplied but was totally vague with "Just because Google is unable to translate her name doesn't mean that all those links are about someone else. Why else would อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนีย์ be in the title?", you then added, "Also, both references that were removed from the article were actually directly supporting the citing statements:". I ran 3 different translators, and I did not come up with the words Apantree Prayuttasenee in any of them. I also ran อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนีย์ thru 3 different translators and I will be surprised if your ""vagueness" of a question turns into ---- that her name is in there. Can you please show me the exact passages in the references that actually use the name as identified by the title of this article? I actually do not place much faith in Google translations, as far as sentences, but it seems three of them can be used to identify proper nouns. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate is complete rubbish when translating Thai, especially proper nouns which don't appear in the dictionary. Heck, inputting just her name into Google Translate gives "Studies at the University Prayuth Seni." which is obviously gibberish. Why don't you just copy her name in Thai script and search for it in the original language to see if it's on those pages? Anyway, to answer your question:

The Thairath ref covers her in this paragraph:
ต่อมาในปีพุทธศักราช 2511 ความงามแบบฉบับของสาวไทยของ "อภันตรี ประยุทธ์เสนีย์" ดีกรีนักเรียนนอกจากปีนัง ยังเข้าตากรรมการ สามารถทะลุเข้าไปในรอบ 15 คนสุดท้ายของเวทีมิสยูนิเวิร์สในปีนั้นได้สำเร็จ ซึ่งแม้จะไม่สามารถคว้าชัยกลับบ้านได้ แต่ก็ช่วยสร้างภาพลักษณ์ใหม่ให้กับสาวไทย ที่มีความทันสมัยและสามารถสื่อสารภาษาอังกฤษได้อย่างคล่องแคล่ว
Properly translated, it should read something like
Later, in 1968, the Thai-style beauty of "Apantree Prayutsenee"—with a foreign degree from Penang—also charmed the judges and took her to the round of 15 in that year's Miss Universe pageant. Though she didn't win the contest, she nevertheless helped build a new image for Thai ladies, that of a modern woman fluently conversant in English."
You wouldn't know though if you relied on Google's translation, which reads:
Later in the year AD 2511 beauty typical of Thailand's Girl "by Pat Prayut Seni bachelor's" degree students in Penang. The eyes of Can penetrate into the 15 finalists of Miss Universe that year successfully. Although unable to win back home. It helped create a new image for the girl Thailand. With a modern and able to speak English fluently.
The Khaosod ref mentions her in this paragraph:
นิรุตติ์ เข้าสู่วงการบันเทิงด้วยการชักชวนของ เทิ่ง สติเฟื่อง สู่วงการแสดงละครทีวี ละครเรื่องแรกคือ แสงสูรย์ รับบทพระรอง โดยมีภิญโญ ทองเจือ เป็นพระเอก คู่กับ อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนี อดีตนางสาวไทย ออกฉายทางทีวีช่อง 7 ยุคขาว-ดำ
It says:
Nirut entered the entertainment industry by the invitation of Thoeng Sati-fueang and had his first TV drama role in Saeng Sun, playing the main supporting character. The series starred Pinyo Thongchua and Apantree Prayutsenee, former Miss Thailand, and was broadcast on Channel 7 in the black-and-white days.
The corresponding passage in the Google Translated version is this:
Nirut into the entertainment industry with the solicitation of gawky mad career in TV drama. The play was first starring role, with organizations increasingly Thongjua heroic duo with Pat's Bachelor Prayuth SingSinghaseni former Miss Thailand. The seven-run TV channels - white and black.
The YouTube video that you claimed isn't specifically about her, is in fact specifically about her. Instead of "This past March 21, 2511 Miss Donaldson's College. Prayuth Seni Miss Thailand 2510 to participate in the Miss Universe pageant.", the title should be properly translated as "Today in history: 21 March 1968, Miss Apantree Prayutsenee, Miss Thailand 1967, participates in the Miss Universe Pageant".
You didn't recognise her staring back from the cover of that magazine, but it shouldn't have been too hard to realise that "Pat's Prayuth Seni" is the result of Google Translate's butchering of her name. And the same goes for all the others.

Sorry about those "vague" comments, I was just rather baffled at how you could believe that searching for her exact name in the original Thai script, อภันตรี ประยุทธเสนีย์, could return results that don't actually mention her exact name in the original Thai script. Even "Prayuth Seni" should have been close enough to make one realise it's part of her name, mistranslated. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a google books search suggests that the winner of Miss Thailand in 1967 was named Prapatsorn Panijkul. I'm not sure what is the disconnect (see Thailand Year, Publicity Services (Thailand), 1969. p95-95, accessed September 29, 2016 at https://books.google.com/books?id=EFEIAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Miss+Thailand+1967%22). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Prapussorn Panichkul held the title for 1966. Not sure about the dates either. Perhaps they later retroactively changed how they counted the pageant years? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Thailand per analysis of sources (passing mentions) ~~and given that the article may be factually incorrect, as noted immediately above (Prapatsorn Panijkul being the 1967 winner)~~. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's factual accuracy is supported by a reliable source, although as Smmurphy noted above, there do appear to be contradictions. That book appears to be the deviant one, however. All others agree with the article, including the pageant's official website. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the comment about factual correctness. This still does not overcome the issue of coverage being of passing mentions. I've updated my vote to a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The preferred spelling of her name appears to be
Apantree Prayutsenee, and the article should be renamed as such if kept. Searching with this spelling gives contemporaneous English-language sources such as this Ebony magazine and this Kansas City Times article. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:WHYN nor enough significant coverage to pass GNG. Should someone be able to later locate RS I will not object to recreation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 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. Although this article may be another one that is built only on the propensity for the press to overuse the word "rivalry", there is clearly consensus to Keep it at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panthers–Seahawks rivalry

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

Non-notable and nondivisional

(talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I believe enough sources have cited this as a notable rivalry, and there's enough evidence in the article, along with sources, to prove it. -(user talk:newyorksports38)
Comment I don't think the fact that it is non-divisional really makes a huge difference.
Lepricavark (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak delete. First I've heard of this "rivalry", and I'm a big Seahawks fan from way back. USA Today has described it as "becoming a 'must-see TV' rivalry", Rolling Stone (?) said it's the "NFL's Next Great Rivalry", and ESPN asked "Could Russell vs. Cam be the new Brady vs. Manning?", but it's not quite there yet. A memorable clash in this year's regular season (and maybe the playoffs) might seal the deal. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Needs much better sourcing about being a rivalry. I count 3 sentences within all of the citations which are weakly on point. 1) "The Carolina Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have such familiarity with each other that Panthers coach Ron Rivera says it’s almost as if they're division rivals." 2) "The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:" and 3) "Carolina and Seattle (11-6) have struck up quite a rivalry in recent years, with the Seahawks knocking the Panthers out of the playoffs last season."
WP:GNG and a requirement of significant coverage. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep - The article is not good, but there is a good amount of coverage about this as a rivalry:

The Charlotte Observer

KGW.com (again)

The Sports Daily (again)

Fox Sports

Charlotte Observer

That's a ton of sources, and most of them actually relate to the rivalry itself - not just individual games. It's not one-sided coverage, either - local, state, and national media seem to agree there is either a rivalry or budding rivalry. Is it enough for a page? I think so. I may actually start work on it to improve it, because the current article just is not very good. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are riddled with

WP:ROUTINE

("routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article") issues.

"The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:" The Charlotte Observer

"the Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry in recent years" only use of term in article Seattle Times

"it’s almost as if they're division rivals." USA Today

"the next generation of the NFL's best rivalry is just getting started. It's Cam vs. Russ." Rolling Stone

focus is QB rivalry "we may already be watching the NFL's next great quarterback rivalry." ESPN

"are developing one of the NFL’s budding rivalries." The Sports Daily

"The “Panthers is the Seahawks new rival” theory" KGW.com

Headline: "Seahawks-Panthers renew growing rivalry" rivalry term isn't used within the article KGW.com (again)

Opinion piece contrasting author's feelings; rivalry doesn't appear in Carolina section Field Gulls

" and the budding rivalry will add another entry in to an already exciting catalog." WCCB Charlotte

"the burgeoning Seattle Seahawks-Carolina Panthers rivalry may be in its infancy."The Score

Term not used in article body Associated Press

Points 11 and 9 of 12 re Sea rooting for Car in Super Bowl "You have a rivalry within conferences, but there's a undeniable pride in your side of the league besting the other." and "The rivalry will have much more juice if it's two of the last three Super Bowl winners" 24/7 Sports

"The Carolina Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have a budding rivalry"Rant Sports

"Carolina vs Seattle is the biggest out of division rivalry in the NFC. Maybe even the NFL" Cat Scratch Reader

"Week 13: Panthers@Seahawks In what has quietly become one of the best rivalries in the NFL this game deserve the prime time billing it has received." The Sports Daily (again)

"One thing that could derail the budding Russell Wilson-Cam Newton rivalry" Fox Sports

Term not used Charlotte Observer

WP:GNG requirements ("Significant coverage," "sources need editorial integrity," etc). UW Dawgs (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Sports rivalries aren't inherently notable. Ones regularly mentioned in media are, and this one has been, many times by reliable sources. I'd also like specifics on which ones you feel "aren't reliable". Toa Nidhiki05 19:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG standard is not "mentioned," it's significant coverage. You're welcome to pull quotes from your citations to establish this as a current (not future) rivalry between the teams (not QBs). UW Dawgs (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:NRIVALRY

says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." It is trivial to perform a Google search and pull a single sentence from a newspaper, blog network, local TV station, or broadcast network and claim the results are sufficient for a "rivalry" article while completely ignoring GNG. That's why we don't have "rivalry" stand-alone articles every time teams have simply played each other and generated routine media coverage, ala:

"Seahawks-Broncos rivalry" -no stand-alone article

"Broncos-Seahawks rivalry recalled in hard-hitting AFC West days" CBS Sports
"The Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos had a pretty heated rivalry during the 1980s and 1990s." NFL.com
"Seahawks-Broncos rivalry goes back to old AFC West days" Seattle Times
"Some critics of bandwagon fans will assume that only Seahawks fans who joined the club in 2012 don’t know about the old Seahawks-Broncos rivalry." King5

"Seahawks-Raiders rivalry" -no stand-alone article

"Raiders, Seahawks Renew Rivalry" AP
"Seahawks, Raiders reveling in rivalry" Seattle Times
"One of the fiercest rivalries grew from those times in the 1980s when the Raiders and Seahawks crossed swords" Tacoma News Tribune
"Take a look back at the Raiders history with the Seattle Seahawks as the two former AFC West rivals get ready to renew their rivalry." Raiders.com
"As the Raiders and the Seahawks prepare to renew their old rivalry this weekend in Seattle" SF CBS

"Seahawks-Chiefs rivalry" -no stand-alone article

"The Seattle Seahawk's rivalry with the Kansas City Chiefs is as classic a head-to-head matchup as you could hope for." Spokesman Review
"Maybe the Seahawks-Chiefs rivalry isn't as ugly as some of the other NFL feuds" Kitsap Sun
"The Chiefs have nearly doubled the 'Hawks in the win column (27-14) and have really dominated this rivalry as of late, prevailing in 14 of the last 16 meetings between the clubs dating back to 1991, this after Seattle swept this series in '90." ESPN
"The Seahawks qualify for the first part of the rival definition when it comes to playing the Kansas City Chiefs." Seahawks.com

This article remains weakly sourced on-point and the coverage being offered is clearly routine. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk)

Again, I can say these sources are fairly in-depth. I might go ahead and sandbox and see what I can do. Toa Nidhiki05 02:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the other rivalries don't have articles means either they are not notable or they are notable but editors have not written articles about them yet. Based on the summary of the sources provided here, I'm inclined to believe "the other rivalries are notable but editors have not written articles about them yet".

Cunard (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft instead in this case, because there's honestly still not a lot of confirmed substance; there is information, but as an article itself, there's simply not a lot of convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the purpose of a Wikipedia article to inform, not to try and persuade you of something? People would be going to the article for an overview of the rivalry, not to be persuaded into believing it is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorksports38 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.
1. Person, Joseph (2016-01-12). "A look back at past 5 games in Panthers-Seahawks rivalry". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  The Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have met so often the past four seasons, it’s almost like they’re division rivals – if not for the 2,500 miles that separate them.
  Sunday’s divisional-round game at Bank of America Stadium will be the sixth time Carolina (15-1) and Seattle (11-6) have played since 2012, including the Panthers’ playoff loss at Seattle last January.
  The teams will meet again next season in Seattle for a seventh time in five seasons.
  The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:
2. Condotta, Bob (2016-01-14). "The top 5 games in Seahawks-Panthers history". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  Carolina might not always be in the Seahawks’ minds, as James Taylor sang in the 1970s, but it does seem to often be in their way.
  For two franchises on opposite coasts and in separate divisions, the Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry in recent years, crossing paths both with an unusual frequency and at particularly critical times, especially for Seattle.
  They will do so again Sunday when the Seahawks play at Carolina in a divisional playoff game, the Panthers once again standing between Seattle and the Super Bowl.
  In all, the teams have met eight times in the regular season and twice in the postseason — both of those in years in which the Seahawks advanced to the Super Bowl.
  Six of those meetings have come since Pete Carroll took over as the Seahawks’ coach in 2010, meaning they have faced Carolina more than any other non-NFC West team in that time.
  We could just list the games the Seahawks have played against Carolina. Instead, we thought we’d rate them in order of importance.
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow the Panthers–Seahawks rivalry to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Most series between teams in major leagues have narratives that stretch beyond a single season, and once they pass gng (and thus satisfy nrivalry), I think an article is fine. I think this passes gng, both as a series and as a "rivalry". Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was sceptical but I think Toa Nidhiki05's sources are adequate to pass GNG. I am not convinced by some of the counterarguments to his sources - if the headline states that the article is about a rivalry and the article describes the rivalry, it is not relevant how often the term "rivalry" is used in the article. The source is providing siginficant coverage about a rivalry, regardless of the terminology used. Rlendog (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to strike an unsigned "keep" comment Rlendog (talk · contribs) made here until it is signed. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog: would you mind signing your post? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting me know my signature was omitted. 00:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Userfy per
WP:FANCRUFT or both. In either case, not adding value to the encyclopedia at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 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) 05:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Fratantoni

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

non notable author. No article in Italian WP. The only book listed in Worldcat is a corona di rose,2013, only 1 library listed. The book made into a film is Felice Malacrita, a travel book about Sicily, that was made into a travel film. The only refs I could find are the ones already in the article. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Subject is borderline on meeting general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator Burley22 (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --BCD 05:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete -- does not meet
WP:NAUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 28 September 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. Notability has been established. (

flyer 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Arthur Brett and Sons

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

Clearly promotional, created by SPA, not encyclopedic, no checkable references, no claim nor evidence of passing

WP:CSD#G11. PROD was removed without any fixes to the article. David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources covering the antiques and furniture trade such as Timber Trades Journal; Arts & Decoration; The Connoisseur, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have access to good paper sources, please do add them to the article :-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- Pls see below; Original comment: I searched google newspapers and was only seeing trivial mentions in relation to the company producing a replica of Churchill's desk. I could not find anything better. This business did not appear to have made a lasting impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. All I found was a mention in one Google Book (Business India. A.H. Advani. 1991.), perhaps a repring of some academic articles, that "Part II studied four companies in this regard — large ones like British Airways, IBM and Jaguar and a small furniture company, Arthur Brett and Sons. ". I couldn't access the book to check for references or scope of coverage, and nothing else seems to match. Being a one of four case studies for a single academic work would nonetheless help with notability, if combined with one more or so good source, but well, I cannot even cite this one properly, and since no other sources are present... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-known company in Norwich, where I have resided. The entry needs more reference, and could be made a little more factual and less like puffery. I will try to find some more useful quotable sources.

Roaringboy (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be notable , but the article is too promotional to stand and would eed to be entirely rewritten. using much better sources than present here. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.
1. Gorst-Williams, Jessica (1997-09-16). "Family beats economic chill with style - Your Own Business". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  EDWARD BRETT, the 58-year-old head of Arthur Brett, a furniture manufacturer based in Norwich, says that "furniture-making is a bug and once it is in the blood you cannot get it out of the system".
  Mr Brett is the fifth generation of his family involved in making fine traditional English furniture. It all started with John Brett, a chairmaker, who was born in 1815. His son, Jonathan, established the family business that is now world renowned, particularly for pieces in the styles of Sheraton, Chippendale and Hepplewhite. Turnover is around Pounds 3.5 million and the firm employs 85 people.
  The cornerstone of the business remains individual craftsmanship. To ensure that skills are passed down the generations, Arthur Brett has its own unique four-year apprenticeship.
  ...
  Notable commissions include replicas for Christie's of its Chippendale auctioneer's rostrum and conference tables for the Bank of England, the Crown Estate Commissioners and a Gulf Co-operation Council meeting in Bahrain.
  ...
  Exports now account for more than 50 per cent of business, and the firm has clients in Japan, Hong Kong, Turkey, Greece, the US, Europe and the Middle East. Two years ago it opened a showroom and office in Pimlico Road, London. "You cannot expect everyone to come down to Norwich," says Mr Brett.
2. van der Post, Lucia (2003-10-11). "The tradition of the exquisitely wrought reproduction piece is long and honourable - Scenes from domestic life". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  And up at Nostell Priory in West Yorkshire there's a Chippendale library table which the National Trust asked Arthur Brett, probably this country's leading maker of fine reproductions, to make to special order. It'll cost you Pounds 103,694 (the price is worked out the way Chippendale used to do it: by costing materials and man-hours and adding what Arthur Brett calls "a modest profit"), and in case you're wondering, they've already sold at least three. Arthur Brett is the company to ask if you've been left five Queen Anne dining chairs and the sixth is kaput -they will then make an identical one using traditional cabinet-making skills.
  ....
  Arthur Brett, for instance, tell me that they have recently made a precise copy of a William Vile cabinet originally made for Clarence House -it cost the buyer Pounds 100,000-odd but if you're after an original you'd be looking at something like a million.
3. Watson-Smyth, Kate (2014-08-16). "A Brit of quality". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  At the other end of the spectrum, Arthur Brett, a furniture company founded in 1860, has also found a new market in Asia. David Salmon, creative director of Arthur Brett, says British design is known throughout the world for its high quality. "It's the same reason people buy an Aston Martin or a suit from Savile Row: if you want those qualities, you want a British designer," he says.
  Like many other furniture companies, Arthur Brett went through tough times when Asian manufacturers started undercutting prices. While many UK firms were forced to shut their doors, the company's tactic was to go further upmarket, raising prices and creating more bespoke pieces.
  "We now export 20 per cent of our work to China," says Salmon, who adds that over the past 18 months sales to the US have picked up on a weekly basis. He says that many US customers have grown tired of buying cheap, low-quality furniture and are returning to the notion of well-made, high-end products, which they find among the UK designers.
4. Mallalieu, Huon (2015-02-07). "Second-rank auction houses up their game - Collecting". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  It will be interesting to see how a sale on February 17 at Sworders of Stansted Mountfitchet appeals to collectors, since it challenges recent assumptions about the furniture market. It is made up of items from the stock of Arthur Brett, the fourth-generation Norwich business, together with their furniture reference library. The business manufactured furniture, at one time employing more than 100 men. After 40 years in business, James Brett is selling its contents, many of them his favourites.
5. Burroughs, Katrina (2006-11-17). "Metropolitan metamorphosis". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  The majority of the metamorphs are models of grown-up sophistication, however. Arthur Brett makes furniture based on classic English cabinetry that conceals high-tech audiovisual equipment. The push of a button on Brett's Regency rosewood commode, with hand-carved, fluted pillars and parcel gilt decoration, summons up a plasma television screen (GBP18,148).
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Arthur Brett and Sons to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~-- sufficient sources have been presented by editor Cunard to justify keeping the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a notable company and there has been sustained coverage. I found 2 more in the Singapore newspaper archives. To be honest the second source is essentially an interview. But overall, I get the feeling that the company is a notable English furniture manufacturer with quite a bit of history.

The labour of Arthur Brett's skilled men The Business Times, 7 March 1981, Page 13
A thorough Brett dyed in the wood The Straits Times, 3 December 1982, Page 4

There are also some trivial mentions which do indicate a credible claim of significance. The article btw is pretty badly written. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If new evidence is or has been provided, please check that it hasbeen added to the article please vote clearly 'keep' or 'delete' based ony our rationale. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure -- no sources have been added to the article and the tone continues to be overly promotional. I'm not confident that using the sources above would not result in the same. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets
WP:CORPDEPTH per a source review, and the article has been significantly copy edited after this nomination, which addressed promotional tone (see its Revision history). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 28 September 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. G4 per three prior AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Nazre (2nd nomination) —SpacemanSpiff 10:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Aniruddha Nazre

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

Low notability Connor Behan (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated because it's basically a list of jobs held by Nazre. The harassment allegations against him would be far more notable but there is a repeated pattern of Nazre attempting to remove this information from Wikipedia. I suspect that the single-purpose account responsible for this page is another of Nazre's alts. The fact that his name can be spelled in many ways is the only reason it was even possible for him to create this page in the first place (see past discussions). Protip: when you're notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, someone else will let you know by creating the article for you. Connor Behan (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 24 September 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) 05:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fricket

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

Chronically incapable of getting sources for any kind of notability whatsoever, and quite frankly reeks of trolling. Was hit with a PROD in 2007 which was removed almost immediately without any justification other than the single word 'notable' in the edit log. The account that de-PROD'd it had a single other edit; dePRODing a redirect page with the same lack of reason and the edit log 'notable'. Had no secondary sources of any kind in 2009 when I flagged it for notability, and it is in no better of a state now. Both citation links on the page are dead, and the homepage of one of them appears suspiciously like the domain was purchased with the express purpose of being used as a citation here. Frankly this page is a farce and should probably have been dealt with back when the PROD was removed without justification in 2007.

talk) 20:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, probably fails
WP:MADEUP. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I looked around a bit for some sources, both under the name "Fricket" as well as the various other names it gives in the opening, and I did get some hits. So, it was not an intentional hoax or troll. However, pretty much every source that I do find are things such as blogs and tumblr posts. There has not been, as far as I can find, any actual coverage of this by a reliable source. It just seems like this is a game that is actually played in some parts, but never got widespread recognition or popularity, and thus has not garnered enough notability to have an article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ubiquity (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OwnCloud

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

Does not meet

Wikipedia is not a software product directory. ubiquity (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Withdrawn by nominator: Since having been improved, I can see no objection to this article. ubiquity (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are now plenty of references to extensive coverage in reliable sources. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The additional references Rwxrwxrwx has added means the article now passes the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" standard of WP:GNG. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability, because searching google with "OwnCloud" shows 2,080,000 results. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yeah, an article about the subject in the Wall Street Journal in addition to the subject-area press makes it meet GNG in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are a few references: [5], [6], [7], [8], Google Books, Google Scholar, [9], HighBeam, .Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Plenty of sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (

flyer 00:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Seafile

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

Does not meet

Wikipedia is not a software product directory. ubiquity (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are now several references to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability, because searching google with "Seafile" shows 298,000 results. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are some references: [10], [11], Google Books, Google Scholar, [12], [13]. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets
available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 28 September 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. NACTOR appears to be met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Pandey

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG. He has appeared in two more films since the previous AfD of this page, but three small roles and some ads do not constitute notability, and the references do not establish it. ubiquity (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A good candidate for
Anup [Talk]

Keep Passes
WP:NACTOR Pratyush (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above. --BCD 05:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Fashions

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

Not notable. Advertisement. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 19:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Long-established tailor serving the UK (with an unusual and interesting business model), with resultant editorial, not advertorial, coverage in UK newspapers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - will be familiar to almost anyone who's regularly read British newspapers or Private Eye in the last decade, and sources exist. Blythwood (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually instead or at least Draft, because based from the current article, it contains nothing actually convincing, the information is simply what there is to say about the company and the sources are not actually better (there's no matter whether it's long-established as that hardly ever actually means anything to AfD, unless it's something historic); this would need actual showful improvements suggesting it can be a better article, because the current one has noticeable concerns. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the option to convert to an article about the company's founder, Raja Daswani. Several sources cover the founder in much more detail compared to the company, such as [22], [23], [24]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there appears to be a fair bit of in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (

flyer 00:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Colonial Blackbird

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Looks like there are better sources here... Jclemens (talk)

Keep Has been mentioned in prop auctions: here and here. It's mentioned in episode recaps: [25]. It's covered in multiple series-oriented books: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. Frankly, all of these together paint a more central picture of the fictional craft than I remember, not having watched the show since its first run. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual, you've just grabbed every single mention of the topic without bothering to filter for anything actually useful. In what world is being one of several props auctioned off a indicator of notability? Cursory glances of those shows almost nothing at all useful. TTN (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually, I've done nothing of the sort, and you would actually know that if you ever, even once, had expended any modicum of effort in
  WP:BEFORE searching. It's a plot element, represented as a prop. Found the physical prop mentioned: real world mention. Found RS'es discussing how it was made within the show, and multiple ones discussing how it was used in the Resurrection Ship arc: commentary from outside the fictional world. Have you even read, in context, what I put up? Or have you just assumed that since I didn't include an annotated commentary on each source there must be nothing there? Actually, that would be consistent with your particularly and consistently myopic view of article potential... Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - It's one of many props. There is literally nothing at all notable about its status as a prop. It has no more or less attention in either of those articles than any other prop. You'd have a point if they were articles on the singular prop being given exclusive coverage or even just paragraph of attention in those article. As it stands, they are utterly trivial. Are you seeing something that I'm not? Other than source #2's couple minor development facts, all of those sources are pretty much singular mentions of the topic in the context of the plot of the series. Source #2's couple minor development facts aren't bad, but they're trivial if that's the only good source. Please do not try to argue that being mentioned a single time in an entire book is an indicator of notability. The definition of trivial does not change depending on topic matter. TTN (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens.
talk) 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the sources provided by Jclemens. That Jclemens managed to provide sources shows there was no attempt to improve this article before sending it to AFD. This is just another one of those AFD's where sources were out there, but the article simply did not have any references. You don't send articles to AFD if an article can be improved. You send articles to AFD if an article can't be improved and the content absolutely has no place on Wikipedia. —Mythdon 00:03, 22 September 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. Sufficient sourcing appears to have been found. Sam Walton (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Lee (criminal)

)

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

I frankly would've PROD but it may simply be driveby-removed, none of the sources here are both substantially convincing and significant, they are simply from that time for a large case about the rapes and the events from them; my searches are then simply finding exact news for this but only from those set times and events, nothing else to suggest there has been anything else convincing after the case was closed, and that's not surprising considering this has in fact not actually changed since then; note the article had to be changed because of apparent copyvios. I also was going to note that although the ChineseWiki has loads of information and sources, the basis seems to still be that what is here is all that exists, now that the case was closed, therefore there's nothing else to suggest otherwise better. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move and repurpose as "Justin Lee sexual assault scandal" or similar, to conform with the equivalent article on Chinese Wikipedia. This is a case of
WP:BLP1E where the 1E was highly notable, with the Chinese Wikipedia citing 25 news articles spanning over 3 years (definitely "persistent coverage"). Deryck C. 14:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Still, it is still in fact for only one event, the 3 years was because that's how long the case was, and that's common with all law cases. But there was still essentially nothing else after that, for then a convincing article after the fact, especially if once he was simply sentenced. SwisterTwister talk 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A disturbing crime, but Wikipedia is not news and nothing about the crime elevates it above that level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS; this is routine police blotter. No lasting impact or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, not notable in the end; as noted Wikipedia is not a newspaper and as this was disturbing, unfortunately not uncommon type of behavior or events that occur in our world. Kierzek (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable with long-lasting significance, #1) His dozens of sex/rape tapes can be found on every single porn site in any language with millions of hits even if his name isn't always associated with them (some of the western porn sites even identify him as Japanese or Korean). #2) Many of his victims/ONS partners are believed to be high-profile actresses/models, so even though their identities were never officially disclosed, some actresses still active on TV are widely believed to be "that girl in that video", which ensures continuous interest even if only privately. #3) His father was a director of a major financial company in Taiwan who had to resign because of this scandal, see his profile on Bloomberg. #4) Several WP:BEFORE in either English or Chinese. Timmyshin (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

....Having been listed at sex and porn websites is not convincing here for an article nor should it be, the concerns have stated that there still has essentially been nothing aside from this one event, and the claims of not having searched are entirely not so, because I searched as my analysis showed above and others have also noted their own concerns. Simply having been connected to supposed "high-profile celebrities" is not a claim at all for his own actual notability and as the comment above states itself: "they were believed to be" meaning it was all simply entertainment claims and nothing confirmed as facts (therefore any such claims like these are not linked to his own independent notability), and the same can be said about his father, who was never at all actually focused with this event itself, since it was his son who was involved with the legal and law cases, therefore the father's positions in all this is not at all actually convincing for the son's independent notability and article. Never once is this comment above either actually acknowledging the concerns listed, and instead is counteracting, stating that the commenters must not have searched or considered the article, when the consensus is showing there is still none of that of which is needed for his own substantial article, all this was for 1 event and nothing else happened after that 1 case. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of Chinese sources (even the nom admits it has sufficient foreign language sourcing), we need someone who can speak the language, this is yet another case of western bias. This was a major scandal in Taiwan and has long lasting effects, we do not need english sources if foreign language ones exist, english is not a requirement. We really need a editor who speaks the language, not deletion. Just think, this crime happened in Taiwan yet the article is in 5 wiki languages, which proves sourcing exists. (P.S if the Chinese wikipedia has "loads of sources" then why can't you give the English wiki those too?)GuzzyG (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google his mandarin name 李宗瑞 and look at all those sources, from Sep 2016 no less, shame i can't speak the language or i'd fix it myself. Serious western oversight going on here. GuzzyG (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename It is true that this almost a BLP1E, but the event itself is highly significant. This is possibly the biggest sex scandal/drug rape case in recent years in Taiwan and it was all over Singaporean media (which is mostly English btw). One claim of significance is that it involved quite a few well known celebrities (who I am not naming per BLP concerns). The second was that there was a constant news coverage about this incident. You can see some English sources if you search "site:asiaone.com "Justin lee" Taiwan" - Some of them are here [33], [34], [35], [36]. There were some other effects as well for example the reporters who published the photos were queried and the issues as briefly referenced during the 2016 Taiwan election. This is definitely one of the more notable events in AfDs I have seen of late. A rename of the article (to avoid BLP concerns) is best here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. plenty of reliable and good sources as well.BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 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) 05:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goodie Ibru

Goodie Ibru (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)

Glorified PR article that focuses too closely with not only PR-like information and claims about specifying his career and businesses, but it's actually then not substantially sourced, let alone for notability convincing; my searches are then only finding "news" about mentions, his businesses and then for some apparent law case troubles that led to his being removed from the company positions. Searches at Nigerian newspapers are either mirroring this or not finding anything at all; anything there is here has nothing suggesting the significant improvements we would need, let alone for a nearly notable article. I'll note this has not actually changed since starting over 2 years ago by what seemed to be a likely PR agent. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Results on the subject majorly brings up court issues concerning the ownership of a business venture. Not enough to merit a stand alone article. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hotel operator who does not reach the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 22 September 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 by nominator. (
non-admin closure) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Toxik Ephex

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

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

PROD'd in 2010, PROD removed in 2012. No referenced improvements to show notability since then. Standard searches not showing any usable significant mentions. Fails
WP:BAND -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE for bands from before the Internet era involves Google Books at the least, where I immediately found [37][38][39]MRR featured article and leads on contemporary paper coverage. On this basis I'm leaning keep - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah, a very good tip! Thanks. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And... unless anyone objects, I will
withdraw this AFD soon. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
:-) We're really spoilt for sourcing in the post-1995 era. There's been a pile of articles where I know for a fact extensive paper sources exist, but I'm on the wrong side of the world to even look them up ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 20 September 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton)

(2nd nomination)

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

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

Previously AFD in 2005 resulted in delete. Article re-created with no sourcing. Standard searches not showing enough coverage to reach notability per
WP:ORG -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with userfy/incubate on request Delete as per
WP:DEL7, plus WP:IAR for the requirement of "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify", as such attempts do not create in-line citations, and WP:V is a core content policy. Obviously this is a notable church. Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Removing !vote as the article has not been tagged as not meeting WP:V, which is WP:BEFORE C3. Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm always inclined to keep articles on significant historic buildings like this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is rather thin on detail, but may be worth keeping, in contrast with most on local churches. It needs to be tagged for sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting point that the tag in the article said that the problem was notability. Notability requires no sources in the article. I've retagged the article and struck my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but someone still needs to produce some sources to demonstrate notability. Anyone? St Anselm (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well written with sources, any questions? --Buick Century Driver 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
BuickCenturyDriver has been blocked since March 2013 (log), and his vote should be disregarded. Rebb ing 21:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - where are the sources? I don't see any. There are two external links: one to the church website, and the other to a blog. But no actual sources. St Anselm (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous GBooks results indicate that this is not just an ordinary church. I also found this, which I will add to the article. St Anselm (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the church is 175 years old and has been cited in numerous books relating to Canada, the church/religion, and social order there. see also http://www.presbyterianarchives.ca/FA4000H.pdf p17 Bpc.sg (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if sources aren't in the article, plenty clearly exist, and that is generally enough, I think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just tag for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G3) by David Gerard . (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Daniel Phillip Adams

Daniel Phillip Adams (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. Googles for "Daniel Phillip Adams" and "Daniel Adams chef" don't return much of anything other than a couple random podcasts, which aren't significant enough to confer notability. Smartyllama (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There is no way to verify any of the information on this article.WikiGuy1980 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete as hoax - any 15 year old that had worked in "best restaurants in the world including The Fat Duck" would be all over the papers. You don't work in a Michelin star kitchen as a kid and not be huge news, and then set a a new restaurant with a weebly.com webpage. KylieTastic (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Kylie beat me to it. Blatant out and out hoax. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The federal union

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

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

No indication of notability, no citations, no indication that it passes
WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no indication of significance, much less notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is/was notable. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WorldCat lists almost 1000 libraries holding this book[40], so there might be something in it. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
do their homework? Joe Roe (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep it's a famous textbook -- one that I personally assigned for a number of years. It was often mentioned at history convention panels on how to teach college history. It introduced new techniques esp in terms of illustrations & maps. Over the decades it's where hundreds of thousands of Americans (several million I think) learned history. (Used copies were sold and resold over and over.) I still have and use a copy. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I would expect an undergraduate textbook, even if now superseded to be notable. I note that the form in which not is nominated had been changed to a correctly capitalised one. Whether the redirect remains useful, I am not sure, but redirects are cheap. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that this looks like a notable textbook. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Mixpanel

Mixpanel (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 extensively informed PROD here boldly removed with the sole changes of adding unconvincing sources, here's why: the first source clearly is supplied with interviewed information by the business itself, see "Mr. Cooley was seen as a great catch. He had been an early employee of New Relic, which does software analytics, and had built the sales team to about 150 people....Mr. Doshi said he tried a couple of executive recruiting firms, which run around $80,000, but had no luck. So he decided to do the job himself.". The only uses of actually mentioning that itself is to fluff and puff themselves, and as always, to woo clients and investors to come and look at their business. Surrounding this listed information then goes to state the specifics about both their careers and then the company's and then stating their philosophy and plans. No honest journalist would add or think of mentioning it unless the intentions were to fluff and puff the (quote) "starting company Mixpanel". The next one, TechCrunch (which is notoriously becoming PR-based by companies) only mentions the flashy specifics about what there is to advertise about the company, with only 7 thin paragraphs, putting aside the obvious company-supplied information, there was no actual journalism efforts there. The next TC link not only consists of funding "news", but it goes as far to actually state the specifics about the what business is, how it works, what it looks, etc. and both being supplied by the company information and businesspeople themselves (quote) "The company told us....", that was hardly journalism there. This same article goes to finish with talking about the specifics of investors, again, no actual journalism. The same can be said about the next one, which is equally PR-based as the other, none of it swimming again from the PR pools it bathes in. The last one listed is simply a guide, granted, to show how it works; it's likely not independent coverage and, certainly not guaranteed to be non-PR. I'll state that my PROD was essentially similar with even stating the concerns about the initial information and sources, so if there's simply additional PR to add, that's not saying a lot at all. Also, looking again at the history as I had before, it shows a noticeable underused history, and this was in fact accepted in 2014, clearly enough time to have improved and clearly enough time to suggest that Review was as questionable now as it would have been then; I would not have accepted at all if it was solely PR-based. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Below are some sources. These are examples; more are out there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Mixpanel Engage Turns Analytics Into Targeted Messages". Forbes.

Lawler, Ryan (July 29, 2013). "Now Analyzing More Than 15 Billion Actions A Month, Mixpanel Launches A Big Marketing Campaign And A Conference About Analytics". TechCrunch. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

Gage, Deborah (September 10, 2014). "In 'Unicorn Hire,' Mixpanel Lures Top Sales Executive From New Relic". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

Ha, Anthony (January 22, 2014). "Mixpanel Aims To Help Developers Deliver Targeted Messages Through New In-App Notifications". TechCrunch. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

Perez, Sarah (July 11, 2014). "Amplitude, The Analytics Startup Undercutting Mixpanel, Raises $2 Million Seed Round". TechCrunch. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

The Wall Street Journal

Birani, B.; Birani, M. (2016). iOS Forensics Cookbook.
ISBN 978-1-78528-535-6
. (subscription required)

Keep: per sources listed above. Sources like this WSJ piece provide
WP:SIGCOV. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

For the sake of this AfD, I explicitly and clearly stated all of the concerns with the links above because they are the same trivial and PR sources listed in the current article; a Keep vote cannot be substantiated by a "it's sourcing" comment if it is not considering the concerns explicitly stated above; this link above itself consists of PR since it begins with "Suhail Doshi has big dreams for his mobile and Web analytics company Mixpanel Inc. and has just raised $65 million from Andreessen Horowitz to make them come true", that is churnalism by all means because no honest journalist would add that unless they blatantly let the company say it; this exact article goes to specifics about not only the businessman himself but the company and what its plans are (see the blatant "He plans to build a large team specializing in artificial intelligence and machine learning as part of growing from 100 to 250 or so employees during the next year", that is not only wooing clients and investors but presumably attempting to woo the journalist); that is another case of no actual journalism efforts because the man himself is supplying everything, the article itself ends with the company supplying information about its current investments; simply because it comes from a national news source is not convincing if the contents themselves are explicitly PR. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The sources I provided above are examples; more are available. With the exception of the book source, these are
WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Right. Also, there's a long-time consensus at
WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument at this point. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
C 12:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I'll note my listed and extensive concerns above saying that those exact sources in themselves are not actually convincing because there are PR-based and otherwise influenced by the company itself, especially when it comes to actually mentioning the company's information, services, etc. Simply stating GNG and CORP, without actually looking and considering the coverage (again, after I have analyzed them as shown above) is not the same thing as actually explaining why this Keep vote thinks otherwise. I'll even note that this is not only a business blog, but the header itself contains "Mixpanel Lures Top Sales Executive From New Relic", that's not something an actually genuine journalist would say, that's exactly what makes that source unconvincing. I'll note that, in the past, I've seen such blatant attempts at masking press releases, that they would list a journalist's name to simply show it for ghost uses. Once again, I'll note the following: After pursuing his target, Matt Cooley, for months, he persuaded Mr. Cooley to leave his position as head of sales at New Relic Inc., a company that is valued at more than $1 billion and is believed to be headed for an IPO, for Mixpanel, a Y Combinator graduate that has become profitable with about $12 million in funding. is entirely PR in that it's explicitly and solely advertising what there is to say about the information, the specifics of people involved and then the specifications about what it involved; none of that would come from any other source than the company itself therefore that's not even close to independent coverage. This same article itself then actually goes to contain a photo of him exactly next to this said information, so that essentially hints at being an attempt at not only PR, but an attempt of a job listing, granted, to woo clients and investors, that's what business PR signifies. These Keep vote have not at all even close actually specified where they find the extensive comments unconvincing yet with the concerns all laid. Even then, I'll note something that has been extensively seen here at AfD, and that is that these said major news sources are notoriously becoming baseplaces for PR, and if we have the excuses that they therefore are significant and independent coverage, that is essentially acknowledging and allowing thinly veiled press releases by the sheer fact of "it comes from a news source" (as it is, it has been obviously clear that's exactly what these companies are intending and still plan to intend, by taking advantage of the fact news sources will happily publish anything, especially if there's no means of efforts by the journalist lest risk budget cuts because of it, so the companies offer pre-authored information as "news"), that's exactly what churnalism is, it's therefore still advertising. In a time when Wikipedia is being bombarded enough as it is with advertisements, we must take these matters seriously, by fully considering and acknowledging the concerns, not by thinly defending that they are, again, "news". To add, simply a note abuot the exact quote "doesn't disqualify us from using the source or from the source helping the article subject meet WP:GNG. The important thing is that our articles here are neutral", this is not entirely convincing in that we are in fact able to completely remove and list as unacceptable, a source that is in fact again influenced by the company and is not contributing to any forms or shapes of actual coverage, hence my exhaustive comments above. SwisterTwister talk 16:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I reviewed the refs on the article, the refs noted above, and did my own search to confirm that additional indy RS sources exists. The significant coverage meets
WP:CORP. I would also like to again thank the nominator for using the Streisand effect to bring our attention to so many interesting notable companies. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Forbes and WSJ are independent and definitely
snow keep at some point soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I find it astonishing how people argue against the sheer fact of actually analyzing these sources, because it not only shows someone is paying attention to them, but also showing the concerns of them, that's what a nomination is; if anyone is actually upset about this, it's because they are not actually taking in what the concerns of these sources are, not simply because of what's perceived. For example, once again, the Forbes and WallJournal are still in fact containing PR themselves, to quote the Forbes, "Mixpanel already provides its customers with detailed data about every action or click that a user takes on a website or mobile app. In an increasing trend, the company believes in moving from a metric of page views to measuring engagement", That is essentially self-advertising the company itself, because it is only focusing with the flashy parts of what there is to know about the company. The other parts of this Forbes then contains information about the company's activities such as fundinding, which is by far expected and trivial if that's the best there is to say about a company (not to mention the sheer fact any hoping-to-establish-ground company will say this. That article then actually continues to then have a stated quote by the businessman himself; finally the other part of that article is then stating how the services work, that is entirely PR from the PR book itself. As it has been shown, the news media's current state is in fact willing to accept company-assisted information, if it means no budget cuts lest there be risks of spent time for journalism, it shows how the current state of news journalism is willing to be used, and it shows by the fact Wikipedia is continuously bombarded by advertising. It is unacceptable to cite
WP:BLUDGEON, as that is neither a policy or a behavioral guideline, it's a user-started essay about what was thought by said user. Using that is essentially simply using it an argument, fighting to keep this article, despite its concerns, that is not how the AfD lines should work, if analysis is being shooed away. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Not all positive articles are solely PR-worksmanship. Publications will publish positive pieces on companies because a part of their editorial mission is to expose successful businesses. Something not being investigative journalism does not automatically make it trivial or not a reliable source. Also, of course Forbes is going to cover funding for a new company, that's what a business publication does. You might not like that fact that Forbes or WSJ choose to run articles like these, but that doesn't change the fact that they as editorially independent and very noteworthy sources do in fact chose to do so. That meets the criteria of
WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Article quality could use some clean-up, but the subject matter appears to be verifiable enough per
WP:GNG to merit an article. --Jayron 32 15:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- when "the investment values the company at $865 million" this begins to approach a level of significance, and
WP:TOOSOON no longer applies. I see them discussed as a leading player in the space, so they are likely to become more notable in the future. I'll go ahead and clean up the promo language. I think this is acceptable as a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There has been consensus here at AfD that $865 million is not alone convincing for notability in and of itself; it may perhaps be different if it was a multi-billion dollar company, but even then we would not only need non-PR coverage, but enough to level a both notable and non-advert article; I myself noted the businessman's interview above where he himself counted the company as a "billion dollar company" but that's not independent since it's not only his own words, but his own attempts at company PR. Suggesting that they may be notable soon, is still thin if there are still concerns now; we cannot compromise perceived information for the risks of PR and otherwise advertorial coverage. That said, noting WP:GNG is enough (while may be common at AfDs) can and has in the past been outweighed by the facts of removing PR and advertisements alone, which is not only damaging to Wikipedia, but to its meaning and significance as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per existence of bylined reliable sources under independent editorial review. The content of these sources being "poorly written" by the opinion of one wikipedian, or containing content that is disagreeable or boring or irrelevant to some, does not matter. ST's claim that "$865 million is not alone convincing" is correct... merely having $865 million is not notable. However, independent secondary sources reporting on the fact that someone has $865 million, that IS notable. Simply by being talked about by multiple reliable sources is the very criteria that Wikipedia uses to establish notability. Reliable sources discussing someone, not the validity of their discussion. Otherwise we could delete all the articles on the Kardassians, because who can really argue that the discussion on THOSE idiots is valid? But everyone talks about them, so they are notable. Likewise here. Fieari (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A comment noting that they criticize other comments listed here but yet suggests that we keep this because we keep the "idiots Kardassians" is not suggestive or relevant here to this AfD alone (this AfD has become overpersonal with personal comments as it is); the fact I have noted my concerns and concerns that we need to take seriously, instead of making WP:OSE arguments, is why my concerns have still not be acknowledged to the level that they need to. Once Wikipedia becomes a PR platform simply because we accepted shoehorned "news" (I'll note that I mentioned the supposedly called "bylined acceptable sources....independent editorial review" is not answering the concerns I specifically noted above that the contents themselves were PR and PR alone in the fact the company supplied the information about themselves, including the fact information only the company would know such as what their plans are and where their own money is going, any of that actually being called news is exactly what damns Wikipedia because, whereas this is intended to be an actual encyclopedia, advertisements should not be given the benefit of doubts or accepted at all. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument. I'm arguing that I don't care about the contents of the articles except to the fact that they are about the subject, they are independently written, and bylined under editorial review. Because that's the inclusion standard, not the subjective quality of the articles. PR does not mean what you seem to think it means. PR is non-independent writing, by the subject, for the subject. A positive article by someone else is not PR by definition. If a secondary source buys into someone's PR, that does not make the secondary source PR! A secondary source is not, and CANNOT be PR, because PR is defined as being written by the one benefiting from it (or having someone paid to do the writing, which amounts to the same thing). Secondary sources are not advertising, unless they were paid to be written by the beneficiary. If Mixpanel did not write the article, if Mixpanel did not pay the secondary sources to write the article, it is not advertising, regardless of how positive the article is. Fieari (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of analysis, what makes it PR is the fact the CEO himself talked about what his plans were and what his plans were now about the company, that is the businessman advertising the company himself. Also "provides its customers with detailed data about every action or click that a user takes on a website or mobile app. In an increasing trend, the company believes in moving from a metric of page views to measuring engagement" is something from a sales pitch, because it glorifies what the company believes of itself ("the company believes in moving"). Also, there's "He plans to build a large team specializing in artificial intelligence and machine learning as part of growing from 100 to 250 or so employees during the next year", that is also the man himself advertising the company himself, because that's company-supplied information, in that it's his own thoughts and comments about the company itself, not the journalist's or news publisher's. Simply because not every comment may seem like a blatant advertisement is not saying it's not or that it's guaranteed to be non-PR influenced. See again "Mixpanel Lures Top Sales Executive From New Relic" and "After pursuing his target, Matt Cooley, for months, he persuaded Mr. Cooley to leave his position as head of sales at New Relic Inc., a company that is valued at more than $1 billion and is believed to be headed for an IPO, for Mixpanel, a Y Combinator graduate that has become profitable with about $12 million in funding" also "Suhail Doshi has big dreams for his mobile and Web analytics company....raised $65 million from Andreessen Horowitz to make them come true" (this last one not only advertises what the man's thoughts are, but it advertises those and the person who funded the money), that is not only advertising the company's own achievements and what became of it, but then advertising what there is to know about the company's financing. If a news source goes to specifics about a company's finances and what the businessman's own thoughts are, that is not (quote) "independently written, and bylined under editorial review"; this is exactly what churnalism is, mirroring "news" by using news sources. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, because these concerns have not been taken genuinely or with serious acknowledgement, it's suggested they are simply sticking with their "but there's sources" comments, this would benefit from a relisting to allow better taking in and considering to my concerns above.

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hayden Kays

Hayden Kays (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 extensively informed PROD here was boldly removed with the sole changes of simply adding sources, sources that even simply consist of one questionable source (TheArcadia), three clearly stated interviews; none of that amounts to anything close to comparably removing the PROD if it itself stated the concerns, my searches and examinations how he was not satisfying any substance. Even the 2 articles that are the only ones to come close to "news", TheArcadia and i-D, are still only noticeably set apart with time, suggesting the news was not even consistent. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. These are examples; more are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Tully, Monicha (September 20, 2016). "Hayden Kays: Artist and Anarchist". The Arcadia. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

– I consider The Arcadia to be a
reliable source. It is a printed magazine with paid circulation (see here
).

"Profile of an extraordinary seller: Hayden Kays". The Telegraph. September 20, 2016. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

Simpson, Leah (May 11, 2015). "Interview: Hayden Kays in Dubai". Time Out Dubai. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

"Hayden Kays bridges the gap between street art and high art". i-D. May 5, 2015. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

Daily Mail

Keep: per sourcing listed above, this Telegraph piece in particular is good
WP:SIGCOV. Esquire wrote "Even in the notoriously unpredictable, whimsical sphere that is the modern day art world, commanding the sort of attention that young British artist Hayden Kays has in the last few month takes some doing." Seems to be a modern artist of note. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Once again, this vote is not taking in my analysis listed above and there's simply nothing, again, to suggest those listed sources are actually convincing, not only is his career simply not actually convincing, there's nothing for any means of substantial notability. Note the Esquire is actually only an interview, satisfying his talking about himself. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I reviewed the sources on the article, the sources noted above, and did my own search to confirm enough significant coverage exists. It does, passes
WP:ARTIST. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - One, the keep vote is not at all acknowledging the analysis and concerns above, so a Keep vote cannot honestly be taken to fully thoughts if they haven't cared to look at all of the concerns listed. Also, having explicitly mentioned 3 of the sources listed are mere interviews, that's not "significant coverage", this would essentially be the equivalent of republished PR and calling it coverage, because both consist of simply firsthand subject-supplied information itself. Also, as noted, he is not notable an artist because it explicitly shows there are no museum collections, major publications or actual non-interview or unconvincing coverage; simply stating that major news sources are listed is not the same thing as actually examining them and stating the concerns. The article itself is then filled with claims of other people, such as "He sold a piece to this person" and then "he was involved with this other person and this group", not only is that coatracking but it's clear attempts at PR by shoehorning names. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.

Allsopp, Ashleigh (2014-04-29). "Typewriter art by Hayden Kays stars in Stereotypewriter exhibition". Digital Arts. International Data Group. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
The article notes:

Typewriter art is to be celebrated at a new solo show in Brighton, showcasing the work of London-based artist Hayden Kays.
...
Hayden's work has been featured in the Independent, on book covers and in other newspapers, and also hit the media when One Direction's Harry Styles purchased £20,000 worth of pieces from the artist earlier this year. Plus, Hayden designed the artwork for the Kooks' new single and album.
He's also starred in exhibitions alongside David Bailey and Damien Hirst at the Saatchi Gallery, and has recently published his first book, 'Hayden Kays is an Artist,' which features a collection of his work.

"Photo Flash: Hayden Kays's 'Those Who Suffer Love' Presented to Sadie Frost for 50th Birthday". Broadway World. 2015-08-11. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
The article notes:

Hayden already has a list of high-profile collectors including Chris Martin, Matt Smith, Lily James, Noel Fielding, Brad Pitt, Billie Piper and Sharleen Spiteri.
London-based Hayden Kays is one of the most provocative artists of his generation.
Kays is both classically trained but ruthlessly contemporary. His work creates hard-hitting messages that could be from any time but speak so pointedly to right now. He seamlessly celebrates and critiques the culture industry with his bold imagery and acerbic word-play.
As a painter, sculptor and printmaker, Kays is entrenched in art history, but retains an unashamed love for popular culture, using everyday references, his work relates to and subverts the canon of the Pop Artists of the 1950s and the Young British Artist movement. He was recently heralded as the man who is spearheading the evolution of the YBA movement in the UK today.
His take on society and pop culture has already caught the eye of art alumni Jake Chapman, pop royalty Harry Styles and film luminaries such as Jude Law, who are all avid collectors of his work.

Alberge, Dalya (2015-03-23). "The great pop art swap shop: Artists trade works with one other for reasons of friendship or even rivalry — and to save money". Financial Times. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
The article notes:

Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin, Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol and Jasper Johns — they are among some of the greatest masters who have swapped works of art with their contemporaries. For some, it was a mark of mutual respect, the extension of an exchange of ideas; for others, a mutual rivalry. Or both.
As a tradition spanning centuries, swapping continues today. Jake Chapman, one half of the Chapman brothers, has just agreed to swap certain pieces with Hayden Kays, a pop artist who borrows imagery from mass culture and whom Chapman describes as “acerbic, witty, shallow and subversive … quite brilliant”.
...
Victoria Williams, director of the Cob Gallery, London, where Kays will exhibit this spring, says: “It’s amazing for so established and well-recognised an artist as Jake [Chapman] to be recognising Hayden … and swapping.”
Kays can pick whatever he wants, Chapman says, having himself chosen one of Kays’ sculptures, “This Is Not A Brillo Box”, a variation on Warhol’s iconic “Brillo Soap Pads” boxes.
Link to Jake and Dinos Chapman.

The sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) and Safehaven86 (talk · contribs).

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Hayden Kays to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Analysis of the sources - Again, the first one is what I mentioned above in my nomination, the sourcing and information alone focuses with the fact he was involved with someone, and that someone bought his artwork; if everyone came to Wikipedia and said "Hey, someone bought my artwork, can I have an article?" If we wanted to conserve what this encyclopedia means, we would not automatically start one until we ensured that we had not only sufficient coverage, but also non-PR and trivial coverage. The next article not only starts with his own clients, but it goes to say unsubstantiated things about him such as "classically trained but ruthlessly contemporary. His work creates hard-hitting messages that could be from any time but speak so pointedly to right now. He seamlessly celebrates and critiques the culture industry with his bold imagery and acerbic word-play....He is entrenched in history....an unashamed love for popular culture"; the last sentence then focuses with his clients again; that can hardly be confided as substantial and untouched-by-subject coverage, if it focuses that heavily with clients, yes although the journalist may have been interested, that's not what gets an article confirmed here alone. The next source then has a beginning paragraph about something completely different and it's not actually about the subject himself. The information listed then goes to only mention him about 5 times and that's because he was involved with someone about art; that alone is quite thin and cannot be held to be substantial enough for an article alone. This then concludes all sources listed, so that's simply not saying a lot if that's the best sourcing added. As for the comment stating that "other sources were also listed" is not considering or acknowledging the concerns about the article that have been listed here, including I challenged the sources above and explicitly showed they either contained PR or interviews alone; the next challenged line of sourcing was because of not only named mentions but also then the mere fact it was a known news source, without even actually stating the contained information, that's not the same thing as then also showing the concerned parts, as I have noted myself SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reviewing the sources, I find them to be valid and able to establish notability. I reject utterly the notion that interviews are not a valid source, or that interviews cannot be used to establish notability. If the interview is published by a secondary source, it is no longer a primary source, and it is independent of the subject, because it underwent editorial review and was selectively published. Fieari (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The outcome hinges on the quality of the available sources. Normally, closers don't weigh in on this, as it is a matter of editorial judgment. But here, we have several "delete" opinions that discuss the quality of the available of the sources in considerable depth, and only one "keep" opinion at a similar level of detail and engagement. Given this level of detail in the discussion, the remaining "keep" opinions must be accorded less weight because they merely assert that sources exist, without addressing the "delete" side's concerns about their quality. In other words, based on the discussion among editors who have studied the sources in some detail, we have consensus that they are inadequate. Sandstein 09:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleStrong

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

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

I still confirm my PROD here which was extensively informed about what the concerns were, yet it was boldly removed with no actual substantial improvements, the sources (like mentioned with my PROD) are all consisting of PR, event listings, company employee information, company achievemebts and investments. None of that substance ties any notability at all, and the gistory itself shows this was clearly touched by the company and likely their PR agents. In fact, not one thing comes close to being both substantially significant and non-PR. For example, also, simply examine the overall nature of those sources, one of them states "fresh acquisitions", I have never seen that mentioned at "news" unless it was a PR piece. SwisterTwister talk 16:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: per
WP:SIGCOV of this company. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

One, the comment is not stating where they find my nomination "supposedly unconvincing" if I stated clearly and fluidly where the concerns are, why there are there and why there are unacceptable. These two links offered above are essentially the same thing, PR, and the fact one of them says "PeopleStrong eyes acquisitions" is basically telling us what the company's plans are, not only to simply say them, but to get clients and investors interested; that is not at all close to actual journalism. Saying that the company got a landmark investment, is another bold attempt at wooing clients and investors, something I actually mentioned above, so stating the contrary that it's "significant and convincing" is not showing the considerations of my comments above. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - what refs there are demonstrate neither
WP:CORPDEPTH, and are indeed promotional fluff - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Check out
WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a non sequitur - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of significance. A private company going about its business. The sources provided above do not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH
, for example, from First Post:

"HR is increasingly becoming the cornerstone of successful businesses," said Deepak Parekh, Chairman, HDFC Ltd, in a press release on the investment sent to the media. "I visited PeopleStrong during one of their product launches and I find PeopleStrong ahead of its times. Its founders are competent to take the company to much higher levels. We are happy to be a part of their journey and wish them success for their future growth."

I looked as well and the coverage I'm seeing is PR-like, about partnerships and investments, etc. Not sufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has sufficient sourcing to pass
C 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Unavailability of sources other than PR and ROUTINE coverage, makes subject ineligible for inclusion failing
WP:CORPDEPTH
. A news coverage ending with,
PeopleStrong enables Business Leaders and CEO's in transforming their people agenda. It has implemented some of the largest HR Service Centers in Asia Pacific. They are delivering employee services across regions and time zones for more than 300,000 employees and have hired more than 40,000 employees through a unique technology interface coupled with high end decision making Tools for people data.

doesn't signal green for RS. That's Firstpost. Most of the sources are related to
Anup [Talk] 04:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.

Dutta, Diksha (2014-03-03). "PeopleStrong eyes acquisitions in contingency staffing, HR analytics space". VCCircle. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
The article notes:

PeopleStrong is an HR outsourcing company specialising in HR shared services, payroll management, recruitment and technology solutions.
...
Last year, the company made a strategic investment by infusing capital in Gurgaon-based Integrated Learning Solution Pvt Ltd, which runs an online skill assessment venture under Wheebox.com. Bansal did not disclose the exact amount put in the company but said that PeopleStrong holds a significant equity in the firm.
...
Bansal did not disclose the revenues that PeopleStrong is clocking but shared that it has an order book of $30 million and has presence across 40 locations in India. The company employs around 500 people.
...
PeopleStrong has received $10 million in funding since 2005, the year of its inception. It has raised funding from angel investors like Pramod Bhasin (former chief of Genpact), Santrupt Mishra (of Aditya Birla Group) and Raja Varadarajan (HR veteran who has also worked at PeopleStrong) between 2006 and 2013. The company received institutional funding from HDFC Holdings and Lumis Partners around a year ago.

"PeopleStrong to set up 'talent stock exchange' by December". Business Line. Press Trust of India. 2012-08-05. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
The article notes:

At a time when the gap between demand and supply of skilled workers is increasing, the human resource outsourcing firm, PeopleStrong, plans to set up a “talent stock exchange” by December this year.
...
The company already has a bank of 40,000 jobs through its different clients, including Nokia, L&T, SRF, Maruti Suzuki, Aditya Birla Financial Services, Tata Sons, Microsoft, Zapper, and Nokia Siemens Network.
...

Datta, Nandita (2008-09-06). "In Through The Out Door". Outlook. pp. 71–72. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
The magazine notes:

PeopleStrong, on the other hand, started off by offering HR help-desk services to large firms and then forayed into attrition management.
...
PeopleStrong recently worked with an organisation where an external interviewer had earlier identified work-life balance issue in one of its branch offices as a pain-point. "When we studied their attrition, we found the problem was limited to just a few top performers. Overworked and frustrated, they were leaving, prompting their team members to quit as well," Bansal says. PeopleStrong conveyed this assessment to the company, which admitted that there was some problem with the branch head. The company then put in place an action plan that ensured that communication issues were sorted out with the corporate office. "It was our ability to slice the data that gave us the breakthrough which the other external interviewer could not identify," Bansal says. Over the last two-and-a-half years, PeopleStrong has invested heavily in this business; but Bansal refuses to divulge how much.

Sengupta, Devina (2014-12-30). "Wipro's India division to handover staff recruitment responsibilities to PeopleStrong". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
The article notes:

WiproBSE -0.27 %'s India and Middle-East division is expected to handover its entire staff recruitment responsibilities to HR solution provider PeopleStrong in a deal valued over Rs 100 crore, people with knowledge of the matter said.
...
PeopleStrong in the past has taken up hiring work for Mahindra & Mahindra and HDFC Life, but the proposed deal with Wipro Infotech will be bigger than those. "This is good news and shows a step in right direction that big firms want to outsource their HR work. If PeopleStrong delivers, we can expect more such clients to sign up," said Shiv Agrawal, managing director and chief executive of ABC Consultants. The staffing firm's fouryear-old RPO business is its fastest growing vertical, expanding at 60% a year.

Burroughs, Tim (2013-06-14). "Lumis, HDFC invest in India's PeopleStrong". Asian Venture Capital Journal. Mergemarket. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
The article notes:

Lumis Partners has teamed up with Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) to invest in PeopleStrong, an Indian human resources outsourcing company. The size of the equity commitment was not disclosed.
Founded in 2006 by Pankaj Bansal and Shelly Singh, with seed funding from Withya Group, PeopleStrong is headquartered in Gurgaon and has branch offices in Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bengaluru. It provides ...

Datta, Aesha (2012-04-27). "Even appraisals are now outsourced". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
The article notes:

PeopleStrong, which was launched in 2005, has been witnessing a compound annual growth rate of about 110 per cent each year since its inception. The company aims at going public by 2015.
...
Both Aditya Birla Financial Services and Kotal Life outsource their HR needs to PeopleStrong.

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow PeopleStrong to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

per SisterTwister's analysis, I remain unconvinced - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the listed sources - The first source is not only noticeable of not actually having efforts of journalis, but it goes to begin with "PeopleStrong is an HR outsourcing company specialising in HR shared services, payroll management, recruitment and technology solutions....The company made investments with [named companies and information]....did not disclose the revenues that PeopleStrong is clocking but shared that it has an order book of $30 million and has presence across 40 locations in India. The company employs around 500 people....[Company] has made investments with [named people and stated amounts involved].". The next source says "t a time when the gap between demand and supply of skilled workers is increasing, the human resource outsourcing firm, PeopleStrong, plans to set up a “talent stock exchange” by December this year....The company has a bank of 40,000 jobs through its different clients, including Nokia, L&T, SRF, Maruti Suzuki, Aditya Birla Financial Services, Tata Sons, Microsoft, Zapper, and Nokia Siemens Network". That is not anywhere close to actual journalism because it's all information of the company and by the company; no journalist would have added that if they genuinely were an investigative journalist, and not a look-to-the-side while the company supplies its own PR information.". Next we have "PeopleStrong, on the other hand, started off by offering HR help-desk services to large firms and then forayed into attrition management....The company worked with....". None of that is a journalist's own words, it's the company who is willing to advertise their own company. An outrageous one is the next one: "WiproBSE -0.27 %'s India and Middle-East division is expected to handover its entire staff recruitment responsibilities to HR solution provider PeopleStrong in a deal valued over Rs 100 crore, people with knowledge of the matter said" which is clearly the company businesspeople themselves, because no one else would have been involved with the company's activities....than the company itself and the company alone. The next one is: "Lumis Partners has teamed up with Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) to invest in PeopleStrong, an Indian human resources outsourcing company. The size of the equity commitment was not disclosed....The company was founded in...." That's another that contains PR-supplied company information and that alone; no actual journalist efforts. PeopleStrong, which was launched in 2005, has been witnessing a compound annual growth rate of about 110 per cent each year since its inception. The company aims at going public by 2015....Both companies outsource their HR needs to PeopleStrong; none of that, yet again, is actual journalism efforts because it's simply company-supplied information complete with the blatant last sentence of "Companies supply their HR needs to PeopleStrong". The state of the current media has been bombarded by PR and this is why churnalism exists, to cut media budgets and then let the companies advertise themselves at no costs. Accepting this as "coverage" is essentially accepting company PR therefore we are accepting advertising. Note compare this and this, not only is there the blatant similarities of still PR and PR alone by stating company information, blatantly including clients and company information, but there's still no actual transparency or alleviation of the listed sources by actually making the article better of PR concerns (every single PR article still exists, what simply happened is that the sections were cut). SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above sources are not convincing, as they are mostly PR-like and convey information likely emanating from the company, and would not be suitable RS to establish notability. Content includes:

PeopleStrong in the past has taken up hiring work for Mahindra & Mahindra and HDFC Life, but the proposed deal with Wipro Infotech will be bigger than those. " If PeopleStrong delivers, we can expect more such clients to sign up," said Shiv Agrawal, managing director and chief executive of ABC Consultants.

.... has been witnessing a compound annual growth rate of about 110 per cent each year since its inception. The company aims at going public by 2015.

So this is mostly puffery (investments, plans, and partnership announcements) not meeting
WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The sources are clearly problematic.
WP:SPIP
and cannot be used for notability.

VC Circle Routine news/redressed PR. Note that the source tend to publish press releases.

Hindu Businessline 1 This is the Indian version of PR Newswire. The article seems to be a reprinted news and half of it is quotes by the CEO. Sorry, but that doesn't make it an independent source. CORPDEPTH tends to consider these are routine.

Outlook quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources This is not secondary coverage and is considered routine per CORPDEPTH

Economic Times Routine news of merger Doesn't help to satisfy CORPDEPTH

Asian Venture Capital Journal Patent
WP:NOTDIR
.

Hindu Businessline 2 3 sentence coverage of which 2 sentences are quotes by the CEO. Also, 2 articles from the same sources are not considered distinct for notability This is patent ROUTINE coverage.

Every single sources I found is either trivial our routine coverage. There is not one good source which shows that this company is notable. The point about Churnalism by SwisterTwister is spot on. We need to examine the sources properly rather than take them at face value. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Press Association in the United Kingdom, and the Associated Press in the United States. I reviewed the non-quoted portions and did not find them in any press releases.
Cunard (talk) 06:43, 28 September 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) 05:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Work

Fort Work (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:CORPDEPTH. The article at first glance appears to be well-sourced, but many of the sources are the company's own web pages, and some of the references, such as the one from D magazine, do not mention the subject. ubiquity (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete per nom - if cut to RSes, this article would not exist - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my earlier PROD: "Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH" shoy (reactions) 17:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

We have added references to Fastcompany and the New York Times, Dallas Culture Map and Dallas news — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreybyers (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination for deletion.
talk) 23:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 27 September 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 Amazon Echo#Overview of operation. czar 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IVONA

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

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

The only reason this company could be considered notable is because it was purchased by Amazon. Other than that, this article either reads like an advertisement or is too technical for the average reader to understand. The technical information come from non-independent sources and does not prove notability. Proud User (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the proposed deletion. Ivona was/is one of the leading text-to-speech products and deserves a place on wikipedia, just like any other of the thousands of software described in other articles. The article could/should be modified so that 'it doesn't read as an advertisement' (NB: AFAIK Ivona stopped selling its products to privates) but the page should definitely stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L0rents (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this company is successful and known enough that there should be no problem finding reliable third-party information. There's obviously room for improvement, so that the article doesn't read like a press realease. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpalion, this is AfD so now's the time to show the secondary sources czar 04:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found no better sources. @L0rents: We don't decide whether a company "deserves" to be here, it's whether article on that company meets the standards agreed upon by the community. @Kpalion: I concur with Czar. While it seems like there should be better sources out there, we shouldn't be deciding on an article based on speculation--this is precisely the time when those sources should be found and added to the article. I tried and failed. Note: @MBisanz's double-relisting (and self-reversion) on 1 September caused this page to be commented out of that day's daily AfD log. I've fixed this--as that was the "third" relisting, there should be no more after this. --Finngall ^talk 14:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:ATD, we should preserve verifiable material instead of deleting it. Until more independent sourcing becomes available, a redirect to it most notable use seems the best way to give readers a little information about the TTS without outrunning the sources. --Mark viking (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation per the above - Article is clearly promotional and the sources aren't amazing, Better off redirected. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation where it is discussed. Anything useful can be pulled from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:UNDUE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 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. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rini Chandra

Rini Chandra (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)

Failed
talk) 13:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (
non-admin closure) -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Andrew John Schofield

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

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

Lack of secondary sources to confirm sufficient notability; some primary sources may not be reliable enough to back up claims in the article. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 12:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the article he unambiguously meets
WP:PROF #C2 (Maxwell Prize), #C3 (Fellowship of the Institute of Physics) and #C5 (Pro-Vice-Chancellor). Citation record and a Scopus h-index of 23 also suggests he'd meet #C1. We can assume an academic of Schofield's stature is notable for their work even if they aren't frequently mentioned in secondary sources. Joe Roe (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah, okay - I was unaware of
WP:PROF. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 15:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

If there's one thing I've learned about Wikipedia it's that there's always a policy you don't know about! Maybe consider
withdrawing this nomination, in the interests of expediency? Joe Roe (talk) 16:06, 20 September 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) 05:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Poong Electronics

Young Poong Electronics (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)

Suggest merger with Young Poong Group. This is not independently notable. Rathfelder (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete entirely and only redirect afterwards if needed, because the current article is honestly speedy material in that it only mentions what the company's services are and who the clients are! SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 26 September 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. Further, itt seems like the text is not useful for other articles, so no merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brightman anti aircraft machine gun

Brightman anti aircraft machine gun (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)

Notability:the only reference is a patent and no evidence can be found that the gun was ever in significant use (despite online and library searches). Initial discussion of a merge is at Talk:Volley gun#Merge in proposal; the result of that merge discussion was this deletion proposal Klbrain (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that even prototypes were made or that the military gave this weapon any consideration. Per
WP:GNG. SpinningSpark 13:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I found nothing. Vaporware.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom. No showing of notability, nor any RS citing as to one being built, tested or used. Kierzek (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no RS and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like everyone else, I also found nothing of note.--RAF910 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too have found nothing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to volley gun. A single patent[43] as a source is enough to support a brief note in that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As I said in the original merge proposal, there are numerous similar patents. There is nothing special about this one except that it has a Wikipedia article. Keeping it on Wikipedia because it is already on Wikipedia is circular reasoning. SpinningSpark 13:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this isn't a "machine gun", in the general sense of a recoil(sic) activated automatic repeater. It's a volley gun of the mitrailleuse type, a type which was notable once but would generally considered obsolete by the 1930s. It's not notable, but the idea that new volley gun designs were still being considered in the 1930s does have relevance to the volley gun article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I, or anyone in this discussion, say that I thought this was a machine gun? All the links to patents I gave in the original discussion (and I am sure there are many more) are for volley type weapons. The Brightman gun is not even the most recent. The first in my list of links was published 1973, and even that is not the most recent. You say that this gun was being considered in the 1930s, but you have offered no evidence that it actually was. There is no demonstration reported, no development contract, no discussions with the military, not even a report in the press. We simply don't report at Wikipedia every crazy patent that ever was. SpinningSpark 14:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continue (Wax album)

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

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

NN indie rap album. Fails
WP:NALBUM, no assertion of notability. MSJapan (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep Barely passes
WP:NALBUM by charting in Switzerland. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This album contains the hit song "
WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non notable album which fails GNG, IMHO no album should get an article just because it's charted in 1 country (1 country out of 195!), Regardless of where it's charted it still fails the notability guidelines here, I see no point in merging either as that would just be confusing and IMHO non-sensical, Better off being deleted .–Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article cannot be kept, it should be merged. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 20 September 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. Unnecessary to leave this open after being relisted. The only delete vote seems to be weak, and even then it is based on the now-resolved BLP issues brought up by the subject. Consensus is to keep. (
non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Chuck Sudetic

Chuck Sudetic (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)

OTRS request from subject ticket:2016082810003061 S Philbrick (Talk) 12:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
No such user (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
No such user (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
No such user (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
No such user (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@
No such user (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@
No such user: I included the OTRS link in case any agents wish to see what is in the ticket. If the subject had provided a rationale, and had given me permission to copy it here, I would have included it here. Whenever someone writes to OTRS to request an article be deleted we give them a set of options including instructions how to request deletion themselves but we always include an option that we will nominate it for deletion if they so request. That happened. I think you should judge the article on its merits, although I believe that in the case of close calls, some editors would give some weight to the subject's wishes.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As I implied, in my opinion this is a "close call" enough taking into account the subject's wishes – I would normally !vote "keep" but Sudetic is not that much above the GNG bar, and not that much of a public person, that we wouldn't accommodate him a courtesy deletion. Still, I fail to see what made him so upset. After all, he is (or was, if he prefers thus) an investigative journalist himself, bringing other people's tough stories to the public. Or is he having second thoughts now – the onwiki actions of his (?) seems so out of character that I imagined from his books and news articles. So, delete, I suppose, on the balance of BLP and everything.
No such user (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Author appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, but is also a notable reporter having been covered in multiple independent sources [44], [45], New York Times. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He wrote several important works and is deserving of an article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no !vote. The IP user (who claims to be the subject) has left a relevant message on my talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and closing of this Afd, given the subject's communication with zzuuzz above, where the subject has clarified that after zzuuzz's edits, the subject is satisfied with the said article. Not that we need any subject's approval for keeping or deleting an article, but BLP requests should always be seen with extreme empathy, given the amount of damage wrong information in a BLP can cause to people in their real lives. Lourdes 12:25, 20 September 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
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Junior Software Engineer

Junior Software Engineer (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)

WP:TNT. Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Software engineer and Speedy close this Afd. Lourdes 12:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Software engineer; does not appear to be independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect While sources could easily be found that use the words, I doubt there will be sources that actually discuss the position in-depth, uniquely different from a software engineer. The title "Junior" can be added to any job description. --
C 12:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Software engineer per nom.Dialectric (talk) 18:38, 22 September 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) 05:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High Tech Academy (Highland Springs, Virginia)

High Tech Academy (Highland Springs, Virginia) (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. This is not a school. It is a small program (only 2 teachers as far as I can determine) which is part of the Advance Career Education Center at Highland Springs (ACE) high school. http://henricoschools.us/pdf/Schools/SecondaryProfiles/HighlandSpringsTech.pdf ACE is a small (22-teacher) high school http://schools.henrico.k12.va.us/acecenterathighlandsprings/ which mostly deals with vocational studies. I would suggest merging and redirecting this to the ACE article, but we don't have an article for it. We do have an article for the school district: Henrico County Public Schools. Meters (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The only significant content edits to this article in the last seven years were made recently by an SPA with an apparent COI (the username is that of the curriculum developer and head teacher}. Meters (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:PROMO; strictly advertising. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG, as is part of a non-notable entity Advance Career Education Center at Highland Springs. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither this program nor ACE, mentioned by several above, is technically a secondary school. As Meters mentioned above, this is not even a school, it is a program at ACE. ACE is not a secondary school but a technical education center used by several legitimate secondary schools. The students that attend here take their core classes at those secondary schools, actually graduate from those schools and only receive vocational education at this school. It's not an uncommon educational model, and by all means it should be discussed at the district's article, but I see no reason for an article or a redirect. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 24 September 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, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Eadie

Ross Eadie (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)

Jenny Gerbasi (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)

Cindy Gilroy (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)

Brian Mayes (politician) (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)

John Orlikow (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)

Mike Pagtakhan (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)

Devi Sharma (politician) (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. While consensus did once accept Winnipeg as prominent enough to hand its city councillors an
WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Bearcat and newly established consensus on council members from Winnipeg. - Enos733 (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – These could be merged to Winnipeg City Council, which would enhance and improve that article by providing more information and context about these subjects. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're all already named (and current committee assignments already listed in the notes table) in that article, and there's not really any
reliably sourced content in any of these articles that would add anything noteworthy beyond what's already present in that list. Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect, delete or merge? Sandstein 10:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all consensus can change, and in this case it seems to have changed to reject city council members from this place as default notable. I would hold the same position on city council members from Des Moines, Iowa and other cities in the US of similar to Winnepeg global impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Who are these people, anyway? --Buick Century Driver
05:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (
WP:G5). The deletion was performed by User:Ponyo, so NAC-ing the discussion is a formality. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Lionel Messi's family

Lionel Messi's family (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)

Well, that looks like textbook
WP:INVALIDBIO, even if newspapers sources specifically about family members could likely be found. The only plausible claim to keep is a sizesplit of Lionel Messi, to which maybe parts of the article could be merged. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 10:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and Redirect to Lionel Messi. Unnecessary fork, and most of the article is about him anyway. Neiltonks (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Lionel Messi as per Neiltonks. Lourdes 17:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @
WP:TRIVIA. (See User:Mangojuice/Administrators_are_not_slaves#Merge.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Tigraan:, the !vote of merge is to allow the editors frequenting the articles, post the close of the afd, to decide what to merge. The discussion on the contents of the target article should perhaps take place on the talk page of the target article. If there is trivia on the target page as you mention, then one can have discussions on the talk page of the target article thereon. But that in no way precludes the opportunity to editors to salvage any material that may seem significant from the article being merged. That is, if the Afd is finally closed as a merge. Of course, the Afd can also alternatively be closed as a Redirect without deleting article history, which would allow interested users to merge the past contents from the redirected article's history. And while what you are referring to is an essay by an editor, what you should actually refer to is Wikipedia:Merging#Merger as a result of a deletion discussion, which rightly advises, "It is the involved editors' job, not the closing administrators' job, to perform the merger." Hope that helps. Lourdes 12:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no justified reason for a seperate article on Messi's family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – This article was created by a sockpuppet to Biar122 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biar122). Simialar name and same edits as previous sockpuppets, so should be deleted. Qed237 (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Sekulić

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

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

Not notable. Attempt to link this man to Tesla brings just doubts and questions Vujkovica brdo (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
csp
|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The link to Tesla is supported by many of the Google Books and Scholar search results above, and there is a sourced statement in the article that says that Sekulić was a "public representative in the Provincial Assembly of the Croatian, Slavonian and Dalmatian Kingdom", which meets the requirements of
WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a provincial legislature. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. He was just a provincial politician. The link to Tesla is too weak, bears no significance, no notanility.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per
WP:INHERITED argument. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

No,
WP:POLITICIAN says that anyone who has been a member of a provincial legislature is presumed to be notable. And if you just look at the Google Books and Scholar searches liked above, which I pointed out before, you will see that there is loads of solid evidence that this is that guy, and that there is plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources about him being that guy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:POLITICIAN does not say that (item #3) and no source/evidence has ever been provided that this is conclusively "the guy". The "Tesla echo chamber" you are noting is not direct evidence, just a claim being repeated over and over again. The original claim seems to be Ciril Petešic / 1976 and he only gives us a probability, not direct evidence. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Criterion 3 of
WP:POLITICIAN is about local politicians and unelected candidates. Criterion 1 is the one for members of provincial assembles such as Sekulić. And the standard used by Wikipedia for including content is verifiability by reliable sources, not your personal knowledge that those sources are "wrong". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Vaguely described as a quasi official in a vaguely described "entity inside an entity" gives us #3. Could be #2, doubt its #1. At this point we don't guess so feel free to cite the more extensive biographical and/or historical sources already written about this past holder (required for all three). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1 says "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature", an exact fit for Sekulić. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"exact fit for Sekulić" Source? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source saying that he was a member of the provincial assembly is, as I already said, in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is vague, the cite does not say he was a member of the provincial assembly (in fact says nothing, needs
WP:NONENG), and its a book about Tesla. Can you cite any significant coverage in an independent source? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

What on Earth do you mean by "needs
WP:NONENG"? That policy says that non-English sources are allowed on Wikipedia. You are being played for a fool here by an editor with some kind of weird intra-Balkan nationalist agenda. Take a step back and look at who is following what is said by a secondary source and who is performing original research by giving a personal interpretation by synthesis of primary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Please read entire policy, namely: "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided". Also maybe read
WP:TALK Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep. He seems to be primarily known as Tesla's teacher but the legislative post saves him from
WP:BIO1E. My keep is weak, though, because it is difficult to find sources that say anything about him other than as Tesla's teacher. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Which particular event saves him?
WP:BIO1E=People notable for only one event. The legislative post is not a notable event, rather a status. Shall we now write biographies of all members of the Provincial Assembly of the Croatian, Slavonian and Dalmatian Kingdom?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
And why not? We routinely keep articles about members of provincial assemblies elsewhere in the world, so what's so special about this one that we should treat it differently? The fact you have fooled one editor into following whatever nationalist agenda you are pushing here, and to follow you in making personal interpretations of primary sources rather than go by what is said by a secondary source, doesn't mean that you have fooled the rest of us. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely passes
WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the Provincial Assembly of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I have just read the talk page discussion about this article, which seems to have prompted this deletion nomination. Firstly I would note that disagreement about content is not a reason for deletion. More importantly it seems that the editors who have nominated this for deletion and supported it have got the idea of
original research totally back-to-front. We go by what secondary sources make of the primary sources, not Wikipedia editors' personal interpretations of the primary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

No time to read anything. I'm off with Wikipedia, this is just ridiculous as it seems an oligopoly. Good luck with this none cooperative project. Oriol20 (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.¸This person was notable in his time as a physicist. He was member of the Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts. He had his work internationally published. He was also a representative in the Provincial Assembly of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia (
WP:POLITICIAN). The article needs to be extended and not deleted. Kavonder 07:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.27.160 (talk
)

Comment - It should be know we have ~~IPs~~ an IP showing up in this discussion that fall into the range used by an editor who regularly
WP:SOCKs on this topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

By your use of the plural you must be including me in that accusation. Please either withdraw it or, if you have evidence that 141.138.27.160 is a sockpuppet, change it to the singular. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"IPs" as in what is showing up on related talk pages. Suspected IP ranges can be found in the SPI. If your IP is not in that group your golden. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You spoke of "IPs showing up in this discussion". Only two editors identified by IP addresses have shown up in this discussion, so I don't see how your "IPs" (plural) can not include me. Once again, please change it to the singular if you didn't intend to accuse me of any likely wrongdoing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see much biographical data to justify notability. In order to link him to Tesla I do not see much English language sources confirming him being Tesla's influential Physics teacher. One book( Nikola Tesla: istraživač, izumitelj, genij by Tanja Rudež, Školska knjiga, 2006 page 14), in Croatian, says, "U godisnjem izvjestaju za skolsku godinu 1971./72. vidi se da je prof. Martin Sekulic predavao predmete Maschinenlehre (strojarstvo) i Arithmetik (aritmetiku) a bio je i kustos fizikalnog laboratorija u toj skoli". Google translate: In the annual report for the school year 1971-72. see that the prof. Martin Sekulic teaching of the area the Maschinenlehre (mechanical engineering) and Arithmetik (arithmetic) and was also the curator of physical lab in the school. So, not a Physics teacher. --A. Perun (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His link to Tesla is well sourced and Tesla's article has that stated. If you think that's wrong you are free to start a discussion on Tesla talk page. The talk page of Sekulic article also has a great number of sources. I would say that the link to Tesla is not disputed by any source. We don't have any source that says "Sekulic has no link to Tesla" while a great number of sources do state that he was his professor. You can't be doing original research. The article is a bit short, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Kavonder 22:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.31.91 (talk)

Comment - the
WP:INVALIDBIO "person A has a relationship with well-known person B". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I googled this person and found two Croatian scientific journal entries that mention him:

Vukelja, T. (2008). Zajednica fizičara u Banskoj Hrvatskoj početkom 20. stoljeća [The community of physicists in Croatia proper at the start of the 20th century] Studia lexicographica 2(2(3)), pp. 71-99. ISSN 2459-5578. Retrieved from http://hrcak.srce.hr/110735?lang=en

- lists him under "Members of the community trained in physics as the major subject"

Paušek-Baždar, S. (2002). Prirodoznanstvena sredina u doba hrvatske moderne. [The realm of natural sciences at the time of Modernity in Croatia] Hvar City Theatre Days, 28(1), pp. 237-246. ISSN 1849-0255. Retrieved from http://hrcak.srce.hr/73979?lang=en

- mentions him as one of the three high-school professors who were the authors of "valuable scientific discussions of universal value in
Rad JAZU", the other two being Josip Torbar
and Antun Laska. It continues to specifically point out highlights from Sekulić's work in the rest of the paragraph.

So while this is borderline with regard to
WP:SIGCOV, there's sufficient evidence that there are secondary sources relevant to this context that found this person worthy of note, and there well could be more. If we can have an article about Barbara Radulović, surely we can spare one for this person, too. The discussion on what relationship he may have had on Tesla seems like a fairly simple content issue that can be resolved separately. Keep. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alicja Ruchala

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

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
WP:NMODEL yet, but maybe someone can find something better. Also, considering how easy it is to be a notable sportsmen, I wonder if NMODEL isn't too tough. The article and the source I found notes she has been a cover girl for notable magazines (Vogue, Elle). Maybe that should be enough. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable source confirming front page of Vogue and Elle etc seems notable for a model by most ordinary judgement irrespective of the SNG Atlantic306 (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is far from notable. Firstly I do not see any significant coverage in reliable sources which is required for GNG. Secondly, I do see any reliable sources which talk about the subject gracing the covers of any magazine. The only sources I found (gosee.us) is a PR agency which cannot be considered a reliable source. Neither does the subject satisfy the SNG at
WP:NMODEL. As this fails GNG and the SNG, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the sources provided are unconvincing and do not seem to pass
WP:GNG
.----~ (Paulmcdonald )

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rezponder

The Rezponder (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:SIGCOV as nothing significant could be found from secondary sources about the subject —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is a very small newspage. Actual posting of news started this year in June. They have a twitter account with 33 followers. Comment section is empty. There is no indication that this is a notable newspaper in Nigeria. It is not possible to find any information about editorial staff or anything company related, could even be a sophisticated blog by a single person. There is no 3rd party source covering or even mentioning this newspage, it has 0 reception in the world wide web. Google gives 18 (without duplicates) results, most of them wiki-copies. This newspage therefore fails WP:GNG abd specifically WP:NWEB, WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:NMEDIA. Dead Mary (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:PROMO; no indications of notabillity or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Rogers

J. B. Rogers (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 sure don't see enough here or anywhere for a bio on this fella. Fails
GNG, no indication of any achievements that would elevate him above any of the lower notability hurdles. John from Idegon (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm? He is the director of films such as American Pie 2 , Demoted, The Pool Boys or Say It Isn't So; producer of films like Me, Myself & Irene, There's Something About Mary, Hall Pass and so on. All of these are medium to large Hollywood productions with significant coverage and won some awards too. Additionally he was second unit director in a lot of other AAA films, according to IDMB. He passes WP:DIRECTOR (specifically point 3) very easily. A google search for him combined with all the films he made also give plenty of results. Dead Mary (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources into the article. Its a stub, but he is clearly notable and his films are discussed in a lot of mainstream media. Dead Mary (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Much above the bar set by
WP:FILMMAKER, based on the movies the subject has directed and produced. The probability of finding references discussing the subject in depth is significant. Lourdes 17:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - director of terrible films, but that had good "box office". Plenty of
good sources are out there. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 26 September 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) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Bachom

Sandi Bachom (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: No independent, reliable sources offer significant coverage. —swpb^T 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I noted on September 4, at the article talk, Article needs a ton of work, but a cursory search brought up these sources:

http://citylimits.org/2014/12/22/neighborhood-sees-growing-problem-of-senior-citizen-evictions/

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/05/18/the-wall-2

http://www.nywift.org/memberSearchResults.aspx?by=ln&ndx=B

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/getreel-306

http://www.melbrooks.com/2014/06/09/steve-frankfurt-shares-rare-mel-brooks-story/

http://nypost.com/2014/11/30/graphic-carriage-protest-leaves-child-in-tears/

http://secure.traversecityfilmfest.org/WebSales/pages/Info.aspx?epguid=743ab825-b205-4aff-afed-dafad039b2ef&evtInfo=39608~4d61cd53-466a-4a38-9b0c-5dd9c77930d9

http://greenwichvillagemusicfestival.ning.com/profiles/blogs/harold-lepidus-of-the-bob

https://www.amazon.com/Denial-River-Egypt-Sandi-Bachom/dp/1568381883

I believe this is adequate to meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, the dump of links provided by Montana are not sufficient to meet GNG, most of them blatantly so, as she knows extremely well. As it stands now, no valid case for GNG has been presented:
~~http://citylimits.org/2014/12/22/neighborhood-sees-growing-problem-of-senior-citizen-evictions/~~ No coverage at all of why this person is notable; she is only presented as a "man-on-the-street" witness to the actual subject of the article.

~~http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/05/18/the-wall-2~~Completely trivial mention.

~~http://www.nywift.org/memberSearchResults.aspx?by=ln&ndx=B~~No evidence of significant coverage, and dubious independence.

~~http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/getreel-306~~Not independent.

http://www.melbrooks.com/2014/06/09/steve-frankfurt-shares-rare-mel-brooks-story/ The only thing in this dump close to an RS with borderline-significant coverage, if authorship can be shown to be reliable and independent.

~~http://nypost.com/2014/11/30/graphic-carriage-protest-leaves-child-in-tears/~~More "man-on-the-street" coverage, with no mention of her career.

~~http://secure.traversecityfilmfest.org/WebSales/pages/Info.aspx?epguid=743ab825-b205-4aff-afed-dafad039b2ef&evtInfo=39608~4d61cd53-466a-4a38-9b0c-5dd9c77930d9~~Not independent, and not significant coverage.

~~http://greenwichvillagemusicfestival.ning.com/profiles/blogs/harold-lepidus-of-the-bob~~Not independent.

~~https://www.amazon.com/Denial-River-Egypt-Sandi-Bachom/dp/1568381883~~Amazon counts for absolutely nothing, as we all know.

—swpb^T 12:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, and per that 100% terrible list of sources - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please remember to focus on content, not individuals. A comment such as "as she knows extremely well" is an inappropriate attribution of motive and implies bad faith To the point, we have a situation where a person has some notability as a filmmaker, and some notability for her news coverage as a once-famous person who is a victim of eviction. I disagree with the source assessment, as they need to be viewed in total combination. The sources also are all third-party and independent of the subject (she owns none or them, works for none of them). The question of how "significant" the coverage is can be debated to some extent, but the New Yorker is most definitely significant, and, again, when you look at brief mentions in one source combined with longer discussions in others, in total, this meets
WP:BASIC to me. Montanabw^(talk) 19:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
No, a lot of bad sources are a lot of bad sources - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since you want to keep digging your hole, let's delve into exactly how each of those non-independent sources is clearly non-independent:
~~http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/getreel-306~~ This is the subject's bio and biblio on HuffPo, a publication the subject writes for.

~~http://secure.traversecityfilmfest.org/WebSales/pages/Info.aspx?epguid=743ab825-b205-4aff-afed-dafad039b2ef&evtInfo=39608~4d61cd53-466a-4a38-9b0c-5dd9c77930d9~~ Even if this were not trivial coverage, it's a promotion by a film festival that included the subject's work

~~http://greenwichvillagemusicfestival.ning.com/profiles/blogs/harold-lepidus-of-the-bob~~ "Posted by Sandi", need I say more?

You certainly should know extremely this all well by now; or be embarrassed to admit that you don't. There are exactly two possibilities: you still don't understand what independence means (which, at this point, can only be called incompetence), or you don't care (distruption). Either will end your AfD career just as effectively. —swpb^T 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again with the threats. Stop. It would be wise for you to focus on content. There are additional possibilities: 3) You disagree with my analysis. You certainly have the right to do so. It is reasonable for you to suggest that some source material may go toward verifiability more than notability, I equally have the right to state my case. Just because we disagree does not mean we have to be disagreeable. That said, your point on two of the three sources you just listed is a reasonable one, I disagree with you on the traversecity source. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will not stop calling you out when you come to my AfDs with falsehoods, ever, and I will keep telling you exactly where it will lead. This isn't a "disagreement", this is one editor continually presenting false facts. —swpb^T 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
swpb, you are engaging in personal attacks. I am not presenting "false facts," I am presenting what sources I could fund, and offering my interpretation of the guidelines. You need to stop making threats. The community will decide this case and you need to look at phrases like "my AfDs" You don't WP:OWN these nominations, and I weigh in ay many other AfDs besides yours, particularly where they involve biographies of women, as here. (I even !vote delete about 1/3 of the time, last I checked.) Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw the facts really aren't on your side here. These were trivially obviously terrible sources, and you are a sufficiently experienced editor that anyone working with you should reasonably expect better - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented what I could find, made the case for the stronger sources, and I will respect the consensus of the community, David Gerard. This is not the strongest set of sources I have seen, but I think that there's enough to at least place it in a gray area and apply the principle that there is a presumption of notability. But if consensus goes the other way, this one is not a hill I'm going to die on. That said, other editors (not you) need to lay off the attribution of my motives and stop making threats. Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting of the edit notice given all commentators for this discussion:

multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users
rather than the article is also considered disruptive.

As per the guidelines identified to editors when they post at this discussion, the first paragraph of "How to contribute" states,

AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD.

Unscintillating (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I found plenty of sources, most were just trivial mentions. Fails
WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Adam9007: This is a proof by assertion. Please provide examples of what you call "trivial mentions". Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a trivial mention:

http://nypost.com/2014/11/30/graphic-carriage-protest-leaves-child-in-tears/

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/dec-5-gun-control-horses-faces-article-1.2455976

http://nypost.com/2015/01/04/pis-tailing-central-park-carriage-horse-drivers/

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/22-republicans-letterman-research-article-1.2231554

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/what-the-summer-of-desnudas-taught-us-about-tabloids-de-blasio-and-who-really-runs-new-york-7681275

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/carriage-drivers-de-blasio-not-cabbies-mayor-blog-entry-1.2030341

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304403804579260723282850190

http://www.thesweetscience.com/articles/15779-unanimous-decision-shadow-box-film-festival-was-a-winner

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2012/12/shadow-box-film-festival-packs-punch/

These two are the only ones that might be halfway decent, but only halfway:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/fashion/in-the-wrinkle-wars-a-new-weapon.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/inside-story/Insiders/2014/1/28/where-are-all-theprotests.html

Adam9007 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. His work is not notable by today's standards, so this article might not survive. --Buick Century Driver 05:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
BuickCenturyDriver has been blocked since March 2013 (log), and his vote should be disregarded. Rebb ing 21:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The GNG requires not just coverage, but substantial coverage. The sources claimed to be the strongest: the New Yorker, is a profile of another person altogether, and Bachom is just one of the incidental figures hanging around.It provides almost no information about the subject of this article. The NYT is about a botox studio, she's one of the patients. Al Jazerra is a tribute to Pete Seeger. They interviewed a half dozen of his friends. She was one of them. This is exactly what is meant by non-substantial coverage. If she were notable, she's a film-maker, and this is a field where notable people get really substantial sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Yes, what is meant by "non-substantial" or "substantial"? Why do you make WP:IAR arguments, but put a veil over their status as WP:IAR arguments? Significant coverage does not require that it be the main topic of the article. Denial Is Not A River in Egypt remains popular 18 years after publication. Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see DGG claiming here that significance requires the subject be the main topic. I've seen some poor AfD arguments from DGG, but this isn't one of them. —swpb^T 13:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Don't be fooled by REFBOMBing in an AFD - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the New Yorker is the strongest of the sources. But the entire contents about Bachom, in a long article about Manny Goldrich's famous musical instrument store, Manny's Music is "It was Holly Goldrich, Henry’s daughter, who, together with a filmmaker named Sandi Bachom, had the idea for Manny’s Virtual Wall, a social-networking site. " They didn't even bother to mention his films. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 30 September 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) 05:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Bacoor

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/SM City Bacoor

Articles for deletion/SM City Bacoor (2nd nomination)

SM City Bacoor (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)

Unreferenced . Fails WP:ORG shopping malls are not inherently notable LibStar (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:DIRECTORY also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually there is a wrote the article because written claim the
WP:VERIFY the mall it should be no given the sourced past year. Oripaypaykim (talk) 03:21, 25 September 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. No further information or sources about the medal have been forthcoming. Can possibly be recreated with better sourcing and understanding of Wikipedia editing practices. Sandstein 09:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farahnaz Forotan

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Farahnaz Forotan

Articles for deletion/Farahnaz Forotan (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Farahnaz Forotan (3rd nomination)

Farahnaz Forotan (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)

Earlier removed (
WP:RS The Banner talk 09:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The original author has added numerous extra sources, but I think he does not understand
WP:RS. Most sources contain statements given by ms. Forotan, but do not write about her. The Banner talk 18:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Author admits a clear
WP:COI. See File:Farahnaz forotan.jpg where he states: Farahnaz Forotan is a female Afghan Journalist. this is her official Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/FForotan/ she asked me to help her to write her bio on Wikipedia and she has Permitted me to use her photo for her bio. The Banner talk 12:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I do not pretend to read Farsi. My comment (sourcing does not exist, see this news google search [47] nothing there. The sources on the page may well be primary, or government related. She is young, attractive, with a highly sympathetic backstory that is being pushed by someone, but that cannot be validated with RS.) from the AFD last monty still stands. I will add only that I ran that search again [48], and theat there is nothing out there to validate notability in a Latin alphabet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep War heros are notable, or not? pajhwok Afghan News notes that Farahnaz Forotan of Aryana Television, Shakila Shirzad of Shamshad Television and Wahida Faizi of Salam Watandar were given ‘Malalai Maiwand war hero medal. [49]
Depends. Not everybody with a medal is noteworthy. But it is an interesting development. Could you provide us with extra sources and an evaluation about the value of the medal (i.e. some medals are more important than others). The Banner talk 16:23, 26 September 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. Can be restored if somebody really wants to transwiki this probably not very important text. No prejudice against somebody creating an actual article rather than a copypaste of some primary sources. Sandstein 09:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Staehle

Albert Staehle (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 text should be moved to Wikisource. Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sure. But don't you think there are sources to create a little stub on Staehle? — Sam Sailor 00:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we have actual reliable source coverage no indication that this person is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's difficult to call the current version "an article" and it could benefit from
WP:TNT, so I will not vote keep. However, there are potentially sources for a small article: 1, 2(if you have 200$ to spare), 3. He also got an obituary in NYT, so that's something. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource per comments above. --Buick Century Driver 06:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Boom

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Air Boom

Articles for deletion/Air Boom (2nd nomination)

Air Boom (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)

Lots of keepers in the previous AfD seemed to have faith that the team would eventually become notable because WWE seemed to put faith in them. WWE lost that faith and I don't believe they ever did become notable. There were also some comments about the abundance of sources, these appear to be
WP:ROUTINE. LM2000 (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable as tag team champions. Nominator's rationale is not related to policy. Several members of WP:PW go through phases of nominating large quantities of article for deletion based on non-rationale like "haven't done enough", "not together long enough", and now "the company lost faith in them". Hopefully they'll get bored soon and move on to something productive. Sufficient discussion in third party sources to establish notability--while some are fairly routine, others give enough depth to warrant a Wikipedia article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (
WP:GNG) is a policy. Some keep voters at the time, who made comments opposite to those you bring up, did not make policy compliant arguments. That they won the belts at the nadir of WWE's tag division shows little notability (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kofi Kingston and R-Truth), the routine match result sources are a staple of non-notable tag teams.LM2000 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't matter how long they've been together or what they've won. It matters if the team meets WP:GNG, which they do not. The sources in the article are 100%
WP:ROUTINE match results or primary (from WWE.com). If someone can prove they satisfy WP:GNG by providing sufficient reliable third party sources I would reconsider. Nikki♥311 04:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to delete this team, they are notable since they won tag team titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:F478:BDEB:F930:5BE6 (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete winning belts doesn't make you notable they were not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCAA:AE40:897:8F1B:5D74:C750 (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - 1 time tag team champs, not in the same company anymore all the info can be put on there individual pages not notable enough for their own page. Browndog91 16:48, 25 September 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. Sort of
WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Gianna Toboni

Gianna Toboni (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 -- one ref is her alumni magazine, the onther a meaningless 30 under 30 award, which translates as not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable media figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 10:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 10:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Islam Farooqi

Nurul Islam Farooqi (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)

According to the
^(talk) 06:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 06:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 06:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 06:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete/rewrite into Death of Nurul Islam Farooqi. What is notable is his death, which has generated some coverage due to its nature as a violent hatred crime. As a biography, I do not think he is notable. As a death of/crime article, I'd have to think again, but possibly notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't think so, cause in Bangladesh this type of incident has occurred several times. We don't need to keep article all of them in massively without measure of any significant notability claim.
^(talk) 07:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One report from India (this was international news) reads in part "The mysterious murder of a liberal Islamic cleric and popular TV host in Bangladesh triggered an eight-hour nationwide strike today bringing the capital city to a standstill with most transport services off the road and schools shut." This suggests an individual of some prominence; and "popular TV host" suggests this is not a case of only his death being notable. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Popular talk show host per sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to Death of Nurul Islam Farooqi, as the news about his death can be found here and there, nationally and internationally. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Popular and leading personality of Bangladeshi
Sufi Muslims. He was a presidium member and the international affairs secretary of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat and served as the presidium member of Islamic Front Bangladesh, a platform of several Islamist groups.ScholarM (talk) 18:29, 27 September 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) 15:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Bundesverband Deutscher Liebhaberorchester

Bundesverband Deutscher Liebhaberorchester (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 proof of notability. Varun FEB2003 10:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep No understandable reasoning. National association for orchestras and musicians existing almost 100 years with 810 orchestras participating, a great music library and giving out its own magazine, should be enough. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per
WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep -- Google book results return some mentions: link. I cannot tell how substantial this coverage is, but this organisation appears to be notable. There is a de.wiki article: link. It is unsourced, but provides some basic info. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn Varun FEB2003 13:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SamWinchester and Safehaven86 as a notable organization. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of major home appliance manufacturers

List of major home appliance manufacturers (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 list that has been around for some time. There is no evidence of any notability for such a list. The title is ambiguous in meaning (what is "major"? What is a "home appliance"?). Until very recently it included many appliance companies simply on the basis that they had a web-site. Specifically excluded by
WP:DIRECTORY . Adds no value to the encyclopaedia Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See
WP:DIRECTORY). postdlf (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Please also refer to
WP:AOAL. The list itself is not required to be notable, just the group as a whole. The lede paragraph makes it clear what is intended to be included in the list or not. Some amibugity in the English grammar in the title seems to be a problem for some to parse correctly. The word major as it is used here is a modifier of appliance, not manufacturers. Changing the title to leave out the word major would completely change the intentionally narrow focus of the list. Including all home appliances would add any company that make anything from toasters to mixers to blenders, etc. and then it would have to be expanded to perhaps five to ten times as long and balloon completely out of control and be entirely unmanageable. This list was originally split out from the Brands section of the article Major appliance and is linked from there. There has been some discussion in the past of changing the title to attempt to remove the ambiguity but there was never any follow up. The only proposal that seemed to me to fit was List of manufacturers of major home appliances. I recommend immediately closing this Rfd and then starting a discussion on the article's talk page about the title if it causing people confusion. Nyth 63 22:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I also re-added all the entries that were removed. Please see
WP:NOTESAL, specifically, the statement: individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Nyth 63 23:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:OR as it's unclear who defines which manufacturer is "major" and which one is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Incorrect, it does NOT fall under DIRECTORY as it does not meet any of the criteria in that list. It does not contain any genealogical information, phone numbers or contact names, upcoming events, pricing or retail availability, etc. DIRECTORY would actually be an argument AGAINST deletion in this case. Links to websites does not constitute a directory as almost all articles about any type of business has a link to an Official Website. For the entries in the list that do not have articles, they are more akin to a substitute for a redlink, which indicates potential notability. Nyth 63 11:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- including a link right into the list is exactly WP:DIRECTORY, to enable ppl to get product information. This is different from including the web site of a company that is a subject of a stand-alone article. The WP:PROMO part is including a non notable company (without an article on WP) and then providing a link to their web site, such as the case of

Caple
cookers

dishwashers

hobs, etc

[Link to web site]

....and many more. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still incorrect. Links are not inclusion. The list does NOT include pricing, therefore it is not a directory. Also, you generally cannot buy the appliances directly from the manufactures and nearly all those sites are not set up for retail service or include pricing anyway. Nyth 63 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the links and removing nonnotable entries are easy issues for cleanup, not arguments for deleting the list as a whole. On that, you've only questioned what "major" means, which had already been addressed above (and it does not mean a "major manufacturer" as you claimed above). postdlf (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to remove non-notable entries. Please see
WP:NOTESAL, specifically, the statement: individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Nyth 63 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
My point was just that it's irrelevant to deletion. I have no opinion ultimately on whether any of those particular entries should be removed. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- you are welcome to remove the links and the non-notable entities; until then, there's still an impression that the list exists for promotional purposes and should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to remove non-notable entries. Please see
WP:NOTESAL, specifically, the statement: individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Nyth 63 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

No, there is no such "impression" because we do not delete content because of fixable problems. This is clear from policy at
WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the article as it stands as a
WP:PROMO for non-notable manufacturers, and should be deleted. The notability of this list topic is marginal, and PROMO outweighs its usefulness to the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The fact that you're focusing on the article "as it stands" is exactly what I was responding to above. postdlf (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)::[reply]

Comment I do not see how
WP:PROMO
applies here. If anything, that section seems to argue that this list is NOT promotional.

There is no ADVOCACY here of any one manufacturer over any other. It is a list of name sorted alphabetically. No mention of market share or product quality.

There are no OPINIONS given in the list.

There is no SCANDAL MONGERING.

There is no SELF PROMOTION. None of the recentent editors appear to have any POV evident and every manufacturer is listed on an equal basis.

There is no ADVERTISING, MARKETING or PUBLIC RELATIONS. It looks to me to be rather free of puffery.

As stated by another commentor previously, the lists themselves are not required to be notable, and all that is required is the notability of the TOPIC, which has already been demonstrated by the existence of articles such as
WP:NOTDUP about this. Nyth 63 21:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that Category:Home appliance manufacturers includes manufactures of all sizes of appliances, not just major appliances. Nyth 63 21:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coatrack, and it duplicates existing Category:Home appliance manufacturers.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note-the above cherry-picking from AOAL is astonishing given the corollary DOAL states "5. Can become bogged down with entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia." and "6. Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
#5 is never a reason for deletion as explained above (entries that consensus determines are inappropriate can simply be removed), nor has there even been an argument that any entries presently in the list "cannot be reliably sourced". And even if #6 applied here, the solution is generally to convert into a list of lists by splitting the master list into sublist (note that we do list people by country generally in just that manner). postdlf (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, directory-type content, we are not the Yellow Pages. Also no sources establishing notability of the topic. Sandstein 16:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTDIR. This list is not encyclopaedic. Essentially, every single article about a "major appliance" manufacturer would end up here - along with the external links. A list needs to have some selection criteria. If a list of all such companies is required, simply use the category. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARVN rucksack

ARVN rucksack (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 coverage in reliable sources found with a Google search. The article has been unreferenced since April 2007.
talk) 21:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - trivial and no RS citing. It could be given a mention in passing on an article as to South Vietnam military equipment, but even there should have an RS cite for it if done. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- an unreferenced essay and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:24, 20 September 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. Seeing as the latest sources have not been contested, I'll assume that they indeed indicate notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChuChu TV

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

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

Interesting article: potentially notable, especially considering the coverage in external sources, but does a claim of 5.3 million subscribers on Youtube, justify notability in terms of broad and continuing public interest? That seems rather small in some ways, but reaches a fairly broad community -- I am torn on this one, but I think it needs discussion. Sadads (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads:You may refer this link (you tube) for viewer ship of 5.6 million. -Varmapak ^(talk) 15:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

leaning keep That's coverage in what appears to be two independent third-party RSes - it's unclear what the problem is supposed to be - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NOTCATALOG, and the current sources though independent feel like promotional pieces. Sadads (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Cooment - I believe this reference on this page [50] and this source [51] in Mint_(newspaper), hint the page could be notable if other independent sources were found. However, the other two on the page as of now are primary PR sources, and I couldn't find any other coverage on google, at least through an English-based search. Yvarta (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I would remove that typo, but I'm oddly delighted by it.) Yvarta (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
Anup [Talk] 16:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Third most subscribed channel in India shall be considered as notable. This article in start class yet and It has an average page hits of 55 per day. (page hits), Leave some time to get the article updated. -Varmapak ^(talk) 15:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources and evaluating the sources other people have found -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Youtube hit counts are immaterial, subject doesn't pass
WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Seems like it meets
Anup [Talk] 16:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Đồng Dương

Battle of Đồng Dương (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is based solely on Vietnamese sources in Vietnamese which have frequently amounted to WP:Propaganda in relation to the Vietnam War. I am unable to find any English language sources that indicate that a battle of this name even took place, indicating this may be WP:HOAX. The claimed South Vietnamese casualty figures are clearly absurd. Mztourist (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as potentially unverifiable event. The article is citing gov.vn which as a
WP:BIASED source in this context. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per my cmts on the AFD for the Battle of Hà Vy article. Nothing on this event in Tucker "Encyclopdedia of the Vietnam War", Carland's "Stemming the Tide: May 1965 to October 1966" (US Army official history), nor even in the PAVNs own official history "Victory in Vietnam" by the Military History Institute of Vietnam (as far as I can see at least), sources which I would expect would have covered an event of the magnitude claimed. There is no coverage in WP:RS so its probably not notable per
WP:GNG, although I'd say a hoax is a distinct possibility. Anotherclown (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - unconfirmed event
WP:V applies, with bias source; giving undue weight. Kierzek (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hà Vy

Battle of Hà Vy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is based solely on Vietnamese sources in Vietnamese which have frequently amounted to WP:Propaganda in relation to the Vietnam War. I am unable to find any English language sources that indicate that a battle of this name even took place, indicating this may be WP:HOAX. The claimed US casualty figures are clearly absurd. Mztourist (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:V as potentially unverifiable event. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - so far as I can see there is nothing on this event in Tucker "Encyclopdedia of the Vietnam War", Carland's "Stemming the Tide: May 1965 to October 1966" (US Army official history), nor even in the PAVNs own official history "Victory in Vietnam" by the Military History Institute of Vietnam. Possibility of hoax aside (which seems quite possible), there is no coverage in WP:RS so its probably not notable per
WP:GNG at anyrate. Anotherclown (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I cannot find a mention of the village itself, and all of the sources are either not available or else propaganda, coupled with the mentioned obscene casualties, id call it a hoax page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unconfirmed event
WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per WP:HOAX. Only 32 American servicemen were killed that day. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 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) 05:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of guesthouses in Albania

List of guesthouses in Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A list of guesthouses is a case of WP:NOT. WP is not a travel guide. The creator maintains that some of the buildings are historic. Fine but then add them to a historic buildings list. A list like this is a travel guide Gbawden (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not TripAdvisor. All of the links are redlinks - fails both
WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pretty useless list anyway if every entry is red. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn with no delete !votes present (
non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 17:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Mika Alas's House

Mika Alas's House (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 think this may be a notable monument, but the article is a poorly written essay that seems so meandering that I am afraid this calls for a
WP:TNT. It has no inline citations, reads like an unfinished translation by a non-native speaker... It reminds me of one of my students project, if left without proper supervision and guidance. I am afraid there is next to no salvagable text here, only some external links. If it is to be kept, somebody has to write a stub from scratch. So, as I was saying, this needs a TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor article maybe, but clearly notable subject as a heritage building per
WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As with virtually all "TNT" requests (besides blatant copyvio ones which don't require AFD), the deletion nomination acknowledges validity of the topic, and IMO there is no valid deletion reason suggested. --do ncr am 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article text was in fact a direct copy of this source that was linked in the article. Copyvio does not require deletion, however. I reduced the article down to a stub and it is fine now IMHO. Again I think the AFD was not necessary, it could have been reduced down to a stub instead without requiring other editors' attention at AFD. --do ncr am 17:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom. I would agree with User:doncram usually, but I found this article so badly written and confusing I did the rare TNT suggestion. Glad it was salvaged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 22 September 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) 05:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Dolgan

Erin Dolgan (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)

According to posts on my talk page, which I have no reason to disbelieve, as well as edits to the page by a user who appears to be her publicist, this article is requested to be deleted by its subject (see
WP:NBOOKS. Again from Googling, I didn't see anything encouraging, except if her book Please Knock "has won a major literary award". It did win an IPPY bronze medal in its category, but it didn't win the category, and moreover there were five other bronzes awarded. So I think BLPREQUESTDELETE comes into play. BethNaught (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom - We tend to ignore BLPREQUEST if the subject is notable ... however in this case they're not, I've not found anything at all on Google News and I'd imagine there's not much anywhere else either, Article fails GNG anyway so their wish is our command I suppose. –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her works as a writer just do not add up to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is not notable, and since the subject herself apparently has requested deletion, we have no good reason not to respect her wishes per
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. With the current state of internet privacy, I think every non-notable or borderline notable individual should have the right to request their article be deleted. Sro23 (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm not counting Iesaiah's comment as a "keep", because they only address the removal of the PROD tag, not whether or why the article should be kept in this process. Sandstein 09:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal for Religion, Film and Media (JRFM)

Journal for Religion, Film and Media (JRFM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet
WP:GNG". Article dePRODded by article creator (SPA) without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to point out that the PRODheader of the article said that one may remove it IF new substantial information is added to the article that may affect the PROD. Information about the indices that list the JRFM was provided. This was considered relevant, therefore the PROD was removed by me. Iesaiah (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The information added (indexing by Ulrich's and DOAJ) is rather trivial as neither are selective databases and listing in them does not contribute to notability. There was also an unsourced phrase about listings that apparently have been applied for (which I have removed), none of which are selective either. As I cannot find this information on the journal website, I am curious where
way too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

An additional note: being listed in Ulrichsweb isn't something that would be a sign of notability, as it's a routine database listing. This means that while there are some notable publications listed there, there are far more that aren't notable. There is no charge for being listed and the site only requires that a publication meet the definition of a serial, which many publications of this type do. In other words, while it's a respected database isn't not an extremely selective one.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:TOOSOON. St Anselm (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 22 September 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.

Reclosing as Keep. While discussion has focused on the quality of sources, there are no actual delete votes other than the nominator. As this is not a vote: The strongest argument against notability is that the sources used to demonstrate notability suggest they are either passing mentions or unreliable, or as Sitush points out, his authorship of his most widely known work is in dispute. RE unreliable - our own article on
WP:CREATIVE. While this by itself may not necessarily qualify as 'notable' - SNGs are by their nature somestimes less restrictive than WP:V and WP:GNG - taken with the other sources available this would appear to satisfy WP:GNG for the Keep editors. RE 'His authorship is in dispute' - this would be something that would need to be addressed in the article. As it is generally accepted they did author the work. Lastly, even had all the (as it appears from discussion) opposing editors formally opposed, this would be a 'no consensus to delete' given the strength of arguments on either side. -edit- to take into account edit conflict with Sitush's last comments: A redirect to the poem would be one option that could be discussed on the article talkpage, however it is clear there is no consensus for a redirect in the below discussion. (non-admin closure) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Bismil Azimabadi

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Bismil Azimabadi

(2nd nomination)

(3rd nomination)

Bismil Azimabadi (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)

Re-creation of a previously deleted article that hasn't addressed the previous issues. Fails
Wikipedia:RS. The article is sourced almost entirely from [54], which is not a reliable source; I followed up with the other sources and none of the google book links support what the contributor claims they support. The "Interview of Syed Masood Hasan, Grandson of Bismil Azimabad" source doesn't come up on google. The main contributor translated this article, provided all of the "sources", and then proceeded to "pass" it as reviewed on new pages patrol, using sources that don't support what they claim with the exception of the spiritual world source. Fraenir (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I came across the article while reviewing
Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna, where I found couple of references that Bismil Azimabadi is poet who penned down this famous revolutionary song, I incorporated some relevant text and references. Then I went ahead for google search, and placed references in article. Poet is definitely of some importance as "Bihar Urdu Academy" has constituted an award in his name and BBC Hindi article too mentions him in detail.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

We can't just grab stuff from the Hindi WP because our policies and guidelines differ. I've already found some problems with the article as it exists after your edits. Eg: unreliable source and not a valid citation. I cannot see all of this source but it would appear to be a passing mention and thus adds nothing to Azimabadi's notability - it says Interview with the author on September 17, 1995. The poem was written by a poet in Bihar. He was Bismil Azimabadi. - even though it might verify that he did write the thing. (I say might because I seem to recall that this fact alone has been disputed and the source is far from being a mainstream one, while the Spiritual World thing that is cited is not reliable). While it is true that Ram Prasad Bismil used the poem in his freedom fighting, that does not make its author notable - see
WP:NOTINHERITED. Finally, based on the current version, the fact that some minor educational insitution has named an award after the guy is utter trivia. At best, and at present, this should be a redirect to the article about the poem. But that depends a lot on getting proper verification that it is not just a load of mirrors and myth perpetuating a dubious claim to authorship. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The BBC piece is written by Bismil Ajhimabadi Ghjhl, who is most likely a relative of the person in question. The author is defending the claim that the poem was written by Bismil Azimabadi. Not a reliable, independent source. Fraenir (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not copied anything from Hindi WP, I'm note sure from where you have got this idea/info. I don't have any personal interest in subject of the article, I accidently came across it while going through the new page logs and thought I can help improving the article, (now I'm regretting this) I was not even aware that the article has been deleted previously. But you guys seem to have severe POV regarding the subject.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
Anup [Talk] 06:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep a poet who has recieved significant coverage both in India and abroad, despite having died long before most easily available sources were published.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the significant coverage in reliable sources? And that discuss him as him. See
WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Johnpacklambert: was yours a drive-by !vote? Could you please elaborate. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with above comment that a good number of quality sources are inaccessible on web. This kind of coverage after 37 years of death by a leading Indian daily and another by reputed International media suggests what, if not notability? (more: [55], [56]). At least subject meets
Anup [Talk] 05:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I've never seen two out of the three news sources you mention in around 10 years of contributing extensively to Indian subjects here. That doesn't bode well for reliability etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously,
Anup [Talk] 07:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, seriously. I'm not known for POV pushing. I note that the MG article says Though it remains separate from mainstream media and is considered an alternative media it gets quoted by mainstream often - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting
Anup [Talk] 10:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I am quoting the WP article. My opinion and my experience is my opinion and experience. I do wish someone would edit the article with all these supposedly useful sources because right now it is mostly about Ram Prasad Bismil and the poem, for both of which we already have an article. It says nothing of substance about the man and, therefore, has no place on Wikipedia except perhaps as a redirect to the poem. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly,
Anup [Talk] 17:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, there is no deadline. But no-one here has yet demonstrated that this guy deserves a standalone article and since you've already named some sources perhaps it would be better to use the things to prove that there is significant discussion about him in reliable independent sources etc. Just writing a song, a book or a poem does not notability make. As for your comment about the totality of sources, well, if we adopted that vague approach then we'd hardly ever delete anything provided that we had a least one source that merely mentioned the name. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To answer first question, it has already been demonstrated but you appear to choose either not to see it or accept it whatever may be the reason. Second one,
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
(and this one is a policy, not an essay). A quote from policy page which you may not open to see, ..an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.

Lastly, you are free to cast your opinion in here. I do not see any convincing argument coming from you that would supposedly led me change my !vote, and I believe we have had enough of a conversation for an afd. Wait for others to come-in and weigh in their opinions.
Anup [Talk] 01:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It has not been demonstrated. The sources are passing mentions of him connected to the poem and/or to his family. Even the article in Milli Gazette is some sort of blog-gy/web forum-y post (look at how it starts, almost like an excerpt from something else) based on information from his son. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with above keeps.Pratyush (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna - making my opinion abundantly clear following re-opening of the discussion. There is next to nothing known about the chap and our article concerning the poem already says it. Passing mentions, non-independent sources etc are of no use to us, as I have tried to explain in more detail in my prior posts to this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 5 October 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

33 Jazz Records

33 Jazz Records (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 couldn't establish its notability Boleyn (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: This label has a presence in the British Jazz ecosystem, being responsible for a wide range of albums which can be seen being reviewed in The Guardian for example. However it is a common problem for articles on rcord labels, galleries, book publishers that notability is not inherited. I haven't located substantial coverage of the label itself, in the absence of which this fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The lead sentence gives a notable figure: Anita Wardell won a BBC Jazz award. That makes her notable and I would think by extension this makes the label notable. You could apply a similar standard to other musicians on the label. If they have made a substantial contribution, then they are notable and the label is notable. There are other labels on Wikipedia that I would delete before 33 Jazz. I also agree with the point made about the label's importance in England, something perhaps lost to those of us in America who are less familiar with English music, English jazz musicians, and English record labels. There isn't a lot of press about record labels, so that's not the best standard to use.
–Vmavanti (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited though. There needs to a basic level of coverage in reliable sources about the label itself for it to be notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It would be illogical to think that a musician's success is disconnected from the label's success and vice versa. The two are intertwined.
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not inherited, but this record label isn't notable because of a single artist, that's why "vanity labels" are often merged into an artist's page. In this case, the label is notable because of the number of notable artists signed and released, per NMUSIC #5. The number of significant albums by notable artists, and the widespread geographic distribution (multiple countries) indicates that this label has become culturally important. The article contains useful information to musicologists and discographers (who because of the artists, length of history, and widespread distrubution are likely to seek further information on the topic), the information contained is
WP:V, and Wikipedia is thereby not improved by its deletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: appears to meet
WP:NMG. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: This appears to meet the criteria for a notable record label, as it has signed many notable artists. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7.62×40mm Wilson Tactical

7.62×40mm Wilson Tactical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find anything to establish its notability Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep premise of nomination is false; cartridge was reviewed in full-length articles in numerous reliable-source firearm publications:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2011/4/4/wilson-combat-introduces-762x40-wt-cartridge/ (American Rifleman)

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2011/04/wilson-tactical-762x40-another-new-ar-cartridge (Outdoor Life)

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/rifles/ar-15/review-wilson-combat-7-62x40/ (a publication of Guns & Ammo)

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2011/11/10/762-40-wt/ (a publication of National Rifle Association)

Obscure firearm cartridges aren't the most inherently meaty topics but this obviously passes the general notability guideline. TiC ^(talk) 15:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources you list appear to be press releases or copies of material from a manufacturer.[57] The third appears to be a review of a firearm. The fourth is a review of the cartridge, but is one enough? Felsic2 (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keepThis is an absurd nomination. The round is discussed in several books, on numerous forums and it is still in production. Just because its not used in a video game or mentioned on the Simpsons does not mean that its not notable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being in production doesn't make something notable. Being discused in forums doesn't either, for WP purposes. Neither does being listed in a book that catalogs every single cartridge ever made. The standard for notability is at
WP:N. Felsic2 (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The article has 14 references. More than enough to establish notability.--RAF910 (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Valid article based on topic that is covered in many reliable sources. Premise to delete article is ill-founded. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Nemo Gould

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Nemo Gould

(2nd nomination)

Nemo Gould (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 case of not only having a hardly-visited case in 2008, but having quite thin comments, which basically ended with no delete actions; examining this is not finding any actual museum collections or coverage at best; my own searches are noticeably simply finding listings, event listings and, all of them in fact, essentially simple mentions. There is nothing at all here to suggest it's notable, let alone hope-minded improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non=notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completely pointless rationale. Non notable, per what?--BabbaQ (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, this person has obviously done work that has recieved attention by reliable media/sources. also per NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY, simply because an article is in bad shape, or has had few edits since its creation does not mean its not notable. BabbaQ (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable modern artist who meets
WP:SIGCOV in SF Gate and Wired. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Simply listing 2 sources alone is not actually enough for convincing substance and independent notability, especially after I have not only noted my concerns above, but there's still nothing else actually better. The two sources are still thin with weight for substance; the SFGate is actually the consisting of interviews-parts, so the entire thing cannot be examined as being actually entirely acceptable. That's not even close to fully satisfying a better article, especially since I noted my concerns above including that there would still not be anything better than these few sources. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't really understand what you're trying to say because of your nonstandard use of English syntax. But you don't have to respond to every !vote I make at AFD. It comes across as
WP:BLUDGEON. Please stop. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets
WP:BASIC. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources: Wired, San Francisco Chronicle, wired (short article). There's also this extensive article from Make magazine, but it's mostly an interview. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep because I reviewed the previous AFD, reviewed the ref on current article, reviewed the refs mentioned above, and did my own search to confirm significant coverage exists. It does, passes
WP:BLUDGEON has become tiresome and disruptive. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Commenting about every single source and analyzing them is not bludgeoning them, because it shows the exact concerns here. Considering
WP:CCC, simply noting that an article was kept over 7 years ago not relevant today if the notability and methods of it has substantially changed, that would essentially be saying "Why are looking at it again if they kept it 7 years ago. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A book called Device 2: Reconstructed is about 20 artists, including Gould, all described as "internationally renowned sculptors whose compulsive craftsmanship, distinct vision and mechanical fascination makes for an imaginative and arresting collection of work." He had a solo exhibition at the Oakland Museum of California, certainly a major museum. He was exhibited at the San Jose Museum of Art, another major museum. A book called Art of Northern California: Painting, Sculpture, Photography, Drawing, Printmaking, Mixed Media has a section devoted to Gould on page 90. @SwisterTwister: I find your prose style to be baffling, strange and often confusing to the point of being impossible to understand. I encourage you to adopt a straightforward, easily understood prose style, and abandon this bizarre stream-of-consciousness writing style that you seem so fond of. It is not helping your cause. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to start criticizing my analysis which was clear in stating the concerns, as "baffling", also, there has been explicit consensus here at AfD that simply exhibitions are not enough for notability, because 'any artist can have them, but only a select have actual collections. Once again, I noted my analysis above and still the article is substantial for notability. As for the "internationally renowned", any artist could be that, but not all of them are, granted, going to have an article, certainly not by that one claim alone. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:
WP:NARTIST 4 (b) states: "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" which the Oakland solo exhibition (I believe) qualifies under. Other sources presented contributed to the assessment of notability in my mind. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per existence of multiple reliable sources independent of the subject discussing the subject in depth. Fieari (talk) 01:19, 26 September 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) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arise Satō

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

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

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

No significant roles in anime productions. ANN highlights 3 roles [58] Mikoto in Da Capo III is a supporting character, so is Takumi in Hanamaru Kindergarten in which she is not even listed on the Wikipedia's main article. That leaves Christina Serra in Mobile Suit Gundam 00 who is grouped among the secondary crew. No secondary coverage articles, but perhaps someone can dig deeper into this? 34 roles in VADB. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Atomic Monkey, her talent agency(http://www.atomicmonkey.jp/jp/archives/talent/satoarise) doesn't even bother to list them all and Japanese wiki doesn't have referring in those that aren't listed on agency's website. I've omitted all programs and CM(on radio and tv), other(has... books?), games and Drama cds because foreign anime fans don't generally deem them notable.

Roles _shown_ on talent agency's website translated with Google. (Names may be wrong because kanjis are kanjis.)

Strike Witches Michiko Yamakawa (Micchan)(several times)

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 Cristina Sierra

IS- Infinite Stratos - Sayaka Aikawa

Gintama Hiroshi

DCIII ~ Da Capo III~ Mikoto

protect! Lollipop Hihana

Hanamaru Kindergarten Takumiumi

K-ON! ! Saeki Sanhana

Hime Chen! Otogi Chick idle Lilpri Or Umetake

Happiness! Shinya Kamijo of childhood

Moon rabbit weapons Mina Idol

DARKER THAN BLACK- black subscribers - Gaiden Boy doll

Yojohan mythos Divided Ireland Women's B

Sgt. Frog Cashier

The Melancholy Women's elementary school students

A Kiss Program regular

Koihime Muso Children B

The Movie Mobile Suit Gundam 00 -A wakening of the Trailblazer- Cristina Sierra, blue halo

with・・・他多数=and many more. These are from Japanese wiki: (yes, I know the drill.... had to try, at least.)

Kanon (student)

Majin Tantei Neuro (woman C)

DANCE SKET (waitress)

Ices (Hyakunin staff)

Phi Brain: Puzzle of God the second series (female students)

Traveler's tricks (Ruri)

The Movie "bluestocking" no character listed.

Fruitmince (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it doesn't look promising when she's listing Children B, Woman C, and Female student among her major roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Not enough major roles to display notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:35, 23 September 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. Seems like notability is not met here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Summers

Bunny Summers (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: as insufficiently notable
actress. Quis separabit? 01:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 02:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 02:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 02:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep she was a character actor with multiple roles in many different films, passes NACTOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of minor bit parts does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quantity doesn't equal quality as far as acting is concerned. Mostly generic parts in mostly obscure pictures don't get it done. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 20 September 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, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alarm (magazine)

Alarm (magazine) (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 2007 AfD was closed as keep with people saying
WP:ITSNOTABLE and "many Google hits". I hope we have progressed beyond such baseless assertions, and I do not see how this minor magazine meets Wikipedia:Notability (media) or GNG. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I do not see support for the only fact with an
WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Nominator further comment. I do wonder if there is a list of magazines or such this could be merged to. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative Keep~~ See below; Original comment: here's a listing in 2014 Writer's Market. I think it would be useful for use in citations, even as a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I can't access this book through GB myself, so I cannot comment on the source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. But it's really only a placement, so not quite an independent source. But in this case, the article is not being used as
WP:IAR and keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as they are in fact not even any actual sensible claims of significance considering it's not substantial at all; it actually focuses closely what there is to say about the magazine, but none of amounts to actual notability; simply an apparent "name-calling" by a magazine is certainly not enough by itself. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on second thoughts. The source I listed is nothing more than an advert by the company, and I cannot find anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 21 September 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) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosia Piotrowska

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

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

Prod declined years ago. Having a single role in a TV series fails
WP:NACTOR requirement for multiple roles. Not notable actor. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete one role is not enough to make someone notable. We have had too many articles on non-notable actors and actresses far too long. This is not IMDb, we do not aim to chronicle eveyone who has ever appeared in every film ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You can be notable for just one incandescent role (just ask Renée Jeanne Falconetti), but Riana in Spellbinder isn't in that league. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:58, 20 September 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) 05:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DesignInquiry

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/DesignInquiry

Articles for deletion/DesignInquiry (2nd nomination)

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

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

Promotional, non-notable, (and almost indecipherable), All references seem to be from inside the movement. AfD1 ended in delete, but with limitedparticipationand the closing admin chose to interpret it as a Prod. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:PROMO, due to ext links in body. There appears to be a conference associated with this group (Volume: Writings on Graphic Design, Music, Art, and Culture), but that's a passing mention, so I'd say delete without prejudice to recreation if reliable sources become available. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits including one blog and 2 non third party industry sources. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Game Collegiate Baseball League

Perfect Game Collegiate Baseball League (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, does not meet relevant sports guidelines. This is a short-season summer baseball league whose players are limited to NCAA-eligible college players only. It is not a professional league, and does not have professional players. It is also very local; it only has teams in New York State. There appears to be no coverage outside of the league and team websites. Unlike the
Cape Cod League, it seems to have no MLB backing or affiliation that would make it noteworthy as a feeder league. MSJapan (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this league has enough notability to continue to have a page here. The summer collegiate baseball leagues are notable. Spanneraol (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Spanneraol mentioned, collegiate summer leagues are notable. Smartyllama (talk) 23:16, 22 September 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. G12 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trupay

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

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

Promotional article on extremely small company. Speedy removed by ip user. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 06:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 06:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doing a source review, it looks like this is a copyvio of the cited source [59]. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio. Fieari (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --
WP:PROMO, among other things. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I was going to check the copyvio, but the site won't let me in unless I turn off my ad blocker, or 'go premium'. No way. Anyway, even without that, it's spam pure and simple. Peridon (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"What can I do with UPI" it says - with that way of operating a site, I could make some suggestions as to what THEY can do with it... But I'm too polite. Peridon (talk) 15:44, 21 September 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) 05:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Munni Saha

Munni Saha (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the
^(talk) 08:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
^(talk) 07:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Written like a resume, no notability. As a journalist, what kind of significant works he has done? Did not received any notable acclaim for journalism/or relating works in the national or international level.
^(talk) 07:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support to delete, not notable journalist.
talk) 15:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, does not qualify
WP:JOURNALIST. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:43, 27 September 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. Redirects can be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Injinji

Injinji (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)

Most coverage in RS are press releases and primary sources. PROD also removed by page's creator. Meatsgains (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bordering on advertising. Almost all sources provided are its own website. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it exists. And that's the most important fact that can be said about it. No indication of notability, borderline
A7 speedy case. Huon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and although this would have been acceptable speedy material, removing the PROD and AfD templates suggest this may likely be restarted later, thus we have G4 now. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toe socks. Injinji is the leading manufacturer of toe socks for serious athletic use. Although there are independent sources available, they do not provide enough detailed coverage of the company to justify a separate article at this time. Disclosure: I am a hiker and climber, and use this company's products. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 28 September 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, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FactoryFinder

FactoryFinder (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)

Though the name is factoryfinder this is a website which fails
WP:WEBSITE Marvellous Spider-Man 17:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi @
WP:WEBSITE? All the sources are independent from the website and reliable - Finnstechnology oy

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply all for a newly founded company hoping to gain and establish capital, including by having news talk about this and list hopes for obtaining said capital and also funding; none of this comes close at all for actual substance, and there would not be any meaningful improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:PROMO; the company is not yet notable, and the article exists to promote the business. The two awards listed are insignificant -- one is from a student-run association, and the other just links to the company Uber. My searches do not bring up anything significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 23 September 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, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freemesh Denmark

Freemesh Denmark (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'm not sure Freemesh is notable; I tried looking on a search engine, and the only source I could find about Freemesh is the Freemesh website. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 22:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It appears that this stub article was created to turn a red-link in
WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. While Freifunk is notable, this recent Danish fork is not, a search for freemesh site:.dk confirms this. Zero sources. The list entry in List of wireless community networks by region was created after the article itself was created. A classical way to de-ophanize an article. — Sam Sailor 22:28, 21 September 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) 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Records

Pacific Records (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)

Bit of an odd one this: the article was originally created regarding a 1970s division of Warner Bros. Records, but since 2006 the article has been re-written to include an entirely different Pacific Records set up in the 1990s, so the article now discusses two separate record companies, and the distinction is not made entirely clear. At the very least, these should be two entirely separate articles with disambiguators, but I am struggling to find reliable independent sources that discuss either subject in detail, and I am wondering if either record label is worth keeping. The 1970s record company's notability seems to rest almost entirely on a Billboard Hot 100 no. 1 single, "
WP:COI. Richard3120 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neither of the record labels covered by this article appears to have enough independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. In any event, they should not be combined into a single article; they are separate companies with no direct relationship and should be covered, if at all, in separate articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The most important "Pacific Records" was the French jazz label from the 1940s/1950s. That said, this should be two articles, not one. Both labels are likely notable because they had significant, if short-lived, chart success, and neither are "vanity" labels, so they can't be merged into any artist page. The prose for the more modern of the two is unambiguously promotional, and if someone speedied it for G11 I wouldn't really squawk. The second is barely a one-line stub, and if someone came from Alan O'Day's page, they wouldn't really learn anything they didn't probably know. In it's current state, none of it is sourced. I'm not going to !vote because I'm ambiguous about deleting this. I do think both labels are probably notable, but there's so little here worth keeping. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

78.26: I'm a bit dubious as to how "significant" the 1990s Pacific Records is – one song that reached no. 13 on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart (not the Hot 100) doesn't seem particularly significant to me. Richard3120 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if this survives the deletion discussion I will split the article into two, as they should be – perhaps then it will be easier to judge each one on its own merits and decide whether they should stay. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: in fact some further investigation shows that not only was the one hit by Sprung Monkey on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart and not the main Hot 100 chart, it was released on Surfdog Records, not Pacific Records. So now I would say there isn't a single reason for the 1990s Pacific Records to have an article, as there is no evidence of notability at all either for the label or for any of its artists. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I hadn't had a chance to look into this deeply yet. Yeah, that makes sense given this charted in 1998, and Pacific signed Sprung Monkey in 2015, according to the article body. I've done a bit more digging, and there's no discernible reliable coverage I can find, so I will in fact be !voting. next.

Delete - the piece is highly promotional towards the recent California label, this label does not have a length of history, nor does it have a significant roster of notable artists. Per Richard3120's investigation, the label has also not had a nationally charted hit. I found no coverage beyond the very local. The 1970s version of Pacific Records is probably notable, but there's nothing sourced and so little information provided that it's not worth keeping, if someone wants to start an article on that label, they would just as well start from scratch. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This qualifies for a
WP:TNT. Neither seems notable enough and the article certainly mixes up two different companies. Starting this from scratch (if at all someone can prove it is really notable), is the way to go. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Hirsch

Nate Hirsch (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: as non-notable. Checked Google and obits -- no indication of sufficient notability. Quis separabit? 00:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 00:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. A non-notable college sportscaster who died in recent days, and was the subject of obituaries in local news media. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I added to article. He was notable before death from multiple coverage, interviews over years (see multiple prior years' quotes from him in first Statesboro Herald source in article, which must be from previous coverage), and 2012 lifetime achievement Hall of Fameship in Georgia radio. Instant article creation upon death reflects Wikipedua's gap. Coverage in at least 5 local/regional media. Radio broadcaster with thousands of hours exposure (several hours per game, plus radio talk shows like one he was in 10th year of, is more known than a TV broadcaster with same career length (and a couple minutes talking per news show). Think Joe Garagiola or Howard Cosell, vs. I don't know which TV news broadcaster.

Also he bought and sold radio stations (not yet covered in article). And his pioneering first commercial broadcasting of any college baseball team's entire season, starting working from seat on an overturned garbage can, is interesting, notable.-do ncr am 16:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 17:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Doncram. Multitude of third party RS coverage of his death. Connormah (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We normally keep articles of long-established sports broadcasters and I see no reason to make an exception here. Passes
WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Seems to have multiple, reliable, independent sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As in other recent cases, opinions are divided about whether the sources are sufficient for an article or whether they and the article itself are merely a promotional exercise. Sandstein 19:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appboy

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 detailed and extensive PROD here was removed with the apparent basis of adding sources, but I myself have examined several single of those newly added sources, they are simply PR and PR-like attempts from the company to seek and establish funding and financing; the fact the listed news themselves are far apart in time that it shows the company themselves simply likely motivated the supposed "news" themselves. The TechCrunch article not only mentions "starts funding" in its name, but the article goes as far to contain "Of course, that’s all well and good, but how exactly is AppBoy looking to improve the discovery of apps, up intelligence on users, and encourage engagement? " No honest journalist would put that unless they wanted to fluff the company and perhaps motivate its own clients and investors to place interest. The AppDeveloper magazine source, I'll note is clearly simply a "report guide" in that it only partly mentions the company in the said company (Appboy) 's own report. The Fortune magazine itself then only mentions exactly what a PR agent places: what the company's business and activities are and what the company's goals are; this exact article then goes through the specifications about the company's own funding and financial activities and then about its services and its status. That article then states Tewari declined to disclose the amount his group has invested in Appboy or whether his parent company uses Appboy’s technology. However, he did observe that a far larger percentage of the bank’s interactions with accountholders are taking place via mobile banking applications and other digital messaging venues , something that the businessperson would be motivated to mention especially if seeking clients and investors, something any newly started and seeking-ground-company would want. That article then continues saying the employees information, where they are located, "It doesn’t disclose its total customer count" is something that is not actually of necessary substance, so it's not something exactly convincing of notability here. The article finishes with then talking about other notable companies and the "needs of customers". All in all, my examinations are simply finding nothing to suggest both independent notability substance and then non-PR based sources and attempts. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets
news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. It's important to note that the sources below are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various pr websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

References

Clancy, Heather (June 30, 2016). "This Startup Helps Marketers Optimize Mobile Outreach". Fortune. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

Empson, Rip (November 23, 2011). "AppBoy Raises A Cool Million To Let App Developers Better Engage And Understand Their User Base". TechCrunch. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

– Don't be misled by the title of the TechCrunch article directly above, which could lead one to think that it's just routine coverage about funding. It certainly is not. The article provides information about the company's focus, background information, what the company's software does, and more.

Levine, Barry (March 25, 2015). "Appboy becomes a grown-up competitor in the marketing world". VentureBeat. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

Perez, Sarah (January 9, 2013). "Appboy's New Customer Segmentation Product Helps Mobile App Developers Re-engage Users". TechCrunch. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

Warren, Christina (March 9, 2010). "Appboy Gets a New Design, iPhone App and Best Buy Partnership". Mashable. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

"Appboy Study Finds Android Apps Have Higher Retention Rates than iOS Apps". App Developer Magazine. May 20, 2016. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

Nominator's analysis of listed sources; these are still essentially PR attempts as I noted with my said nomination; the newest added one, the 2013 TechCrunch article is essentially a how-to guide since it actually goes to specifications to show what the item is, how it works and how it looks; that's basically a sales pitch, especially to seek and obtain clients and investors, even in the fact the "article" itself contains an image of how the item works. I'll note the following: "The customer engagement tool is offered at no extra cost to Appboy users. The company prices its service on a freemium model where it’s free up to 10,000 monthly users, then tiered afterwards. Appboy doesn’t disclose exact user numbers, but says that it has hundreds of developers using the new product, representing millions of mobile users. Several big-name clients will be revealed in a few weeks, Ghermezian notes." which is essentially the company advertising itself, showing the specifications about the said item, the "article" the closes by mentioning their funding activities, again something only a company wanting PR would mention. The next one, Mashable's "article" begins with not only a photo of what it looks like but then flashy words like "New look and feel" which is something someone would only mention if they wanted to find clients (from the article: "The customer engagement tool is offered at no extra cost to Appboy users. The company prices its service on a freemium model where it’s free up to 10,000 monthly users, then tiered afterwards. Appboy doesn’t disclose exact user numbers, but says that it has hundreds of developers using the new product, representing millions of mobile users. Several big-name clients will be revealed in a few weeks, Ghermezian notes....Appboy [now has an update]), not a genuine journalism method. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – These are
WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I easily found two very strong sources, Wall Street Journal and Fortune. As to the nominator's argument that "the company themselves simply likely motivated the supposed 'news' themselves", we have no way of knowing what motivates journalists or media outlets to write about things. We only have our
WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - The comment is not fully noting all of my concerns listed here, which are also PR concerns, something that cannot simply be tossed aside. The Fortune link they list, I specifically and clearly examined and noted the concerns; what motivates journalists, especially ones looking for an easy and simple task, are the ones that are searching for companies so they can boost their connections and ultimately, their future jobs; that's what journalism can be like, especially when it comes to companies, where they are eager to especially find clients and investors, hence the overspecifications about the company's services and activites; examining this WallStreetJournal link above, it not only begins with listing the company's funding (attempts only to find clients and investors, granted), but it then says "Venture investors are hot on the space, having backed more than a dozen such startups in recent years, including Kahuna Inc., Urban Airship Inc., Swrve Inc., Localytics Inc. and Leanplum Inc." (which are simpy attempts to shoehorn name-connections, they serve no actual relevance or substance to the article itself), "“There was lots of inbound interest so we didn’t do a roadshow. Investors found us and we picked three to entertain,” said Mr. Ghermezian. He added that he initially sought to raise $10 million and could have easily raised $25 million" is then another attempt at wooing viewers, clients and investors, to actually then state what number of investors they "entertained" and then ultimately settled with. The next one is : "The 50-person company aims to double head count during the next year or so and focus mainly on sales and marketing. Appboy’s technology, which also allows clients to engage users via app push notifications, in app messaging or other means, will be rolled out to increasingly large enterprise users, according to the company plan" Not only was this simply supplied by the company itself, it actually then goes to specifics what their plans and activities are, the audience that targets are again clients and investors. The next information then, unsurprisingly, lists other companies who are apparently clients, and what their information is. None of that is substance. Given my specified analysis with these concerns, you cannot honestly then say that's "in-depth and significant coverage". SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and I don't think the proffered sources are evidence of depth - all of this is churnalism at best - David Gerard (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it passes
WP:CORP as clearly shown by the references already cited in this discussion. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yet my comments and analysis has clearly stated what and why the concerns exist, simply stating that the sources "are enough" is not enough to simply the article. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your badgering is bordering on disruption. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and view it as a
WP:BLUDGEON issue. When participating at AFD, there is no requirement to respond to or satisfy every comment/objection made by other editors. In fact, it would be impossible to do so--editors acting in good faith can and will often disagree, even after everyone has made their best arguments. Editors are not entitled to point-by-point rebuttals of their own analysis. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG, sources listed above clearly meet WP:CORPDEPTH. No comment on the trend in journalism quality in general. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ad promotional and borderline notable. If there is anything clear about the sources is that the would not have been written except for interest in the social connections of the proprietor. This is the sort of human interest coverage that does not provide notability ofa person;'s enterprises, and is even pretty dubious for information on their own notability. The NYT article is a fairly good explanation of that; far from proving the notability of the company, it disproves it. The others are either publicity or just mentions or other routine coverage. Including this sort of content is adding WP to the other organs of publicity. However, we're an encyclopedia. Even if the firm were notable, the articles should bedeleted for promotionalism,which is an even stronger reason that borderline notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

I was asked on my talk pa to explain further: The material in that article shows the company is not yet notable. Sometimes a newspaper -- even a very good newspaper -- covers something because of some human interest hook, or because it's a typical example--as, to take an example, the instances selected for coverage in the articles in the NYT Neediest Cases Fund drive. Such coverage is not notability. Here, it overs the firm, and the coverage is directed to saying how completely un-notable the company is, except for the human interest in its founder, along with similar insignificant companies serving similarly as hobbies by wealthy young people. The only meaning of notability in a WP context is what is suitable to be in the encyclopedia. If there's coverage in good sources showing it is not suitable, then it is not notable., just as much as if there were no coverage at all . The GNG is a general rule, but has to be used with judgment about what is actually in the source. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the NYT article, and you've almost convinced me, except the WSJ and Fortune articles are about Appboy and only Appboy. (I'm old and am not as sure about Techcrunch helping to establish notability.) I have long felt that GNG is overused and applies absent critical thinking, but this may be a case where GNG applies. I'm listening. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here has tried to use the NYT source as a way to establish notability. I added the source to the article recently because it provided some background information on the company that filled in some gaps on the organization's history. I don't think the source establishes GNG because it's fairly trivial coverage. I think it's the Fortune and WSJ sources that do that. But as far as I'm aware every source in an article doesn't have to provide
verify the content it is intended to verify in an article. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:TOOSOON
; the company is not yet notable.

The WSJ article is titled "Appboy Raises $15 Million to Help Businesses Improve Mobile Marketing" indicating that it's an up and coming company. Further, much of the content is based on what the founder was telling the reporter; the tone is fluffy.

Fortune article is also about the investment, entitled: "This Startup Helps Marketers Optimize Mobile Outreach". Likewise, it's based on the interview with the founder.

This does not rise to the level of
run-of-the-mill, routine coverage of funding etc in TechCrunch and VentureBeat as would be expected with a VC-backed company. An unremarkable startup going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill is an essay, not a guideline or policy. The source examples I provided demonstrate that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also:
WP:NEWCOMPANY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NEWCOMPANY is an essay, not a guideline or policy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Topic notability on Wikipedia is not correlated with the age of any topic or subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources presented are clearly problematic. Venturebeat, Mashable, TechCunch are all techblogs and they run almost any small news about tech companies. The reason why these are considered
WP:NOTDIR
.(Using these sources for demonstrating notability would result in every little company would become notable enough for inclusion). The reason for using high quality sources, particularly mainstream media, is to ensure that the world at large has taken an interest in the subject, without any prodding or incentive. Discounting these techblogs, we only have 2 reliable sources

The "WSJ article" is a WSJ Blog and NOT WSJ. The blogs are not subject to the same editorial checks and it is very easy to publish articles here. In addition to that it essentially reports a funding news (along with a quote by the CEO).

The Fortune article literally used a quote by the founder as a story source. This doesn't satisfy
WP:ORGIND
which states other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself cannot be used to support notability.

None of the above 2 help to fulfil
WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Check out
WP:NEWSBLOG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Precisely. All the more reasons not to use it for notability purposes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how I didn't include the WSJ source in my list of sources in my !vote above. What about all of the other sources I posted? Are they all no good, as some sort of default? (WP:ALLOFTHESOURCESAREWRONG); if some sources are problematic, then all of them are? Sorry, but this comes across as cherry picking selectively, and then dismissing all others, per "Venturebeat, Mashable, TechCunch are all techblogs". These websites are not blogs, they are news websites. For more information, see TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Mashable. Conversely, for information about what constitutes a blog, see Blog. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venturebeat, Mashable and TechCrunch are called "tech blogs". And I'm not the one who made up this term, it is a very commonly used term in the media. Have a look:

Venturebeat: "VentureBeat, a tech blog"- from NYTimes, "VentureBeat.com, a blog site devoted to venture capital-backed technology startups"- from Bloomberg

TechCrunch: "tech blogs such as...TechCrunch, part of AOL Inc."- from Bloomberg, "TechCrunch blog covers...", "the tech blog TechCrunch.com"- from Bloomberg - from NYTimes

Mashable: "The tech blog Mashable..."- from Bloomberg, "Tech blog Mashable.com"- from WashingtonPost (Mashable though is more of a social media news aggregator/clickbait site as opposed to a dedicated tech blog)

Gizmodo: "Tech blog Gizmodo said"- from WashingtonPost, "Gizmodo, the popular tech blog known for its focus on digital gadgets and scatological tone."- fron NYTimes

The journalistic model of these tech blogs is inverted: publish first and verify/correct/retract later if needed. The problem however isn't so much about verifiability as it is about the fact that they publish literally just about anything. That reduces the value of the source and renders it useless for notability. It would be like using inclusion in a directory as a proof of notability and this goes against our policy
WP:NOTDIR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the sources found by
reliable sources to allow Appboy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I view
reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment to closer - To ensure these comments were acknowledged and analyzed, I will note this is becoming a filibuster in that walls of content about whose job is who, yet no one above actually acknowledged the extensive concerns stated each and all vote. Therefore, sinply congratulating one side of their searches and yet not acknowledged the sincere concerns of the other, explains everything by itself. No one has even talked about the analyses above yet, to still say "but there's sources" bears no similar convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that the article has been heavily copy edited to address promotional tone (see its Revision history). The article does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I trimmed the article some more, to remove intricate detail and potentially unverifiable claims by the company, such as "routine personnel announcement and nn individuals, amounting to intricate detail". The article currently stands at:

Appboy Inc. is a mobile marketing company based in
San Francisco, California and London.^[1]

Appboy was founded in 2011 by Mark Ghermezian with $3 million raised from family and other investors.^[2] The company received $7.6 million in Series A funding in 2013 and $15 million in Series B funding in October 2014.^[3]^[4] In May 2016, Appboy closed a $20 million Series C funding round, bringing the company's total funding to $42.5 million.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Clancy, Heather (June 30, 2016). "This Startup Helps Marketers Optimize Mobile Outreach". Fortune. Retrieved 20 September 2016.

^ Rusli, Evelyn (April 4, 2012). "Heirs to Old Money Plunge Into Tech". New York Times. Retrieved 20 September 2016.

^ Perez, Sarah (6 November 2013). "Appboy Raises $7.6M Series A To Bring Marketing Automation Tools To Mobile Apps". TechCrunch. Retrieved 6 November 2013.

^ Chapman, Lizette (2 October 2014). "Appboy Raises $15 Million to Help Businesses Improve Mobile Marketing". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2 October 2014.

This is a
WP:NOT an investment prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I have reverted.
Ghermezian left his job in the energy industry and raised $3 million from family and other investors in order to start the company. – this is encyclopedic information about the history of the company's founding.
That same year, Bill Magnuson and Jon Hyman joined the company as co-founders. – the company's co-founders are not "routine personnel announcement[s]".
Appboy manages mobile applications for
Domino's Pizza, Urban Outfitters, and SoundCloud. Appboy’s software processes approximately 2 billion messages per month between 420 million users.<ref name=fortune/> – this is verified by the Fortune article. "[P]otentially unverifiable claims by the company which was private" is insufficient reason to delete this material when it's supported by a reliable source that considers the material accurate.
The company received $7.6 million in Series A funding in November 2013 (from Icon Ventures, Michael Lazerow, Blumberg Capital, Accelerator Ventures, Bullpen Capital and Triple Five Group) and $15 million in Series B funding in October 2014 (from InterWest Partners, Icon Ventures, Blumberg Capital, Triple Five Group and IDG Ventures). – information about who funded the company is encyclopedic information and is part of the company's history. It should not be removed.
Cunard (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: the quote from Fortune is "Appboy’s software processes roughly 2 billion messages per month, sent to more than 420 million active users, according to the company." That's exactly why this article should be deleted, as it appears that this type of editing is what allows Wikipedia to be used for promotional purposes. With the revert above, Wikipedia's voice is now used to substantiate the claim by the company. Such uncritical editing is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your concern with that sentence. I have added a clarification to the text. Cunard (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Appboy told WP:INFO to the encyclopedia, parroting what news sources out there say. I am concerned that the application of this model would lead Wikipedia editors to become automatons without any critical thinking or capacity to evaluate sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

That content uses Wikipedia:Citing sources#In-text attribution to discuss the volume of messages Appboy processes, which is encyclopedic information. I consider reputable news organizations to be reliable sources unless presented with evidence otherwise. No evidence has been presented here to demonstrate that these sources are publishing PR. Fortune considered the material from the company to be due weight in their article. I consider that same material to be due weight for the Wikipedia article because I consider the volume of messages Appboy processes to be encyclopedic information.
Cunard (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Yes, I looked at the sources while editing. This particular source (TechCrunch: appboy-raises-a-cool-million-to-let-app-developers-better-engage-and-understand-their-user-base) does not strike me as RS for the purpose of establishing notability. This is coverage in a tech blog that routinely covers funding news for VC backed tech startups. Requirements for source that establish notability are more stringent than for mere content, and this one falls short of the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the one source being claimed as notability-causing is actually simply company PR in that the article says something only the company would itself : "This cool $1million will better engage and understand the clients" .... None of that can be taken seriously if it's that blatant and certainly nothing some non-company person would say. As it is, that one article contains several and several other sentences listed the company's own thoughts and plans which of course is not independent since it's coming from the company itself. Another classic part that we've recently seen in established PR pieces, "how exactly is AppBoy looking to improve the discovery of apps, up intelligence on users, and encourage engagement?" Basically saying "Sure, sure, but how is money being made?!" None of that is what an honest journalist would say, and it oozes with the obvious company-supplied information, because the news media source could not care at all about that company, but it certainly will if there was money involved and invested with supplying PR as a quid-pro-quo for PR-for-PR for each of them. The worst part of it is that the last half paragraphs or so actually go to specifics, stating how the company works and how it can be used, before finishing with "For information, go to the company website to learn about it!" If that's not PR, I'm not sure what it is, especially since it's simply an artful method of saying "Hey, this information is coming from the website itself, but let's put it into our own words since that works!" Churnalism is what that is called since, it was injected with company PR from A to Z. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on independent of tech blogs There is absolutely no proof that sources like TechCrunch and VentureBeat or their writers are independent of the organisations they write about. Most tech blogs writers tend to be affiliated to companies and this a tech blog usually should not be considered as an independent source. (Note that having an editor =/= independent source). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading arguments of both sides in this rather heated discussion, I choose keep - there are many sources (I admit some of them weak). At least for me this is enough to estabilish notability of this topic. Pavlor (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - he only difference is that the Delete votes have staunchly and clearly stated the concerns whereas the Keep votes have either chosen not to or simply state that it's somehow enough. Stating itself "some of them weak" yet not state which ones, causes questions in itself, especially since this would help, given the stated and extensive examinations and analyses above. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t think so. Both sides repeat (again and again) their arguments why this particular source is or is not reliable. I watched this AfD long enough to make my opinion. Maybe my standards for keep are (much) lower than yours. Side note: I see some sources were summarily dismissed by the delete side of this AfD. Is this general problem of said pages or only some articles aren´t reliable (eg. these AppBoy)? I ask, because providing references from such websites (even in good faith) may be waste of time. Are there some websites you would without hesitation describe as reliable (for purposes of computing/software articles)? I admit, if I´m looking for sources, I rather use paper magazines, which is not that hard for topic of my interest - old computers... Pavlor (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is purely promotional and has no encyclopedic value. Non-notable company. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close--wrong venue. See
(talk) 01:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

User talk:Jonathanbishop

User talk:Jonathanbishop (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Jonathanbishop|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

contains nonsense NoWikipedian (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)— NoWikipedian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 01:02, 20 September 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. Very clear consensus that this musician is too
WP:TOOSOON to have an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Bradley Warren Jr.

Bradley Warren Jr. (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:NOTPROMO also applies.MSJapan (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Created as an autobiography,
WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find much coverage, and what we have is two interviews. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find additional rs for verification. While I did enjoy his guitar playing, his most viewed video on Youtube had only 194 total views. Simply not notable enough for a BLP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HitroMilanese, I really don't see the warrant for this edit. This is a clear-cut case for A7. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did nominate the article for A7 initially and after my nomination, user made considerable changes to the article. Considering the editor was new and may not be aware of the guidelines, I left message on his talk page and gave him time to complete the article. The article was in my watchlist, I would have tagged it accordingly later. You may notice, I left message on his talk page stating that "I have removed the speedy deletion tag from the article for now". However, it is a Delete case. Hitro talk 01:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're also the one who nominated it? OK...well, yes, here we are, headed for a SNOW delete. Anyway, thanks for the quick response, Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and BAND. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 24 September 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_September_20&oldid=1142620503"~~

[fortune-1] Clancy, Heather (June 30, 2016). "This Startup Helps Marketers Optimize Mobile Outreach". Fortune. Retrieved 20 September 2016.

[2] Rusli, Evelyn (April 4, 2012). "Heirs to Old Money Plunge Into Tech". New York Times. Retrieved 20 September 2016.

[3] Perez, Sarah (6 November 2013). "Appboy Raises $7.6M Series A To Bring Marketing Automation Tools To Mobile Apps". TechCrunch. Retrieved 6 November 2013.

[4] Chapman, Lizette (2 October 2014). "Appboy Raises $15 Million to Help Businesses Improve Mobile Marketing". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2 October 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]