Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 July	20 July >

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 redirect to Micronation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Copeman

)

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

Lack of notability: mentioned in a few news-of-the-weird books, no news articles on him. PROD tried, but new user removed. Bromley86 (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:GNG although he gets some coverage in the Lonely Planet Micronations book[1]. As well as the Lonely Planet source, he occurs as a sentence or paragraph in some list-type sources about micronations so putting him in a list seems fitting. Writing a book about yourself does not provide notability unless the book is widely reviewed (which it doesn't seem to be). Obviously, if more, in-depth sources are forthcoming, it could be kept. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Micronation per Colapeninsula. Not enough sources to support an independent BLP, but a useful redirect to existing information in an appropriate article. A Train^talk 08:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is lots of discussion here but no real agreement on whether the sources are sufficient to demonstrate Farmdrop's notability. Note that this close shouldn't stop a cleanout of the article if editors deem it to be low quality or promotional in tone. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farmdrop

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

Clear WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Promotion and WP:Deletion policy concerns because both information and sources are advertising; worse, the promotionalism couldn't simply be fixed since (1) the Overview section is literally a mirror image of the company website, (2) is closely similar and (3) is not significant. Article sources analysis: FarmDrop, a company that acts as a distributor for food from local farmers and producers to customers nearby. Now operating in London, the company says the average distance between the customer and the producer of the food that they have bought is 30 miles. With a supermarket, this can extend to 600 miles, according to the company. Having grown to a staff of 20, FarmDrop has eschewed a marketing budget in order to keep prices lower and has thrived, according to [owner]., 2nd is about starting a food campaign in a local trade publication, 3rd is a funding report which is unacceptable for WP:CORP, 4rd is an interview, 5th is fix the food supply chain by removing unnecessary middlemen to give consumers better quality, fresher food and producers a fairer financial deal. Farmers and producers are given an average of 70 per cent of sale revenue through Farmdrop as opposed to 30 per cent from supermarkets, 6th is similar to 4 with a company interview and armDrop recruits a local person – or ‘keeper’ – to organise the scheme in their area, running the weekly ‘drops’ and recruiting nearby producers. The keeper and FarmDrop get 10% each, and the farmers retain 80% of all profits, 7th is [Owner says], Customers then log on, type in their postcode to find their nearest FarmDrop, and place an order (a minimum of £5). At an allotted time each week the farmer delivers the produce to the ‘drop’ – a pub, town hall, school or cafe – which is managed by a ‘keeper’ who deals with customers coming to pick up the weekly orders. The producer keeps 80 per cent of sales, a keeper makes 10 per cent and 10 per cent goes to FarmDrop....[owner says]. and both 8 and 9 are local news reports about the company's financials and 10 is closely similar and finally 11 is another company interview. There's one last link, a review but it's yet again another local trade publisher, so not enough for GNG. Also, see the equally promotional sources found: 1-2, 8, 10, 11, 19, 21 are local business reports, 3, 5, 7, 15-18, 22, 31-34, 35, 37, 41-44 are funding reports, 4 is equally similar as before but it's instead a company-sourced profile (Producers who sell via Farmdrop are also given a roughly 75 percent...." and closely behind that is 23-29 & 36 until it eventually repeats the cycle. Promotional always outweighs general notability especially when the latter cites "independent reliable coverage sources", especially when TheGuardian itself says it welcomes sponsored or donated stories. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets
WP:GNG per a source review, and the article does not have a promotional tone. News sources that provide neutral or positive coverage about companies are not automatically promotional as a default, and some of the quotes in the nomination serve to demonstrate that the topic has received significant coverage. In addition to the sources in the article, there's also significant coverage in the book listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

No One Eats Alone: Food as a Social Enterprise. Island Press. pp. 128–132.

Delete as I actually examined the book source above and it not only contains "guide" in its book lead but the same company quotes which were supplied by the company CEO as in the analyzed sources above, show it's the one and the same situation: Company-supplied information which therefore wouldn't satisfy GNG since it emphasizes independent reliable sources of which primary sources aren't. In fact, even the one paragraph about the company in the book would violate our WP:Not webhost and Not guide which states Wikipedia is not a how-to or guide for anything at all. I actually looked further and I saw this is essentially all GoogleBooks offers: Listings, guides, notices, etc. and that too wouldn't satisfy GNG's criteria. WP:ORGIND itself says anything still primarily or republished from the company is unacceptable because it's not substantial; in fact, we've established before that it's obvious promotionalism when the company is responsible for any automatic "business overview" since they would be motivating it and it certainly wouldn't be a coincidence that over 20+ articles happen, supposedly from news publishers, would be copying it. As the nomination says, our policies take priority here. One of the applicable quotes of WP:NOT is Simple listings without context information. In fact, the first thing GNG itself goes into is how WP:What Wikipedia is not actually applies over GNG and therefore an article cannot be guaranteed acceptance. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and that's what all the sources are based in. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The book source is not a guide book. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:ORGIND. I agree with the nom's analysis of the sources. Most or all of the article refs are recycling company material and publishing it. The only source in these articles is the founder, Ben Pugh, who is quoted in the articles, which indicates the text is derived from promotional materials circulated by the company and then republished. This is discussed in WP:ORGIND - any material written by the organization and any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly that is published are not considered criteria that indicates notability and inclusion. Also, kudos to the nom for pointing out the discrepancies with the other sources and showing why some 40 or so other sources do not support this topic's notability. Mentioning or covering business alliances, clients, competitors, employees, equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, and/or subdivisions does not indicate notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Churnalism and Video news release for present day strategies regarding such endeavors. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the company is notable given sufficient media coverage. The wording is factual and information presented is appropriate for a company at this kind of stage in its lifecycle. I know
WP:OSE is not a criteria, but closest rival HelloFresh seem sufficient to have an article. They are at a similar development stage. This should be considered for a fair and balanced view. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I see detailed coverage in WP:GNG as far as I'm concerned. Any promotional writing can be fixed outside of the scope of AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per GNG articles. Will try to clean it up a bit. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. one of the keep opinions says "coverage appropriate for companies at this stage in their lifecycle". And so it is; the press coverage is indeed what would be expected for companies at this stage: promotions and notices, trying to get the company to a notable stage in its life cycle.When it does become notable, then there will be coverage suitable for an encyclopedia article. But not now. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which was meant to address previous delete commentary that a lot of the media coverage / google results are about funding rounds. Hence the comparison with HelloFresh. Over the years, Farmdrop has had regular editorial coverage in the guardian, the independent, the evening standard, the FT (paywall). In my book, this passes GNG. As someone said previously, concerns about tonality can be addressed. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why repeat what others have said, DGG, Steve Quinn, and Swister have nailed it on the head. OSE is definitely not an argument I would use, and is in direct contradiction to
WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:GNG-- just because an article is promotional in tone doesn't mean that it deserves to be deleted if the sources are there for a proper article. Nomader (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Nomader On what policy basis? Because both WP:Deletion and WP:Wikipedia is not both state how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia....Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" so promotional content can in fact be removed by this alone. At best, we would need a fundamental rewrite here with significant changes to appeal our 2 policies. Also, to add, GNG also says, "If is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy" therefore GNG itself compliments to our policy's own findings. Since the nomination was based in policy, the Delete votes have agreed with those findings. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG, we should not just delete articles willy nilly because they're *currently* written in a promotional tone if they have a hope that they could be improved. Quoting the policy, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject-- therefore, I supported !voted keep. I hope that helps to explain my rationale. Nomader (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

And just to add to this here-- articles like this [2] clearly do meet WP:GNG and pass the WP:NOT test that you're referring to. That's why this is a !keep-- not the guidebook stuff that you're referring to. Nomader (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually GNG is not policy, unlike WP:NOT which is; a for the source, it was analyzed in the Delete comments above where it was found to be promotional. Any article that is about "staying local and fresh food with Farmdrop": See first red highlight above and also Some 70 producers now supply goods to FarmDrop, which then delivers the food using electric vans within zones one to three in the London area. Where a producer cannot be found in the local area, for example with salmon, they will source one from as close as possible, it will adopt a hub model where a new network of local producers will be sourced around that area to maintain the same close proximity with the customers, said Pugh.The card can be loaded with value, much like a standard gift card from a chain store, and can then be spent in a network of 120 independent shops across the city as well as a handful of stores in Frome, some 25 miles away. The business was set up to support the local community and has so far issued about £200,000 in value across 20,000 cards since it was established two and a half years ago, said Perez., is going to be promotional since it goes on to repeat company services; that certainly isn't independent since a news publication would never care about promoting they have no company ownership of. If each paragraph begins with a "He said, He said, they said, company said", that is not independent as quoted in GNG's "independent of the subject". SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftified.
(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar)

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar) (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 such legislation or legislative bill in fact currently exists either in the United Kingdom or in Gibraltar. An article created (for a topic) before the fact, it would seem; and it would also seem that the creator might not be British (as a Brit) or British (a Brit, from being a Gibraltarian), might perhaps have a somewhat imperfect proficiency and command of the English language, and might in fact have a limited grasp of how legislation is actually made in the respective legislatures, either in the United Kingdom or in Gibraltar, the actual legislative competence of the Gibraltar legislature (as the legislature of one of the British Overseas Territories (BOTs), as Gibraltar is), British (United Kingdom) law (especially in relation to the EC/EEC/EU/EEA or to the BOTs, in particular, the European Communities Act 1972), Gibraltar law, or the politics of Gibraltar (or comparable [British] Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey)) generally. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. If you'd bothered to look at the source cited in the article, this is a bill that has been announced by Gibraltar's chief minister. As for whether Gibraltarian laws use their coat of arms, you may wish to check
WP:PERSONAL. --RaviC (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to
draftspace. The reliable source clearly says there will be a repeal bill in Gibraltar, but it does not say it will have the title given in this article. There's no reason to assume the Gibraltar title will be the same as the UK one. However, there should be clarity in the next few months, weeks or even days, so let's keep all that code ready to hand. Matt's talk 21:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S. The English in the article is fine, and as far as I can see from the edit history, always has been.
WP:DONTBITE, as we all have bad days sometimes. Matt's talk 21:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Draft per
WP:TOOSOON. While it's likely the bill will go through, it's possible Theresa May may be accidentally eaten by a pack of hyenas, an emergency election is called, Caroline Lucas becomes PM and the bill is scrapped. (Okay, I may have exaggerated a bit....) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 some argument was made towards
WP:GNG through sustained news coverage. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Reasons To Vote For Democrats

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 an old joke, which has been tried too many times, see

The Great Book of Lesbian Humor, 1960s

Everything Obama Knows About the Economy, 2011

A History of the Palestinian People, 2017

.....all blank books. And all, AFAIK, self published. Wikipedia doesn't need to put up with every silly joke, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pr
WP:Not notable, Huldra (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

.....and Pr
WP:NOTNEWS, Huldra (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that
WP:Not notable is a subhead on page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Nom fails to exhibit evidence of
WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

SNOWKEEP: The media coverage has been extensive and over a prolonged period of time and has spawned numerous copycats. And not a single policy cited in bringing this AFD. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Easily passes
WP:NBOOK(1). Major coverage of this book exists, beyond what is reffed in the article as a simple BEFORE shows. Old joke or not, it is notable due to coverage, RSes find this notable, so should we.Icewhiz (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Is any of the coverage "non-trivial" though? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. All independent of the published. And there's more - this is from a quick search (cutting out instances in which the Author was interviewed by the publication).Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this shouldn't be considered under
talk) 00:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~I do agree that NBOOK shouldn't apply and isn't intended for such a non-literary product. GNG is the yardstick.~~
~~talk) 01:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)~~[reply
]

That is a
WP:RS refer to it as a book: [13][14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (this is a far from complete list - however it shows major RSes referring to it as a book). We are supposed to follow the sources, not make independent judgements based on our POV regarding the nature of objects - if multiple RS say X is a Y, then we should follow said classification (regardless, it also passed on GNG - coverage pre-dates presidential endorsement and post-dates as well and is sustained).Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC) And I'll add, we recognize other blank works: e.g. music: 4′33″ visual arts: White on White, Monochrome painting.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Whether you reckon it a book, a pamphlet, a joke, concrete poetry, or a work of conceptual art, the notability requirements are similar - in-depth coverage, analysis, or reviews. I'm not sure any of the articles you cite can be termed in-depth coverage of the book itself, whereas Cage's 4'33" has a considerable body of critical analysis. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because there is, in fact,
Weekly Standard article by Roger Kimball, Shooting Blanks, [24]. There are also articles crediting this with spawning imitators, and articles about one of the imitators, The History of the Palestinian People: From Ancient Times to the Modern Era, featuring "132 blank pages" being removed from Amazon after commentators on the site objected. Okay, so: Q. How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb? A. That's not funny.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The book received significant coverage in the Business Insider article, passes
WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Not all of the sources mentioned above are useful, however I absolutely do see coverage of the book's inception, critical commentary on its publication, and even direct reporting on its reception. It would be completely feasible to write a succinct encyclopedia article on this topic (if not at length) based on
significant coverage. czar 02:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Yes -- there was quite a lot of coverage for this book. Once. I'm essentially arguing that this is
WP:SUSTAINED coverage that would warrant inclusion per WP:Notability. A Train^talk 08:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Per
WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes -- lots of trivial coverage: short articles, brief mentions in longer articles.
WP:BK is specifically asking for "non-trivial" coverage. The very nature of this book makes it difficult for any coverage of it to ever be non-trivial unless it becomes a Pokemon-style phenomenon. A Train^talk 08:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Personal opinions aside whether the book is trivial and whether coverage of a triviality may be non-trivial, these are examples (and there are more) of non-trivial coverage: [25], [26], [27].Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:A Train, Please note that other editors, including Icewhiz, Czar, Cllgbksr, and I have (above) each in turn also wanted to be satisfied that there has been
WP:BOOKCRIT - even though it is, of course, a political prank not unlike the Sokal affair.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The issue is whether this book (whatever its merits may be) is notable as measured by its coverage in reliable third-party sources. There is no clear consensus here, although a majority of opinions would keep the article. The article can be renominated after some time when the lasting importance of the book, if any, can be better assessed. Sandstein 10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A History of the Palestinian People

A History of the Palestinian People (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 an old joke, which has been tried many times before, see

The Great Book of Lesbian Humor, 1960s

Everything Obama Knows About the Economy, 2011

Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide, 2016

.....all blank books. And all, AFAIK, self published. Wikipedia doesn't need to put up with every silly joke, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pr
WP:Not notable, Huldra (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
.....and Pr
WP:NOTNEWS, Ok, so I'm not accustomed to the alphabet soup used for AfD, to editors voting here: please use your heads, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Not applicable here. Even if we apply GNG, this has received several bursts of coverage (in multiple RS): the initial release and criticism/activism/support, Amazon ban, Knesset sppech, and throughout the period multiple in depth reviews in the English, Hebrew, Arabic and other languages covering the book itself and the claim therein (both positive and negative). Books, howver, are typically seen as a persistent object, and in particuar this book amply passes
WP:BK(1) with much more than 2 independent reviews (Around 20 or so. Even if we are exceedingly selective it is more than 10).Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that
WP:Not notable is a subhead on page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Nom fails to exhibit evidence of
WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep Nom hasn't even bothered to cite an actual single policy in bringing this Afd. Article uses 38 separate references. Easily fulfills
WP:GNG. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator). Easily passes
Reasons To Vote For Democrats also has an article (which the nom also nominated). Many books are "old" or "recycled", our question at Wikipedia should be if they are notable.Icewhiz (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Bears mentioning that 4′33″ has an article as well, and is deemed notable.Icewhiz (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Also this. Dahn (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's part of a wider debate on whether Palestinians have a history and are an independent ethnic group, but I'm struggling to find a specific discussion of this controversy on WP. Since most of the article is about the wider controversy rather than the literary merits of the text, I suspect a merge might be a better option if there is a suitable target, else keep (for now). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had been considering nominating this article for deletion myself but might as well comment here instead. ~~While the nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion,~~ (nominator has since updated nomination with valid criteria) I think there are applicable policies. Firstly, this is a self published book and per
WP:SUSTAINED, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability". That this book has already been delisted by the world's two largest online booksellers only a few days after going on sale speaks volumes about its lack of enduring notability. That the book has also been described as a racist prank is another reason not to reward it with an article here. It's basically nothing more than a blip in the news cycle. Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

1. Being a self-published book does not correlate with notability - but nor does it preclude notability. This particular book was covered in-depth (with lengthly analysis on the merit of the claim (either agreeing or disagreeing) with some outliers going as far as to call it "History of the Palestinian People is explicitly intended to reinforce the dehumanization of an entire people in order to grease the machinery of subjugation and ethnic cleansing" [28])) - by over 20 different sources independent of the author/publisher (and possibly more) - clearly surpassing the requirement in
WP:BK
(1).

2. Coverage is sustained - persisting from immediately following publication to this week (e.g. Bosnian newspaper [29], Knesset speech [30] [31]) - calling SUSTAINED here amounts to saying articles can't be made on new books. SUSTAINED isn't a criteria for
WP:BK
.

3. Banning from Amazon (B&N may be due to print run selling out - it is not clear this was actually banned there) - following a wide pro-Palestinian campaign to ban (which included claims that an empty book is a call for ethnic cleansing)- only confers notability, to wit the coverage in
WP:RS
following the banning increased significantly (and on a personal level - got me interested).

4. Prank? Much of the coverage in
WP:RS has taken this book seriously. Dead serious - including said claims that this is a call for dehumanization/ethnic cleansing/subjugation, as well as in-depth analysis of the merits of the claim that there is no Palestinian people or Palestinian history.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Daily Wire says the book has been "banned" by Barnes & Noble,[32] and the B&N website no longer has a page for the book, so clearly it's been delisted by them. As for sustained coverage - the book basically got a few gleeful endorses from pro-Israel websites when first published and a couple of disapproving mentions on pro-Palestinian media, then got a second blip of coverage about a week later due to it being delisted on Amazon. That hardly qualifies as sustained in my book. Who will care about this book six months from now? Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. I've seen the oneliner (at the end of a substansive article) in dailywire (and reffed it in the article) - still not sure (from what I see from other sources) that it actually was banned in B&N and not end of print run - but it doesn't really matter either way until it gets real coverage regarding B&N issues (I will note that if it was actually banned - this increases significance).

2. Coverage: A. The book got enraged counter-responses after publication (in addition to endorsements) + calls for action against Amazon. B. Additional coverage after banning (late June). C. Trickling coverage in July from several sources (including some that are in-depth analysis of the claim) - [33] [34] [35] [36]. D. Coverage following Hotovely's speech with the book: [37] [38] (
WP:BK
(1) more than two in-depth reviews.

3. Who will care six months from now? As the book has been called on the one hand "History of the Palestinian People is explicitly intended to reinforce the dehumanization of an entire people in order to grease the machinery of subjugation and ethnic cleansing", and on the other hand we have a freedom of speech / commercial dispute / taking sides on politics by Amazon - we will probably see more coverage and mentions in the coming months (as an example for a call for ethnic cleansing, hypocrisy calls regarding other amazon sales, and probably legal action vs. Amazon (seems there is also a question of proceeds)). Frankly - if it wasn't banned and if pro-Palestinian/liberal outlets had chosen to ignore it at the time - I wouldn't have written an article (I started on 27 June - after the ban and coverage wave following it, though I was aware of the book from the initial coverage wave) and it would've been less notable (maybe still notable, maybe not). The banning/censorship + extremely detailed responses (positive & negative) to the thesis laid in the book (in a blunt fashion) - is what really makes this notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite disturbing that you would describe a collection of blank pages as a "thesis". Other than that, it's hyperbolic to describe what happened to the book as a "ban", or "censorship" - it's simply been delisted by the major online sellers. As for the responses, they have mostly addressed themselves to the topic of what might be called "Palestinian denialism" rather than the book itself, which is just treated as the latest example of the phenomenon - what, after all, can be said about an empty book? As Colapeninsula noted above, there is a case to be made for an article on the broader topic, but hardly I think on one particular example of it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voll has said he looked for sources for Palestinian existence prior to the modern time - and found none - thus his thesis (in the sense of a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.) is that there is no history - and his blunt presentation of said thesis, offensive to some, and even described as as a means for "subjugation and ethnic cleansing" - is an empty tome. This is a serious claim - perhaps wrong and offensive - but serious. I stick to the sources - for instance professor Steven Weitzman treats Voll's thesis in one breath with Sand's: In one chapter, I look at a book entitled The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand which provoked controversy a few years ago because of its critique of Zionism. Sand makes his argument against Israel by trying to disprove the origin story which he believes underpins Zionism’s claim to the land of Canaan and justifies Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians. I subject Sand’s approach to critique, but it should be noted that the right has produced its own share of origin stories that can be critiqued on the same grounds. I just read a report about a book called A History of the Palestinian People that was a best-seller on Amazon last week before it was removed from the site. What was offensive about the book is that it is completely blank, the author’s way of arguing that the Palestinians are not a real people and have no real history—an argument that other scholars have made in more conventional ways. This is Sand’s argument in reverse, applied to the Palestinians instead of the Jews, and it is wrong for very similar methodological and historical reasons even though it is coming from the other side of the political spectrum and makes its argument in a different way.. The book hasn't been "simply delisted" - it was banned for sale on Amazon, which may be described as a "common utility" due its monopolistic or near-monopolistic status (not my words: [39], [40] - One might further argue that whereas a private, independent bookseller with a specific inventory must decide which books fit the shop’s criteria and deserve to occupy shelf space, Amazon is in reality a common utility, a portal for anything published and available.). The Amazon ban followed an activist campaign to ban the book (on and off the Amazon site, [41]). All this while Amazon continues to sell, as has been noted by some sources, books and merchandise calling for the genocide of Jews or the erasure of Israel. The book is notable - as it meets
WP:GNG. While "Historicity of the Palestinian people" might be notable in and of itself - so is this book due so coverage in the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I'm still not persuaded. But I think I've made the points I wanted to make, so I will endeavour at this point to step aside and let others have their say. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even if it is a joke, which isn't the exact definition in this case, best selling jokes are notable. The book has a clear thesis presented thunderingly by the sound of silence, and answered by dozens of writers. DGtal (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think a book that was on sale for barely a week can be described as a best-seller. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here: [42] is a gNews search on "A history of the Palestinian Poeple" + bestseller. Gato, AFD is about sources, not opinions.
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, it was reportedly listed as a bestseller on Amazon in a couple of narrow categories for the few days it was on sale there, which would not be difficult to achieve over such a short timespan. However, that has no relevance here, since
WP:BK states that Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So what?
WP:BLUDGEON territory on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Two responses from you to me, two comments on contributor. Thank you for reminding me why I rarely bother contributing in this topic area. As for BLUDGEON - not even close, I have responded to exactly one !vote on this page, all my other posts have been in response to posts addressed to me - and I already withdrew from the exchange with my principal interlocutor, no prompting required. Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because sourcing suffices to pass
WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- plenty of reliable sources mention the book, as farcical as it may be, and in fact the sources added to "improve NPOV" do the job of highlighting that the controversy, and hence the book, were notable enough. The nominator seems to be confusing various policies, amounting to theory that "neutral coverage of an idea that I find distasteful (and racist and so on) violates NPOV". Basically, this is an attempt to make the ever-stretching rules of PC pass for a wikipedia policy. Dahn (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If I were to support deletion, I'd cite
WP:GNG. I wish Huldra would have made a competent nomination. Her mistake is probably going to result in a keep outcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS; essentially, an unremarkable prank which has been done before. No societal impact or long-term significance; just 15 minutes of fame. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@K.e.coffman: Funnily, that's not how you saw it in the AfD I referenced above. Please tell me about the lasting impact of Khizr and Ghazala Khan. So is it deletion-worthy when the subject criticizes the Left but keep-worthy when it criticizes the Right? Your stance seems hypocritical to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still consider Khizr and Ghazala Khan to be a notable topic. Any editor is welcome to test the consensus by renominating the article; perhaps it has changed. The event we are dealing with in this article is an insignificant publicity stunt, IMO. Hence my vote for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:RAPID--Shrike (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

*Merge and Redirect Someone should create an article about all these blank page books and this can redirect to that. 16:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding ~~unsigned comment added by Mgolden (talk • contribs)~~

I don't know why it wasn't signed... I added the four tildes. Anyway, I'd like to add that these books are not all *individually* noteworthy.
WP:ARBPIA3#500/30--Shrike (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Not all are notable. This particular book, per the sourcing in the article, is.Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book might be the same joke as done before but this one got big press and definitely meets
WP:GNG - Galatz ^Talk 15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
All Media Network#AllGame. It seems like very few people want to keep the article as-is (and that person endorses a merger as well) but only one person wants to explicitly delete, most opinions are for redirecting with one for merge.Thus we shall redirect with people free to copy any worthwhile content over, using the most commonly cited redirect target Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

AllGame

AllGame (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)

(Defunct company) Collectively created to build a group corporate spam along with group company.
All Media Network. Non-notable. only blatant promotion. Same type of content is used. Either merge into one, and as sold by TiVo Corporation (notable company) to make one articles. all these clusters of companies does not serve any encyclopedic purpose. Light2021 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
All Media Network. Viable search term at the very least. I believe this was a prominent website earlier on, so there could be potential for an article someday. But the current one is barebones and poorly sourced, so its not worth keeping in its current state. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
All Media Network is at AfD itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Its not a great article, no, but it is a plausible search term. And I don't believe the redirect target is likely to actually be deleted. Not a great nom there. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
All Media Network#AllGame.
Cunard (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to
All Media Network or Michael Erlewine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
All Media Network. Site on its own is not notable, but content should be moved as it has a lot of incoming links and is used as a reliable source. People will wonder what this is. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. The case in favour of the topic being notable is compelling enough; there may be a case for a merger which should be discussed on the talk page. Concerns about promotional content here merit a maintenance tag or a cleanup, not deletion per the discussion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AllMovie

AllMovie (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)

Collectively created to build a group corporate spam along with group company.
All Media Network. Non-notable. only blatant promotion. Light2021 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, page was created in conjunction with
All Media Network to advertise the company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Keep per having extensive coverage in NEWS and BOOKS to meet
WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTYELLOW; no value to the readers at this time & strictly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.

"CD-ROM Reviews: 'Corel All-Movie Guide'; 'Blockbuster Video Guide to Movies and Videos'; and 'Videohound Multimedia'". Entertainment Weekly. 1995-09-08. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

With encyclopedic breadth, Corel includes 90,000 reviews that attempt to quantify nearly every aspect of a movie by assigning numerical rankings to such intangibles as historical significance. Unfortunately, it’s also peppered with minor errors.
...
For all its comprehensiveness, Corel includes some hilarious flubs. The time-period heading for The Big Chill is given as ”Middle Ages” (er, it’s about middle-agers); elsewhere the disc refers to Kevin Costner in Body Double (make that The Bodyguard). In November, the company plans to release a corrected version, free to registered owners.
According to the book "All Music Guide to Country" edited by AllMovie founder Michael Erlewine, the CD-ROM format of the "All Movie Guide" books was released by the company Corel.

McDaniel, Kim (1996-01-29). "At The Movies Two New Guides Are Like Having Your Own Siskel and Ebert Games: CD-ROMs Take You to Movies". The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

Allow me to introduce the solution -- Corel's "All-Movie Guide."
Sure, there are a half-dozen other movie guides on the shelf for your computer, but none as comprehensive as Corel's. It not only contains everything you could possibly rent at your local Blockbuster Video, but it also has information on movies and performers you have probably never even heard of, whether or not they are available on video.
The opening screen should look familiar -- it's a video store. Complete with a know-it-all clerk, the store offers clickable icons at every turn. A large counter displays categories from action/adventure to foreign films, mini TV-screens along the top offer games and information, and a scroll bar along the bottom gives you every option imaginable to browse through the films.
The CD includes biographies, photographs and occasional interview clips from stars, directors, producers and writers. Everything on the database is cross-referenced perfectly.
The blow-away feature of Corel's "All-Movie Guide" is its learning curve. As you browse through listings, you can mark each film with a positive, negative or indifferent review. You can also check whether you've seen it, want to see it or have absolutely no interest.

Crew, Robert (1996-03-31). "Movie guides invaluable Cinemania gets competition". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

All- Movie Guide
For sheer quantity, Corel's entry is a runaway winner; with more than 90,000 movie and video reviews and 156,000 names of actors and others, it's twice as big as the other two put together. The quality is impressive too.
The main screen is a video store with various objects to click on to browse movies, work your way through 12,000 directors or 14,000 famous stars. There's also a games section and a photo/interview option. (But if you click on the popcorn, it simply starts popping).
There are 16 different categories of movies to chose from. The cast lists are enormous for the individual movies and you are also offered a long list of similar movies that you might be interested in.
You can even annotate each movie, giving it your own thumbs up or thumbs down.

Wills, Danyll (1995-10-10). "Hollywood at home". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

Even the fastest designers and programmers would take several weeks, working at top speed, to put together a CD-ROM like Corel All-Movie Guide. In a few weeks there will have been a number of films released that are not on the CD-ROM and for every week that you own it, it becomes more dated.
...
With more than 90,000 films on this CD-ROM, it would be difficult not to find what you are looking for, provided it was not released only yesterday.
In some respects the vastness of the information on this CD-ROM is something of a drawback. There is so much of it that it can be a little confusing trying to keep it organised.
The design model for the CD-ROM is the local video shop. There are sections for all the usual types of film: horror, action, western, comedy, drama and television and documentary movies. You click on the type of film you want to see and a list comes up on the left-hand side of the screen.
...
The details are impressive but it is obvious that the information has been scanned in with the help of optical character recognition (OCR) software. At least, it seems to me that this is what was done.

Wright, Robert (1995-10-19). "Thumbs up to multimedia movie guides". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

When it comes to CD-ROM movie guides, Microsoft's Cinemania is pretty much the undisputed king. But there are a couple of new pretenders to the throne that offer a few new wrinkles: Corel's All-Movie Guide and Video Hound Multimedia from Visible Ink Software.
Instead of using up much of the CD-ROM's 650-megabyte capacity on highly compressed, postage-stamp-sized videos, the Corel disc has no video clips. But it places heavy emphasis on searchable text.
For instance, the All-Movie Guide has information on 45,000 feature films, 45,000 videos and TV movies, and 12,000 foreign films. Corresponding numbers for Cinemania 95 are 17,000, 2,5000 and 6,400. It also lets you assign your own ratings to movies, test your knowledge with a trivia game and crossword puzzle and purchase movies online.

Lenberg, Jeff (2005). The Facts on File Guide to Research. New York:
ISBN 1438110405. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The book notes on page 284:
All-Movie Guide (http://www.allmovie.com/)
Provided by New Age Voices, this virtual movie database offers a wide spectrum of information, trivia, and subject essays chronicling movies and the people who make them. Content is searchable using the site's main search engine or subject-specific search engines, such as Film Finder or People Finder. The site contains a section of comprehensive essays chronicling the history of different eras and genres of movies as well.
The book notes on page 375:
All-Movie Guide (http://www.allmovie.com/
)
Features biographies of famous actors and directors, film finder and people finder databases, lengthy essays about film genres from action movies to westerns, information about current movies, and more.

Kauffman, Kent D. (2010). Movie Guide for Legal Studies (2 ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
ISBN 0135063752
. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The book notes:

While the number of moviebased Web sites is voluminous, three in particular will likely be sufficient: All Movie, The lntemet Movie Database, and Rotten Tomatoes. AllMovie.com AllMovie (www.allmovie.com) is my favorite film-search Web site and is part of the All Media Guide of related Web sites.
The book also notes:
The best feature on allmovie.com is that for each movie search the reader is also given a variety of related search links that descend on the left side of the Web page, underneath a photograph for the film. Categories such as "Genre," "Types," "Keywords," "Themes," and "Tones," provide more hyperlinks that lead to more movies. Continuing with the example of The Verdict, underneath the category of Types is listed "courtroom drama." By clicking on that, the reader is given a new Web page that summarizes what constitutes a courtroom drama movie, with suggested titles, and then a full list of movies that fit the courtroom drama theme. As of this writing, there were 64 movies listed, from Amistad to Young Mr. Lincoln, each one hyperlinked. Back on the main page for The Verdict, one of the words listed under the category of Keywords is “lawyer.” By clicking on that tag, you will be brought to a new page with hundreds of movies listed that can be directly accessed. By clicking on "fighting the system" under Themes, there are dozens of movies listed, including Norma Rae and Office Space, two excellent movies with different approaches to an us-against-them-at-work narrative, each one with key scenes that could be used in a labor relations or corporations class. If your students haven't had a Lumbergh for a boss (or a red stapler), showing them a scene from Office Space might help you discuss the doctrine of at-will employment, or adequate provocation killings. After spending a few minutes on allmovie.com, you'll blissfully forget that there is more to preparing for class than prospecting for movies.

Haddad, Michael (2005). The Screenwriter's Sourcebook: A Comprehensive Marketing Guide for Screen and Television Writers. Chicago:
ISBN 1569765162
. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The book notes:

This fun site contains a searchable movie database, film finder, people finder, glossary, essays, DVD reviews, and factoids. It also offers the All-Music Guide and All-Game Guide.

"Mixed Web Sites". Telegraph Herald. Associated Press. 1997-07-20. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

A fantastic resource for movie lovers! The All-Movie guide is a vast database which enables keyword searches for both movie titles and actors. We lost ourselves in, rather, tested this site for quite some time and it consistently brought up ratings, plot synopses, and information like total gross of and any warnings about the most obscure of movies. Directors and stars of individual movies are hyper-linked to biographies and other pertinent info. Visitors can also browse the All-Movie Guide by moods, countries, genres and time periods. This site is produced by New Age Voices.

Tu, Janet I-Chin (1996-01-21). "Film Casts A Net -- For Movie Fans, The Internet Has Created A Perfect Marriage Of Technology". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

All-Movie Guide is a 131,000-movie database with information about directors, stars, grosses, genres, credits and a nice section where you can find movies with similar themes or the same "touch and feel." There are no movie reviews.

Richardson, Scott (1996-10-06). "You'll Have a Reel Good Time on the 'Net". The Pantagraph. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

Another five-star site is the All-Movie Guide which allows searches by film title and by actor name. The movie guide provides a synposis of the film's plot and links to the biographies of main stars.

"CYBERSCENE: A daily guide to what's on-line". Orlando Sentinel. 1995-04-02. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

New on Prodigy is the All-Movie Guide, which contains loads of information on more than 50,000 movie titles - from the silent film era to the latest blockbusters.
Movies can be searched by the name of the actor or actress, movie title, category of film (such as children's, documentary, feature or TV), name of the producer or director and genre (such as comedy, adventure, silent thriller, mystery, Western and more). And parents can use the All-Movie Guide to determine quickly if a film is age-appropriate for young viewers.

Bubbeo, Dan (1999-03-18). "Web Sites Yield a Gold Mine of Classic Movie Memories". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

And without question, The Internet Movie Database (us.imdb.com) and The All-Movie Guide (allmovie.com) should be required bookmarks for any classic film buff. Both are the equivalent of film encyclopedias with biographical data on every performer and crew member, plus technical data on even the most obscure film.

Levin, Sue (2001-03-20). "Here's the place to click on flicks -- for those Oscar tricks". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
The article notes:

If you're mainly after professional movie reviews and don't care about scads of trivia, the All Movie Guide site (http://www.allmovie.com) may be your ticket. Just put the movie in question into the search bar, and you'll get a rundown that includes a star rating (0-5), who's in it, who directed it and a few other details. Then you get a plot synopsis and, finally, an expert's review of the film.

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow AllMovie to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment about promotion: The article is largely neutral. It does not violate
WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per Cunards sources. Enough to meet the GNG. Massive cleanup is more appropriate than deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Michael Erlewine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple, reliable sources provided by Schmidt and Cunard, demonstrating notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to
All Media Network, or Erlewine himself. We don't need largely duplicative articles about each branch of a relatively small operation. Anmccaff (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Regan

William J. Regan (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 was contested. Non-notable artist created by a declared paid editing account with the intention of promoting the artist. Clear COI and fails both points of
WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)*[reply
]

I am also nominating the following artists that are part of the same group for the same reasons as above:

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

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

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was about to do the same for these articles to be honest. Also to note the author of these articles has been blocked for sockpuppetry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's thorough analysis, all wrapped up in a big
velut luna 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nothing really debatable about this, totally non-notable, paid editing, promo, coi, etc. etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for all three articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the comments above. Lack of notability and clearly promotional. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable indeed and clearly
WP:PROMO. MassiveYR ♠ 20:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all three articles; they fail
WP:PROMO violation. --bonadea contributions talk 21:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all three due to the fact they don't pass notability individually or as a group. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, though I have no objection to sending the pages to AFC to improve the content and remedy the COI issues with the page. The author has agreed to "divest" themselves of the musicians because of the promotional nature. Hasteur (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose AfC mainly because of the socking concerns: I don't trust the user to not try to game that system. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and in any case there is no indication that it meets
WP:GNG anyways. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 399 (disambiguation)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/New York State Route 399 (disambiguation)

Articles for deletion/New York State Route 399 (disambiguation) (2nd nomination)

New York State Route 399 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disambiguation not required per
WP:2DABS. Primary topic has hatnote to only other use. Not controversial, but previously nominated for AfD in 2009, result no consensus. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom,
WP:TWODABS page with a clear primary topic. bd2412 T 18:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:2DABS. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 14:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Rs chen 7754 00:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody who expressed an opinion thought the article would be appropriate to keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PurpleTrail

PurpleTrail (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 company exist only for its profile, Corporate Spam/ Directory. Light2021 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ only the PC Magazine source seems to be valid, others include a broken link, a blog (not
WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I Withdrew my delete recommendation as I could find some small coverage in three books and another article by PC Magazine. It is not enough for me to change to a "keep" yet unless more sources are found. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Delete I'm pretty neutral on this too - I found a similar amount of coverage as Crystallizedcarbon, not enough for keep:
In-depth PC Magazine article in 2008

Short PC Magazine article with an overview of functionality

"The Top 100 Undiscovered Web Sites" in PC Magazine in 2008

Product review on Earn Spend Live, a publication that includes writers and editors (not just a blog)

Mention in NYTimes in 2009

Sentence in The Smart Guide to Bachelorette Parties

Dreamyshade (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this and reviewing the article history, I've updated my vote to delete - there's just not enough RS available, and there's only one major contributor who likely had a COI (based on the name and other edits), without significant additional edits, and the article is an orphan. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Speedy delete.
(non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 18:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Omniconvert

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

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

Non-notable. No repeated coverage to establish any notability. Writing purpose is promotion and advertorials. reads like a brochure or corporate spam. Light2021 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous promotion. Article declined at AfC multiple times and was move to main space by the article creator (Special:Contributions/HDobre). Content is strictly promotional such as: "The Omniconvert platform provides companies the opportunity to conduct A/B testing experiments, collect data with surveys on site and personalize the users’ experience based on behavior[2][3]!" etc. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympusat

Olympusat (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)

Unnecessary division page of a company. Long list of channels presented as directory. References need to be added. Or simply need to be merged with another notable channels. Parent company page does not exist. Light2021 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NCORP. Article has only one, self-published source. A Google search returns only press releases, announcements, corporate profiles etc. - standard stuff. I found no independent, in depth coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- fails
WP:CORPDEPTH; I'm only seeing PR-driven coverage or directory listings. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - This company looks important enough that it should have a decent amount of independent coverage available, but I looked for non-trivial independent coverage and found only a few sources that wouldn't really be enough to build a decent article, unfortunately. I'd be happy to change my vote if people find more sources.
"Former House Speaker John Boehner joins advisory board of S. Fla company" - named author, published by a newspaper in the American City Business Journals group, looks like original reporting in addition to press release information

"Growing Latino Market Fuels Packager Rivalry", published by
Cahners Business Information

"Q&A With Olympusat’s Kim Reed Fragione" - named author, published by Multichannel News

"Olympusat producirá contenido original con compañías españolas" and "Olympusat ya produce con compañías españolas" - no author named, but looks like original reporting

"Olympusat Utilizes Telestream Vantage for Video Production" - named author, published by NewBay Media, based on a press release but not a direct copy of it

Dreamyshade (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Sol

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

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

Non-notable actor/director fails
WP:TOSOON. FITINDIA 06:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep The enormous number of sources presented demonstrate clear notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josedlal101 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Josedla1101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, of course the article creator says "Keep". The number of sources is, however, not at all enormous, they are not of sufficient depth, don't always support the claims of the content, and are not all
CREATIVE. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Firstly, the subject's business in candid and wedding photography is not notable. Secondly, his roles in
WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eview 360

Eview 360 (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. Blatant Promotions. Reads like a company brochure. Corporate Spam. Light2021 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – lacks notability, and other than a few sources that mention its introduction and growth over 10 years ago, the company lacks lasting coverage. The content in the article lists some of the company's tools, marketing strategies, and customers, but no detail on what they are or what they mean. A search for more information in the usual places turned up nothing significant. Recommending deletion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails
WP:CORPDEPTH; coverage that I'm seeing is PR-driven and not independent of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ayub (mathematician)

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

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

Appears to fail
talk, contribs) 17:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk, contribs) 17:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk, contribs) 17:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. His junior-level awards (even if verifiable) are not enough for
WP:PROF. Google scholar finds two other people named Muhammad Ayub, an Australian geneticist and a Pakistani economist, but inadequate citations for his mathematical works on fluid dynamics (which, relative to some other areas of mathematics, is not a low-citation topic). Nothing else stands out on his cv. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Eppstein. A GS profile for this person would have made assessment easier. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete promotional autobio per above. --Saqib (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per
WP:NPROF. Greenbörg (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not a notable academic. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Winter Youth Olympics

2025 Winter Youth Olympics (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 event has not been confirmed as happening by the IOC. Plus the article is made up of original research right now... meaning its unnecessary to have the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CRYSTAL: Wait until a bid has annouced. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails
WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mzansi Hive

Mzansi Hive (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 see no indication of notability MassiveYR ♠ 15:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any coverage about this magazine that I could find in English -- the major caveat there being that there may be non-English coverage that I'm not finding. A Train^talk 08:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Khadr family. Nobody wants to keep the article but most opinions are for a redirect so going for this. A merger is also proposed but without explanation as to what should be merged; editors are free to copy content over following the usual procedure Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulkareem Khadr

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

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

It's sad that he was injured, but that does not make him notable for WP. Other than that, I can't see why he would warrant an article, other than perhaps being related to some people ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep Nominator clearly failed to do
WP:BEFORE. The article is missing important information about Khadr that now makes him notable. About a week ago, Khadr received a reported 8 million dollar settlement from Canadian president Trudeau because Khadr claimed he was tortured. As a result, Khadr has received substantial global news coverage [45], [46], and [47] are just some examples. Kges1901 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC) I withdraw my !vote because I didn't realize that the article wasn't about Omar Khadr but about his relative. Kges1901 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect to
Zaynab Khadr, Abdullah Khadr, Abdurahman Khadr. Only Ahmed and Abdullah might be notable on their own. Madg2011 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete In Google, all I got was the page being nominated; In Nerwspapers, I got nothing; In Books, the top three returns were "books" produced by printing WP pages.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to
WP:SIGCOV is lacking. Many sources merely mention this woman in article about her family, others are from minor, perhaps unreliable sources. Sourcing of assertion that he was wounded in a firefight is especially dicey.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to
(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Zaynab Khadr

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

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

Unclear how this would meet notability standards. Being the sister/daughter of somewhat notable people does not make you notable. I cannot imagine why she would warrant an article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect and selectively merge to
WP:SIGCOV is lacking. Many sources merely mention this woman in article about her family, others are from minor, perhaps unreliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect and merge content to Khadr family. I should note that I made the opposite argument in 2008 on Talk:Zaynab Khadr, but based on modern Wikipedia standards of notability and Zaynab Khadr's relatively low profile in the intervening period, I think a merge is now in order. That said, I favour keeping the bulk of the content in the merged article; I think it's at most slightly oversourced. --Saforrest (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the page. She is not notable enough for stand-alone article, merge the useful information. Greenbörg (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge content to Khadr family. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sumethee Khokpho

Sumethee Khokpho (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails
fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Spiderone 18:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Claims that reliable, independent sources exist have been sufficiently refuted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Daley (entrepreneur)

Mark Daley (entrepreneur) (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. Although the article has many references. It appears to be an attempt of reference bombing to hide the notability of subject . Razer(talk) 12:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Once you weed out the blogposts, YouTube clips and broken links, you're left with fleeting quotes from the subject in a much larger article not about the subject (and quotes from the subject cannot be used to support the notability of the subject), press releases, mentions of organizations the subject belongs to and
routine, fleeting coverage. There's not a single bit of "significant coverage" OF the subject by reliable, third-party sources. Ravenswing 17:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The person is the founder of One Iowa, the largest LGBT organization in the state of Iowa. He also campaigned for Hillary Clinton and has coverage for that. He is also an international figure recognized by United Nations. All that makes him notable enough and it is not my claim, it is what the reliable sources are saying. All sources are mainstream media. Under represented / minority like LGBT usually have low coverage and yet he is mentioned in more depth on many standards. Definitely notable. --Lekangu (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time finding any reliable source which mentions that the subject is the founder of One Iowa. The subject is not listed on the board of directors page 1 at One Iowa website and Wikipedia article on One Iowa also does not mention anywhere that Mark Daley founded the organization. Razer(talk) 07:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could provide a link to the Wikipedia notability guideline you think founding One Iowa or being "recognized by United Nations" (whatever that means) meets. He is not, in fact, discussed with the significant depth the GNG requires, and all the sources are most certainly NOT "mainstream media." I strongly recommend you look over the relevant guidelines for notability and the reliability of sources. Ravenswing 13:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reference #1 is a dead link, Reference #2 is Buzzfeed...?... other articles he's mentioned in passing such as "he had no comment" when asked about something, no in depth profile on this person, fails
WP:BIO Cllgbksr (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catioo

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Catioo

Articles for deletion/Catioo (2nd nomination)

*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis

Catioo (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)

Technically ineligible for PROD as it was included in a bundled nom of non-notable football clubs nearly 10 years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis.
I can't find any sources that would indicate this club even exists, let alone passes
WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - total lack of sources Spiderone 16:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Iervolino

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

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

Not enough there to determine notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- confirming my PROD: "A
WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable executive; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Indomina2013 with few other contributions outside this topic". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete maybe the film fund is notable but this executive doesn't seem to be.

There was one story in a Canadian national newspaper but that's insufficient for an entire bio here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. I am fairly sure that we don't have a "always keep secondary school articles" guideline or policy, but if sources are presented and go uncontested... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Béla Bartók Music High School

Béla Bartók Music High School (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)

While the notability criteria for schools is incredibly lax, a Google search shows few reliable sources to establish notability per
WP:PEACOCK
terms, bordering on G11 material. TL;DR: delete per
WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 11:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but obviously improve anything relevant; sources found are this, this, this, this, this, this, this,http://enek-zene.uni-eger.hu/public/uploads/cv-europass-20170209-gabos-en-new_589c360f6db3a.pdf [this] and this. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Clearly exists as proved by SwisterTwister. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (A7). {{(non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SBG Business Advisors (Chartered Accountant Services)

SBG Business Advisors (Chartered Accountant Services) (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 not a article, It's a kidding Builder8360 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably should have been speedied A7 or G11 but since we're here, delete.

Delete Agree with unsigned above. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forget to sign! Neiltonks (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unsourced
WP:SPA article setting out a company's wares. No claim or evidence of notability; I have also tagged as CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 general agreement was that the sources presented by Cunard amounted to trivial passing mentions and were insufficient to demonstrate notability for a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meli Melo Artists Alliance

Meli Melo Artists Alliance (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 subject of the article is essentially the same as the recently-deleted article Meli Melo Limited. The same deletion rationale applies here - the subject is not notable; Hong Kong has countless "art jamming" businesses and extracurricular art studios just like this one, and an internet search does not turn up in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.

From the Wikipedia article, "By May 2001, CNN International films a feature on ART JAM for Inside Asia and Telecinco, a Spanish television station covers ART JAM in their program Nosolomusica aired August 2001."
A feature in CNN International and coverage in Telecinco are strong indicators of notability.

Dembina, Andrew (2004-02-22). "Art jam a stroke of genius". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
The article notes:

A chance assignment to shoot photographic portraits kindled a dynamic idea - and a new business - for architect Betty Cheung Yee-wan.
Now as director of Meli-Melo she brings the joy of painting to hundreds of clients in weekend 'art jam' sessions.
Previously an architect in Toronto, Ms Cheung was a freelance photographer when the photo assignment came along. It made her realise how deeply she missed the creative pursuits of her past.
...
Putting her creative impulses to the fore, Ms Cheung rented a small space in Sheung Wan in 1999 to hold exhibitions and offer studio space to people. She called it the Meli-Melo Artists' Alliance.
Meli melo means 'a little bit of everything' in French.
Then came her Eureka moment: she thought of the concept of an 'art jam' - or informal improvisation, as in musical jam sessions.

Au, Desiree (2001-11-02). "Art for the people". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
The article notes:

BUSINESS ANALYSTS may call it a high-risk venture. Their friends may describe it as their new hangout. But for Wilson Chik Wai-chi and Betty Cheung Man-yee, the two partners of the Meli-Melo Artists' Alliance, an informal association of multi-media art enthusiasts, it's the realisation of their vision to bring art and the community together.
Chik, 30, and Cheung, 34, are the founders of 123 Wellington Street, a simple name for their not-so-simple idea of creating Hong Kong's first informal art hub.
...
Chik and Cheung are counting on a membership fee of $250, an Art Jam admission of $400 and the profits of an art-supply shop to fund their operation. The Meli-Melo Living Arts Cafe can also be used to host private Art Jam parties and ticket sales from shows should keep the project out of the red, Chik and Cheung say. In view of the current economic situation, the pair are unlikely to be flooded with cash. "We are not going to say that it's all for charity," Chik says. "I need to survive too."

Beale, Martine (2003-03-02). "We're jammin'". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
The article notes:

It is 10pm on a Saturday night, and the narrow Meli Melo Living Arts Cafe on Wellington Street is packed with people ready to jam. To art jam, that is; to party with paint. Twenty-plus easels are lined up an elbow's width apart, adorned with huge blank canvases waiting for nervous artists to start splattering the acrylics. It's almost impossible not to squirt paint Jackson Pollock-style over your neighbours' shoes thanks to the caked-up nozzles on the paint pumps. Inspiring chill-out lounge music from Europe, the Middle East and Asia fills the studio, and the five-metre high ceilings of the skinny 1929 building in Central allow ample room for the creative spirit to soar ... but first a glass of wine. The hardest part is getting started. Too hard, I decide, and wander off to talk to braver, got-it-together souls - most of them novice artists - who have taken the plunge and jumped head, hand and heart first into creating something from nothing.

"畫油畫聽中樂泡香茶 — — 鬧市中非一般蒲點". Headline Daily. 2003-04-25. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
The article notes:

大抵因中學時期曾多番被美術老師打擊自信心，畫具甚至鉛筆早已丟下多年。不是因那天無無聊聊站在 Meli Melo 門外看到有關 ArtJamming 的 Video ，鼓起勇氣走進去，那就無法再感受手執畫具顏料的快樂。 Meli Melo 沒有導師，只有 24 色油畫顏料、 7 、 8 個尺碼的畫掃，顧客穿上黑色酷圍裙，取了顏料畫具便可以動工， Meli Melo 主腦 Betty 說不要企  乾看畫板，若沒頭緒可以飲兩杯先或先開始掃上底色，靈感就會慢慢來。這裏的人來自各行各業，有醫生、律師、銀行家、護士、設計師、記者等，不過 8 、 9 成都是洋人或只操英語的香港人，這裏不失為啟發創作靈感或結識外國朋友的好地方。

Watson, Amanda (2000-09-01). "Epic Dreams". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
The article notes:

Meli-melo artists' alliance, 5B Wallock Mansion, 219-221 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wan. 2pm-6pm Sat-Sun, or by appointment. Tel: 9257 1937. Sept 2-17.
Forget the lonely attic room. For Betty Cheung the creative process is also a social one. It's how the gallery-cum-studio she helped found runs and it's how she best likes to do her own work.
There was a time when Taiwan-born Cheung bought a cupboard full of paints and canvases and they just sat there untouched. And then there was the moment she and the co-founders of the meli-melo artists alliance decided to hold Art Jam at midnight; sharing art, food and wine with whomever cared to drop by.

"Articles in Asian Art News, Volume 17". Asian Art News. Vol. 17. 2000. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
The article notes:

An association of three artists who have named their alliance Meli-Melo (translated from the French as "Bits and Bites") opened a studio-gallery space in Sheung Wan. Their first exhibition, Entanglement, however, was exhibited in the Sheung Wang Civic Centre in October 1999. It featured graphic drawings by Norman Yip, Betty Cheung's photographic stills of Wilson Chik's performance at Yau Ma Tei, and large paintings of male nudes by Gavin Til. Elegant and refined graphite drawings based on notions of personal relationships and states of spiritual consciousness by Normal Yip, entitled First Level, were exhibited in April 2000 at their new wing.

Toh, Kezia (2014-03-09). "Let's jam with paint". AsiaOne. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
The article notes:

In this region, the concept came from Hong Kong in 2000, where Meli Melo Limited claims on its website to have created art jamming as a way to combine art and networking. The company now operates an art jamming centre in Central, Hong Kong.

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Meli Melo Artists Alliance to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as whether or not it's currently operating or not today, the applied policy here is WP:What Wikipedia is not, and it fully shows we cannot and will not accept articles simply on asserted news alone, take for example: "kindled a dynamic idea - and a new business - for architect Betty Cheung Yee-wan", "she brings the joy of painting ", "how deeply she missed the creative pursuits of her past", "Putting her creative impulses to the fore", "realisation of their vision to bring art and the community together", "she best likes to do her own work" with the next examples simply being general information. Also relevant is the obvious fact these quotes are primary-sourced therefore not WP:NPOV and we shouldn't mistake them as otherwise simply because CNN aired them, because WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Including of there were possibilities of notability, we've never made compromises against our fundamental policies against webhosting and there's no basis for it now. The shown instances the primary-sourced enters each near possibly acceptable piece shows it can't be confided as genuinely independent therefore GNG cannot apply. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we shouldn't mistake them as otherwise simply because CNN aired them, because WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. – a
WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to CNN or television features that are not prompted by breaking news.
The quotes about Betty Cheung Yee-wan are typical writing for reviews or features about artists or architects and does not detract from the sources' independence.
Cunard (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- just a private company going about its business and trying to generate publicity. The above coverage are either passing mentions or not independent of the subject, as in:

"...where Meli Melo Limited claims on its website to have created art jamming..." Etc.

Wikipedia does not exist to republish claims of non notable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom - no web site - not even sure they exist anymore. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary, it does not matter whether Meli Melo Artists Alliance exists. What matters is whether they have received significant coverage in multiple reliables sources. The sources from CNN International, Telecinco, South China Morning Post, and Headline Daily demonstrate they have.
Cunard (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I googled Meli Melo Artists Alliance CNN and nothing related to the group came up. If it was a notable segment, it would be online somewhere. While the publications/sites they appeared in are certainly notable, the coverage they got from them does not itself seem notable. If they are indeed gone that means we shouldn't expect to see any new coverage either. Compare to Melkweg - a similar seeming artists' collective/destination location that actually doesn't even have any sources, for which I've flagged it. I happen to have been there and know it's a very notable destination and a city landmark. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN International feature is from 2001. There is no requirement that a television feature must be notable to be usable as a source for establishing notability. Meli Melo Artists Alliance is notable for the significant coverage it has received in international reputable sources like CNN International and Telecinco and Hong Kong sources like South China Morning Post and Headline Daily. I agree that Melkweg is notable. But so is Meli Melo Artists Alliance.
Cunard (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing it. If you feel strongly enough, I recommend you put the info and sources into the article, so it can be judged in the proper format. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am disinclined from spending time improving an article that can be deleted at AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do exactly that. I may still lose but feel I tried. See ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core77. You are an experienced editor and certainly don't need anyone telling you how to do things, but I look at all the time you spent coming up with the info on the talk page, when I think it would be more effective adding it to the article space. I saw a closed AfD for an article called Upay India, and then editor MrMagoo found many sources and put links to them on the talk page, but the article was deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayU India I requested to have the content sent to me so I could take a shot at improving it with MrMagoo's sources. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I try to minimize losing my content work to deletion because it'd be a waste of my limited time. I've commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core77 with sources I have found. I wish you the best of luck in recreating PayU India with MrMagoo's sources. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's good info you found. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss the sources mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged -- the sources have been evaluated and found to be lacking; they do not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH and / or are not sufficiently independent (i.e. by republishing the company's claims). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Quite OK under
WP:GNG then we keep it in Wikipedia; whatever happening now has no bearing on its inclusion. STSC (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closing admin – I want to point out that this user has an intense grudge against me (note all the frivolous warning templates he/she has put on my talk page). Citobun (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only have a different opinion on the article, I don't hold a grudge against you, please relax. STSC (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I appreciate Cunard's efforts in sourcing the article, I do not agree with their assessment that they represent significant coverage. They appear to be passing mentions. Does not pass
WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Those sources are more or less promotional articles, and it doesn't help that its parent article already got deleted.—
Talk) 18:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Greenbörg (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nassar Ikram

Nassar Ikram (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:RS. Best, It should be redirected to Pakistan Navy Engineering College. Greenbörg (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep because he's recipient of Sitara-e-Imtiaz. This could be used to cite his bio. --Saqib (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep because he's recipient of Sitara-e-Imtiaz. This could be used to cite his bio. --apnagm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Apnagm: Please do not copy paste my comments. --Saqib (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Saqib. Mar4d (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as I agree. Greenbörg (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as a copyright violation. As stated below, the subject could be notable enough for an article, but the article will have to be rewritten. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asad aslam khan

Asad aslam khan (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:RS. Greenbörg (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ RS only nameching the subject in news stories. nothing in the RS which can demonstrate the notability of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: He looks-like a reciptent of Sitara-i-Imtiaz per his article. Can you provide a source for it? Greenbörg (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True indeed [48]. hence strike down my delete vote and suggest we should Week keep this. And I also found this bio is copyvio of [49] so it should be first speedy deleted and then re-created from scratch. --Saqib (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 11:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Dredd: Mega-City One

Judge Dredd: Mega-City One (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)

Potential TV show, still in development, not yet in production or attached to a broadcaster. Creating an article now is jumping the gun. Lots of shows don't make it out of development.
WP:TVSHOW: "in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network. A mere announcement that a pilot is in development may be noted in the Wikipedia articles about its creators, writers or confirmed cast members, but absent significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence, the announcement itself is not sufficient basis for a standalone article about the pilot." Nicknack009 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom; a
velut luna 07:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment don't know about this one... More editors should look into it. It is listed on imdb though and big names are involved... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicPatrol (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's on IMDB. "Big names are involved" is not true, though - there are no names at all attached.

The show has not even gone into production yet. Per Wikipedia policy, it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article until it's actually scheduled. I don't see why there's any need for more comments. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Market7

Market7 (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)

typical press coverage, nothing significant about it to wrote on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The company's own site and many of the provided references can no longer be reached. It looks like this needs to be evaluated on the basis of the company's achievements between 2007 and approx. 2011: the coverage appears to be typical start-up reviews, including the FierceCable item headlined "Top Online Video Company 2009". I don't see that as sufficient for
WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Requirements Medical

Matrix Requirements Medical (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)

nominating for AfD as declined for Speedy. Non-notable. exist only to promote online. Light2021 (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- self-cited & promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant
WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Habib

Nasir Habib (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 many
WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. i couldn't find anything in RS on him so he fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I recognize that there may be non-English sources out there to establish notability, but at this point I can't find reliable sources upon which to build a biography. Deli nk (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romania at major beauty pageants

Romania at major beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Consistent with the test case here this page should be deleted as fancruft and a non-notable topic. There are no sources discussing the topic of Romania at major beauty pageants. Further, defining "major" is somewhat arbitrary. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and precedent. Pointless list subject to arbitrary criteria. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:FANCRUFT
per nominator. There is a whole template of similar articles that could be added to further AfD's:

{{Countries at major beauty pageants}}

Ajf773 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Only one
WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Kosovo at major beauty pageants

Kosovo at major beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Consistent with the test case here [50] this page should be deleted as fancruft and a non-notable topic. There are no sources discussing the topic of Kosovo at major beauty pageants. In fact, according to this page the country has never had anyone at one of the events. Further, defining "major" is somewhat arbitrary. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment How is this article different from all the "list" articles? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a list at all it is a fancrut topic. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 09:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzfeezy

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jazzfeezy

Articles for deletion/Jazzfeezy (2nd nomination)

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

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

It continues to fail at a major point of
WP:MUSICBIO. DBrown SPS (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 68.189.200.18 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The new sources that have been added are not bolstering the case for notability per
reliable sources — out of 20 footnotes here, literally the only two that aren't automatic non-starters are the two Billboard cites, and those both just verify the existence of a song named in the article body while completely failing to verify the subject's claimed involvement with it. Which means that exactly zero of the sources here properly support Jazzfeezy's notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "He's notable!" "No he isn't!" "Yes he is!" "No he isn't!" "There are lots of sources!" "No they're not!" "I'm sorry, is this the five minute argument or the full half-hour?"..... the conversation veered right away from discussing the notability of Gary Renard and into bickering about canvassing during the past week, so there was no advancement on the lack of consensus observed at the final relist. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Renard

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gary Renard

Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (4th nomination)

Gary Renard (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:AUTHOR
does not quite seem to be met here. Previous discussions mentioned the Amazon book-selling rank which I don't think is a good metric at all. Yes, he is cited by other (even notable) ACIM people, but being cited does not notability make. We need to decide whether Renard is notable as a person. From what I can gather from the sources used in the article and those I've looked, he is not. He's just another person in the ACIM community.
I think he falls below the notability threshold whereas the authors of the book itself and other more
WP:CELEBRITY-type people (Wayne Dyer, for example) fall above the line more clearly. jps (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because at least three books have been written entirely about his books ([51], [52], [53]) and a number of other books mention him prominently ([54]), including Understanding A Course in Miracles: The History, Message, and Legacy of a Spiritual Path for Today; so he meets #2 of
WP:NAUTHOR. He has also been in at least four documentaries: [55]. Admittedly A Course in Miracles is a rather fringey topic, but for instance Marianne Williamson has gained widespread recognition for doing that, and Renard, though fringier, has a burgeoning following and significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm having a harder time with Google web results because a lot of the results are less notable, fringey, or bloggish, but for one thing he has a profile at the Omega Institute for Holistic Studies and has taught there: [56]. There's a total of 71,000 Google web results so I could probably find more if desired. Softlavender (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

My comment from previous AfD: Note: Per Amazon and Google searches, Renard has been quoted and/or mentioned extensively in at least 80 other books (possibly many more, but I made a point to exclude endorsements/forewords so didn't look inside those), including one of Wayne Dyer's books. He has been featured in seven documentary films. His books have been translated into 22 languages. Has also been a regular featured speaker at the annual A Course In Miracles international conference since 2008 or so. Notability is well met, even though the article doesn't necessarily reflect that. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC); reposted Softlavender (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking the liberty of pasting below a comment by GreenC from the previous AfD, minus the !vote:

Notable figure/author in the ACIM spiritual movement. Books are mentioned in other books (see Google Books). Books have large holdings in WorldCat. Large holdings in LibraryThing. Ranked #14 best seller in Amazon's Controversial Religious Knowledge list. "Destined to be one of the most significant contributions to spiritual literature in this century." Wayne Dyer. There may be other ACIM persons who don't (yet) have a Wikipedia article, but that isn't reason to delete this one. If there is trouble with the content or wording, concerns about promotion, Wikipedia anyone can edit it's a double-edged sword.

Above comment by GreenC on 30 December 2014 from the previous AfD: [57]. copied and posted here by Softlavender (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to consider the question as to whether Renard as a person is worthy of a
WP:NPOV article on a person that hasn't been noticed outside the fringe community. If you can find someone who is not an ACIM devotee who has written about Renard as a person, please let me know. But so far, I've not found any sources that rise to that level. jps (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Dubious as I am about voting delete for a page that had been kept twice, I am finding nothing about him really. I cannot see how this passed before given the dearth of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "Notable figure/author in the ACIM spiritual movement": Is this sufficient for notability, or would we also need wide enough coverage outside of that movement to consider the subject notable enough for an article? Thanks, —Paleo Neonate - 02:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is an odd situation, I would say that if he is a major figure in the movement, then yes that notability should count (such as the head of the movement or it's leading spokesman), but just being part of it, no that would not be enough.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the ongoing questions we've had in issues such as this is who counts as a notable figure in a movement? My general answer (in terms of
WP:FRIND) is that in order to be considered notable within the movement someone from outside of the movement needs to have noticed you. Thus, we have Helen Schucman, William Thetford, and Marianne Williamson whose notability is attested to be outside sources. Renard, on the other hand, seems to only have been quoted (and in some of the above citation, only in minimal ways) by other ACIM adherents. jps (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the input. I think that I'll still avoid !voting as I'm really unsure. I found more hits for Renard than for Schucman, but could not take the time to evaluate results and properly evaluate why. —Paleo Neonate - 10:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Schucman would pass
WP:AUTHOR whereas I do not believe Renard does. jps (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Renard meets #1 and #3 of
WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
As intimated above, I disagree. The "peers" or "successors" have to align with
WP:FRIND and the "major work" is number 12 on Amazon which does not, to me, indicate "major work" if for no other reason than it doesn't tend to generate biographical material when you don't break top ten. jps (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You are making up rules and conditions and guidelines and standards and qualifications that don't exist. "Peers or successors" would obviously be peers (fellow writers) on ACIM or new thought, and it has already been noted here that he has had at least three books written entirely about his books, is quoted extensively in at least three books by
WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

New Thought is a collection of loosely affiliated quasi-religious beliefs. What distinguishes believers in New Thought is their uncritical acceptance of fringe claims or their religious community. Now, it is clear that Renard is not affiliated with
WP:FRINGE advocates. That's why we look at what it takes to make a fringe theory notable. In this case, we would look for notice of Renard's ideas by independent sources. That's a fundamental test for Wikipedia and not made up by me. jps (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, you are making up notability rules and conditions and guidelines and standards and qualifications that do not exist. (If they exist, please quote the wording of them directly.) As I've demonstrated several times, he easily meets #1 and #3 of
WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:FRINGEBLP:
There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.
The link to "notability of fringe theories themselves" is to the following section:
For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.
Emphasis mine. jps (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Meets
WP:AUTHOR. Is not a "topic"; A Course in Miracles is a topic and already has considerable coverage on Wikipedia (including a navbox and a Category), as does New Thought. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
We're entering
WP:IDHT territory. No one said that ACIM or New Thought is not a topic on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The second quotation above is about topics, not people/authors. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the first quotation is provided. jps (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is neither a fringe theory nor a topic, so the second quotation does not apply. The subject is an author on a topic(s) which already have considerable coverage on Wikipedia (including navboxes and Categories). Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we've reached
WP:IDHT territory. I'll let others evaluate whether a section written about "treatment of living persons" is about living people or not. jps (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Neither the second quotation nor the part of it you bolded is about "treatment of living persons", it is from
WP:NFRINGE. And even beyond that, I have already established several times that the topic(s) the subject writes about already have considerable coverage on Wikipedia, including navboxes and Categories. Softlavender (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
A BLP is a topic. It is a specific subset of topics in which the topic is a person. NFRINGE applies to all topics, not just to all non-BLP topics.
Tell me all about it. 14:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
No, a person (BLP) is an article subject. A fringe theory "(a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)" is a topic. A person is not a theory, and
WP:NFRINGE does not mention persons, and specifically defines the parameters of that guideline as "(a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)" [61]. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
See Topic - Dictionary.com. You're drawing a false distinction. A topic is a subject in the context of an encyclopedia article, and it seems quite apparent to myself (and apparently, to jps) not only that the quoted section applies, but why it applies. There are countless millions of individuals who are notable within a fringe group, and who also lack WP articles because they are not notable outside the group, and that is as it should be.
Tell me all about it. 15:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I'm quoting the actual guideline, "(a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)", and distinguishing between Wikipedia guidelines for persons and Wikipedia guidelines for non-persons. If you want to quote a Wikipedia guideline for persons, please do, and please quote directly. Softlavender (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An actual guideline, pertaining specifically to BLP's and saying exactly the same thing was the first quote jps provided. Even if I'm entirely wrong (which I'm not, but for argumentation's sake, let's assume I am), your position is still in opposition to
Tell me all about it. 15:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he turns up plenty of results in
WP:PRIMARY. --1.55.183.244 (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

He turns up plenty of results in Google, the problem is they are not RS, care to link to a couple of RS?Slatersteven (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems like if anything, the book he wrote is more likely to have an article than he himself. But Gary himself simply doesn't meet notability. I've noticed that Wikipedians recently are very reluctant to delete article even though the subject has almost no coverage. Also, I followed some of the links provided by other Wikipedian's voting to keep and they do not in any way affirm notability, not even talking about
WP:RS NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

He has written three books and a fourth is already listed on Amazon. He gets 77,700 Google web hits and 3,270 Google Books hits. He is quoted or mentioned at length in well over 80 other books (that was the case in 2014; at this point it could be well over 100), including at least three by
WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Source: "Gary Renauld.. has gathered a large following around the world" is an assertion of notability. The same source also calls him a fraud and plagiarizer. Without a Wikipedia this information will largely disappear from public discourse. -- GreenC 14:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely should not be using that book as a source. Wikipedia should not be in the business of using vanity-published books as a source for anything in the encyclopedia. [62]. jps (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, did not know that. -- GreenC 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've seen an assertion of notability, but nothing so far which backs it up.
Tell me all about it. 15:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

When the source itself directly asserts notability (as I just posted above), it is sourced ie. backed up. -- GreenC 16:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a single assertion of notability, even in a reliable source, establishes
Tell me all about it. 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
What makes you think the source isn't reliable? Did you even read it? It's extremely critical of the guy outright calling him a liar and fraud. -Do you disagree with the source? - GreenC 16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the author claims to be the reincarnation of
Tell me all about it. 16:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmm .. I'm not too concerned about his religious beliefs (Pope thinks he is God's sole contact on earth and the Dalai Lama thinks he is reincarnation of himself) - but he is connected to the Course in Miracles so it weakens it as an internal dispute and reduces notability. Plus the problem of vanity press noted by jps. -- GreenC 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a belief in reincarnation or even in certain particulars about one's past lives does not disqualify an author from being an RS (else we'd have to eliminate a lot of authors of non-Abrahamic religions), but when those beliefs form the basis for numerous claims of fact (as they do in this book), I'm inclined to subject those beliefs to more scrutiny. The author supposedly has a degree in... something... and taught... some subject... so I suppose if those claims were substantiated, we could use works by him as an RS on the subject of whatever his field is. But I wouldn't ever use this work to make factual claims about a fellow (competing) new-age guru, given the inherent unreliability of statements made in the context of a fringe field. Similarly, I would happily quote
Tell me all about it. 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - If this guy is "quoted or mentioned at length in over 80 books", why are none of those sources cited in the article? The only two citations are a promotional website and the subject's own podcast, neither of which even remotely qualifies as RS. If, as noted above, a substantial portion of this "mention" labels him "a fraud and a plagiarizer", why is there no reference to any of that material in the article, in the interest of NPOV? Most of the current content appears to have been written by a member of his "large following" - and some of it ("he has always wanted to move to Hawaii") is just ludicrous. If the article is to be kept, it needs to be rewritten as a real, objective BLP article, with real references. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of a Wikipedia article has no bearing on its notability. If you would like to add to the article, by all means do. See
WP:SOFIXIT. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I argue that none of these sources really can be used. As have others. And there is no evidence that the "keepers" think it is actually possible to write the article on the basis of mention in these 80 books. Many of them are so trivial mentions as to be entirely useless. jps (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they can be used; they are independent of the subject. And obviously you have not looked through all 80+ books. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The
WP:Independent source. I did slog through a number of the books in your "80+" list, but like many others commenting here found absolutely nothing that rose to the level of independence we would require to write a neutral article. Many of the sources were totally unusable (such as the one identified by GreenC which is published by a vanity publisher). If you might find a source that wasn't written about an ACIM acolyte that could attest to the notability of this character, you would do your cause great justice. But, for now, I see a lot of repetitive complaints and little actionable substance. If you cannot put up evidence better than what you have presented, I don't think you've successfully made your case. jps (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I have no dog in this fight -- I'm commenting as a neutral observer who had never heard of this guy before today. I understand that when an article is poorly written, but has good, eventually sourceable content in it, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. But if there are no reliable, third-party, published sources, and no realistic prospect of finding any - as some have argued, above - it may well be best to delete it. A reasonable middle ground might be to stub and tag it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteBecause I'm not seeing any independent sources discuss this guy in depth. I also don't buy that just because you write about a notable subject, you are now notable; which is how I read some of the above arguments. Valeince (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an author of
talk) 04:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

He meets meets #2 of
WP:NAUTHOR. At least three books have been written entirely about his books ([63], [64], [65]) and at least 80+ books mention or quote him prominently ([66]), including Understanding A Course in Miracles: The History, Message, and Legacy of a Spiritual Path for Today and at least three books by Wayne Dyer. He has been featured in seven documentary films, and his books have been translated into 22 languages. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closing admin: At 13:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC) this AfD was non-neutrally canvassed at
WP:FTN#Gary_Renard by the nominator: [67]. That occurred prior to the last three !votes. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I don't normally read the fringe noticeboard, and came across this on the AfD daily listing.
talk) 06:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
This AfD hasn't been (re)listed since eight days ago, on July 11 [68], one of 93 on that list. You also posted a new report at FTN just last month: [69]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty hard to canvas with a noticeboard posting, because of the large readership. Note that both jps and Softlavender put their "non-neutral" arguments at this NB so if one in canvassing, they both are.
talk) 07:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
To repeat, it was non-neutrally canvassed, and thus was a clear violation of
WP:CANVASS. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If that is true, you are as guilty since you posted your own "keep" arguments to that noticeboard, just as jps posted his "delete" ones. However since FT/N has over 200 active members it's hard to canvas there, since you are addressing so many.
talk) 13:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I did not canvass, I responded to false accusations there. This is clearly non-neutral canvassing, and also included a number of false accusations. The number of watchers further increases the non-neutral canvassing effect. Please read
polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.". -- Softlavender (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 13:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that jps's use of the Noticeboard was inappropriate. He initially notified about the AfD ok fine. But then he continued posting, creating a separate parallel discussion to the AfD .. it's forum shopping, canvassing, bad faith accusations ("some sort of vested interest in New Age self-helpdom") and uncivil ("Perhaps Oprah-inspired"). Softlavender's attempt to defend himself is natural and not CANVAS. Why would Softlavender canvas that noticeboard, it makes no sense, just looks like an attempt to create a faux boomerang. -- GreenC 13:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, I did not canvass, jps did. And in terms of Scale, Message, Audience & Transparency: the scale was large because of the number of watchers as you noted; the message was clearly biased and campaigning; and the audience was partisan because that's who watches FTN. Please read the post [70] and then
polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.". This isn't an ANI situation; the notice is for the closing admin of this AfD. Softlavender (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
the audience was partisan because that's who watches FTN <- that's rather an extraordinary comment. The good folks of FTN specialise in the correct application of WP:FRINGE/WP:NPOV which is surely only "partisan" is favouring the
talk) 14:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
When a non-neutral canvassing notice is placed on a noticeboard that polices a certain area (as opposed to a WikiProject), there is a definite partisanship. The fact that you are here and still arguing about this (which is a clear and textbook case of non-neutral canvassing) merely proves the point, as you clearly came from that noticeboard: [71]. The last thing this AfD is more clutter. (I suggest someone hat this section of dialogue started by Alexbrn.) Softlavender (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting comment coming from the person whose first comment is the most "clutter" I have ever seen in an AfD discussion. jps (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I loathe to relist a discussion with so many comments but despite the wealth of comments, there is still no clear consensus, so maybe another week might change that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to SoWhy: Considering the non-neutral noticeboard canvassing that occurred prior to the last three !votes (see notice above), all further !votes are also going to be cast into doubt and are likely to be from the non-neutral noticeboard canvassing. Softlavender (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some might consider this comment itself to be non-neutral canvassing. :) jps (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They might but they might be wrong because I cannot be canvassed since I already acted as an admin @Softlavender: The potential taint due to canvassing was one of the reasons I decided to relist. I do believe the post, while made in the open to a non-partisan audience can be considered "biased" in accordance with Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning because of the wording, especially when turning the thread there into a continuation of this AFD. Regardless, it would be best if people stopped arguing about that post and started discussing this subject again. Regards So Why 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says nothing about the audience for campaigning, just whether the comment is "neutral". But that's just another example of poorly written
WP:PAG at Wikipedia, of course. I agree with your desire to get back to the subject at hand. I would like to get as many thoughtful people as possible to comment. jps (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

COmment Posting a notice to a relevant noticeboard is generally considered to be an exception from canvassing. One might point out that nothing up to and including the comment containing the "tedious arguments" bit actually espouses any call to action to !vote delete, or make it clear which way jps is !voting. That's not canvassing. Now, there's a case to be made that some of those comments were uncivil, but that's an entirely different matter. Calls to ignore !votes due to the FTN comments are spurious an
Tell me all about it. 16:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed, despite the sub-optimal way of it being done, the result has been widened consensus - which is good.
talk) 16:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Disagree. A notification was made, the AfD created, no problem. But then jps started discussing the AfD in a partisan way calling out the primary Keep voter with bad faith accusations, creating a parallel discussion to an open AfD. It is more than a civil case it's the whole package. If it influenced votes or not we can never know with certainty, but it was not a good move by jps, Softlavender has every right to be concerned. -- GreenC 16:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was absolutely stalled before I posted a reminder on the noticeboard. I'm allowed to have an opinion. You're allowed to be concerned, but the decision should be made on the merits of the arguments herein made rather than any insipid concerns about how I frame my commentary. Please don't presume to bestow magical powers of persuasion on my contributions. I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. Y'know. Like
WP:SPADE. jps (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
WP:CHEAP after all. A Train^talk 09:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Hall.com

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

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

non significant product. Nothing on media except typical press coverage. Speedy delete material. Light2021 (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as considering all of the current coverage, we have only clear company announcements, certainly not enough to satisfy our set policies WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Not webhost and WP:Promo; of which are non-negotiable and merging could not solve the still existing promotionalism. Such content is best deleted and then merged at whatever amount necessary and especially considering the merged content would basically be 1 sentence. GNG is not a factor here given it has no serious weight against policies, and GNG alone discounts press releases as viable options. SwisterTwister talk 13:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – When articles are deleted first, merges very rarely occur afterward. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability not established; there's nothing to merge as the suggested target would not be improved by the content / sources currently present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Atlassian#Acquisitions_and_product_announcements; I added something about the takeover there. (Although the name of the company seems to be Hall, not Hall.com, I'm assuming it's under this name for some reason.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per above. Sources fail
WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 12:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and not Redirect. Info has already been added to the
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Social Equity Institute

Melbourne Social Equity Institute (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)

Institute within a university. Such institutes are almost never considered notable here, unless they are world famous. There is no indication that this one is. Every reference is from their own web page, and that's where this material belongs. Possibly this is best considered a G11 speedy DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable subject and entirely self-cited
WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree the current article is completely based on primary sources, contrary to policy. However, I think there is just sufficient reliable secondary sources as per this for
WP:NEXIST to apply. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to either Bernadette McSherry or University of Melbourne. There is no reason why this can't be included somewhere else. Regards So Why 09:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no need to redirect or merge IMO, as DGG says, all of its content is just sourced to its own website, conveying no independent notability. DrStrauss talk 13:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for
WP:NEXIST ? Aoziwe (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I did not mention the GNG requirement for sourcing in my nomination for deletion. There are many other reasons for deletion, and the ones I suggested are based on the principle, also in WP:GNG, that passing the GNG does not guarantee an article. Among the reasons why there might not be an article is that the material is best covered in a more comprehensive article. We generally do follow that rule, and the practice at WP for the last 10+ years I have been here, is that we do not usually make articles for individual research institutes within universities unless they are famous. One of the reasons for this is that we generally do not have sources which provide material which is not also on their own web sites, and anyone interested in the institute knows perfectly well how to find it.

But the most important reason, as I said, is that the article was entirely promotional. It had no sources except from the school itself, all subpages of its own web site; the fact that others exist but that they did not use them indicates their purpose: it was to reprint a summary of their website on Wikipedia. That is advertising. Articles that are entirely advertising should be deleted, unless they are important enough for someone to rescue. The only way we can tell in a discussion if someone will rescue them is if they are improved during the discussion. In the 12 days this article has been at AfD nobody has improved it. The conclusion of these syllogisms is thus that the article should not remain in Wikipedia. Nor should it remain in Draft. It might get improved there, but it is pure advertising, and we do not do that in draft space either (and we unfortunately know that relatively few articles do get improved there). So I challenge anyone who thinks there are sources for a NPOV article: write one. (I've followed my own rule, and improved many articles in this manner when they are in my field and sufficiently important. When I first came here I thought I could do it very often, but if I do it properly rather than minimally I only have time for one or two a week.) DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG. I can see your point, but what it really means is that something is effectively only notable at AfD if it meets GNG and someone has the time and interest at the time of AfD to fix it and is aware of it at the time. This might leave a lot of notable topics in severe danger just because an interested editor is not around and/or engaged at the time. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was at that point in my comment talking only about articles characterized by thoroughgoing promotionalism. There is no point leaving in the encyclopedia articles that are essentially advocacy or advertising in the hope they will be rewritten. Sometimes there are other techniques, such as stubbification, but then someone needs to watch that the material not be restored. I've never used this argument for notability, where I agree with you that the probability of sources can often be sufficient reason to keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary sources do not help to show notability, DGG's argument is persuasive. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Lourdes 05:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Katsyv

Denis Katsyv (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 businessman Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the sourcing available on the talk page. ~~Comment:~~ If notability is deemed to not exist, a redirect to
Trump_campaign–Russian_meeting#Russian_lobbyists where he is mentioned, albeit briefly, (though given the refs on the nominated article's talk page, it could be expanded) may be an option.Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC) (updated: Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC))[reply
]

Weak keep Katsyv has been in the news for some years prior to now due to his involvement in money laundering, lobbying, etc. See for instance https://www.rferl.org/a/us-money-laundering-case-russian-corruption-browder-magnitsky-prevezon-katsyv/27494612.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/10311071/Sheriff-of-Wall-Street-pursues-case-linked-to-death-of-Russian-lawyer.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-oligarch-or-fbi-rat https://newrepublic.com/article/126760/fighting-putin-doesnt-make-saint. I'm adding those links on the article talk page so it can be fleshed out. JamesG5 (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP A very key figure that anyone can easily google and find many, reputable sources that mention him. It seems absurd that those citations need to continue to be made in-order to extinguish the deletion candidacy tag. --Wikipietime (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 19:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
✉ 06:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

International eGames Committee

International eGames Committee (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)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PuraVida19 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the rationale is, but I'm assuming the issue is notability. The article does need some help. The International Business Times article implying British government backing (and this piece saying a government secretary is involved) is about as close as this gets to notability. Other coverage seems to help suggest the fact that this organization might need more time to cook. I'm going to say weak delete or redirect to
t • c) 07:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found this [72] CNBC article talking about this org, but that a bit week, so I agree that this article is a bit
WP:TOOSOON Rrachet (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Greenbörg (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Hasan (Pakistani journalist)

Mehdi Hasan (Pakistani journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No
WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this autobio. not much in RS on him so he fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. First, hold on with "autobio" alegations per
No such user (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

References

ISBN 978-0-8047-8184-8
.

Since this bio was created by a SPA [75]. i thought it could be an autobio. since he is a journalist, i was looking for him in Pakistani newspapers but didn't find anything of significant, except few articles which namechecking him. if we need to compile his bio , we will need some published RS. --Saqib (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then please search harder. The faculty CV is a good starting point, and I don't see a reason to distrust it, and my findings of video interviews, speeches and talk shows (check [76]) suggest that he's a rather big academic name and public speaker. However, 1) most of his career spans 1970s and 1980s, so sources could be offline 2) his name is ambiguous with another famous singer and a famous journalist, 3) there is possibly a significant body of material in Urdu. But even what I collected as a total outsider pretty much paints the picture of a renowned scholar and political analyst. Few additional searches: Books (mostly by him), HRCP.
No such user (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Right, hence I strike down my deletion note. --Saqib (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as I agree. Close it now. Greenbörg (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references are available. — Mirandajoseph01 (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the info provided by
No such user and the discussion above. Mar4d (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TEAMS Design

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

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

blatant Promotions. COI. Light2021 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently
WP:CORPDEPTH and finding additional sources with this generic of a name is tough. shoy (reactions) 12:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American College of Rheumatology. With history left in place for merging purposes. So Why 09:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals

Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Not a seperate organisation. Should be merged with American College of Rheumatology of which it is a part Rathfelder (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge - you are on a nice run of finding these, Rathfelder. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American College of Rheumatology. Neutrality^talk 19:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lots of comments but no one actually taking any positions on the article. A Train^talk 09:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

WittyFeed

WittyFeed (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)

Bringing this here as it passed AfC and has had at least one speedy declined before the one I just declined. Feel like it needs a broader discussion than simply a CSD. Officially neutral. StarM 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion disc*Commentussions. StarM 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify, the original declined speedies appeared to be malformed notability speedies, and were declined because the article had been accepted as a draft and seemed reasonable. The most recent speedy was a procedural one, as a creation of a sock of a blocked user. I don't know what the earlier versions of this article looked like, but the current version look acceptable. Do we nuke an acceptable article because it was created by a sock (that account in question claims to be a COI but not a sock) and rewrite it or leave it? Meters (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response and a G11 in there by someone who appeared to have an issue with this editor per a thread on the Help Desk. I'm not sure, and s/he isn't listed as a confirmed sock hence why I didn't think this should be a pure speedy. StarM 20:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. I'm inclined to think we should keep this, but I'll wait for those with more experience in these types of messes to clarify things. Meters (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does seem to be notable, and the current version is not all that promotional. But if it is a sock of a coi editor that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if I'm understanding @SpacemanSpiff: correctly here it's more meat than sock. I'm not sure if this changes whether this article needs to go. StarM 02:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Undisclosed paid editing is more than simple meatpuppetry. Meters (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very true. I was under the (possibly wrong) impression that they declared the COI and that's why they went through AFC. The trail is in a number of places though and I might have missed a key piece. StarM 03:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more than meets the eye here, which is also why I didn't tag or delete the article under G5 unlike another one from the same account. There's a significant overlap of the account with at least two paid COI groups (that I know of) and then there's the account's own claim of just being friends with the founders of this company. If the company is found to be notable then I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping the article after allowing editors in good standing to clean it up (which has presumably been started via AfC and will be done further during this discussion). —SpacemanSpiff 03:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SpacemanSpiff, for the further detail. StarM 17:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I was the one to approve this draft, and as such, I will not cast a vote, it seemed then, and continues to seem now to be a notable topic to me. I was not aware that the author of the article was possibly a sock, and I approved the article based on the content which seemed acceptable, and still does to me. The article doesn't seem to have an incredibly promotional tone to me, and even if it was written by a sock, I still don't understand why we should delete a seemingly notable and mostly well written article based on who wrote it. I am very far out of my depth in sock related policy, so please excuse my ignorance. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting you did anything wrong in approving this article. The article was reasonable. It's simply a question of what to do with it know that we know it was created by a sock of a blocked editor, and, even worse, apparently by an undisclosed paid edit. Meters (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. So Why 09:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Travis MacDonald

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

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

no significant awards, no critical discussions of his work, no works in major museums. Fails WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This was quite a hard case, but I think it's a
WP:CREATIVE. No prejudice if article is recreated in future when he has more exhibitions and reviews. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. So Why 09:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

John Hipwell (producer)

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

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable producer. Significant RS coverage not found. Article created by Special:Contributions/Sandynguyen96 with no other contributions outside this topic. Article copy includes: "He has delivered short films for various public and private corporations including Hertz, Motorola, Mobil and Energy Victoria!" highlighting how few the accomplishments are. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here at all of sufficient importance to be notable. Boneymau (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 inherent notability from winning awards was challenged, and no further sources were put forward. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Rhoades

Lana Rhoades (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 Procedural Nomination. I am totally neutral in this and my nominating the article for deletion is not to be seen as a vote for deletion. Per previous discussion at Talk:Lana Rhoades, it would be helpful if editors were to vote to either Keep the article, or Redirect it to List of Penthouse Pets. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 07:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete & Redirect Keep is no option as the sourced biog is too small to support a standalone. Any sourced data can be mentioned in the list. Or not.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
XBIZ Award, both of which are notable. --Kbabej (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

AVN Fan Awards are not equivalent to AVN Awards, and have been routinely discounted in AFD discussions, going back several years; see, for example, the Jayden James DRV here [77]. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Kbabej above says, she fulfills the WP:PORNBIO inclusion standard as she has won the New Starlet awards in both AVN and Xbiz Awards which are both the main awards for this specific industry. --Elysium1988 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTE: I've recently edited the article under consideration here, and I'm sure that it can be further expanded upon in the future. The subject of this article here has won the
adult film industry awards, as has been shown in at least several, recent AfDs. Guy1890 (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep As noted the xbiz Best New Starlet Award qualifies under PORNBIO inclusion standard "person has won a well known and significant industry award". Also the avn Fan Award for Best Newcomer. As I've pointed out in the past, as an example, Mia Malkova has apparently won only one award qualifying her for inclusion. There was the same argument going on with her, yet her profile is still there, as you may view here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mia_Malkova Apparently, absolutely nobody has answered this question as of yet. At least be consistent in your arguments. You all also refuse to answer the questions as to why her profile is still up, as it also does not have enough or very little information, based upon your statements in regard to this adult film star. Scenicview1 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

Delete -- no SIGCOV has been presented at this AfD. The article contains no encyclopedicly relevant prose and is filled with trivia such as:

"She was previously involved in cheerleading and gymnastics.[2][3] She has also mentioned in interviews that she loves baking, especially cupcakes.[4][3]"

A techical SNG pass is not a replacement for having independent reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning awards is not sufficient if not a single reliable source covers the subject in any manner, interviews and pornography media mentions do not qualify. Find several quality sources that cover this person and I'll change my vote. TheValeyard (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote a message above in regard to edits I made for Mia Malkova as well. I also added references and citations since some were incorrect previously or lead to an error page. Absolutely nobody here has answered my posts as to why her page is allowed to remain up with little or no information. In regard to Mia Malkova^[1], she also has won only one major award, one less then Lana Rhoades. None of you have asked to take her article down. In fact, when I read past arguments for taking her profile down, there was almost unanimous agreement to keep her profile article up. Someone needs to explain this, since both profiles have very little information, and Mia Malkova has won one less prominent award. Scenicview1 (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

Keep Lana Rhoades is an AVN and XBIZ award winner and was nominated for a few more awards, that should be definitively a reason to keep. I personally would suggest a few optimizations, e.g. to eliminate some trivia and to concentrate more on facts, for example the main companies she worked with (e.g. Jules Jordan & Evil Angel), a complete enumeration of her nominations (AVN “Best New Starlet“ !!!) and to add a filmography. Meilerkarl (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winning porn awards is not enough when zero reliable sources take note of it. Think it may time to realise that the insular world of pornography achievement is not something that the real world takes notice of. Also, for other readers or mods, note the curious account creation in 2016, dormant until taking part in this deletion discussion today and then editing the article. There is a strong whiff of outside meddling/collaboration within this and other porn deletions lately. TheValeyard (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me sir or madam, but what you express is your very own point of view. Porn actors/actrices are persons of public interest just like main stream actors/actrices. The porn industry each year creates sales of billions of dollars or euros and nobody takes note of it? Not seriously. Maybe Wikipedia decides to eliminate all porn contributions from their database for some reason. Then one have to accept it, otherwise not. The findings you made about my user account are right, but contribute definitely nothing to matter resp. to this discussion. Meilerkarl (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Porn actors/actrices(sic) are persons of public interest just like main stream actors/actrices" (sic)... Then you can of course provide evidence of this? In the form of
reliable sources that demonstrate the public interest? TheValeyard (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Sources used in this article were discussed at
WT:PORNO, and held to be generally reliable enough to be used in this BLP. Those claiming that the sources are unreliable are incorrect at minimum. Also, "delete" is not an option, as the subject is certainly notable enough to appear in the list. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

There are 9 citations in the article at present; the IMDB of porn (1), press releases announcing winners/nominees(4), and interviews appearing in a softcore magazine(1), a porn website(2), and a porn magazine(1). Porn-DB is out, press releases are out, interviews by the very outlets that give the awards (AVN and XBIZ) are not sufficiently independent, so the only usable sources for notability there are the magazines. Your entire premise for keeping rests on shaky
WP:BLPPRIMARY grounds. TheValeyard (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As I said when nominating, I am totally neutral as to whether the article stays as an article or is turned into a redirect. The sources were discussed at WikiProject level, and it was found that there were no serious BLP concerns. What I am not neutral on is people misrepresenting the situation because they don't like it. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the editor making the most serious misrepresentations. The Porn Wikiproject has a long history of being out of step with BLP and RS principles, and resting any conclusion on a discussion there rather than at the appropriate policy discussion boards is irresponsible if not betraying serious competence issues. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and, more importantly, the GNG. The only sources for substantive content in the article are a string of promotional interviews, some posted by retailers hawking product the subject appears in, with inconsistent and often contradictory claims. It's no secret that porn agents craft (using the term loosely) biographies to reflect the audiences' fetishes; that's why so many porn "actresses" claim to be gifted students who were cheerleaders and/or gymnasts. In this case, the subject's first agent, quoted in one of the sources, has a track record of fictionalizing even the most easily verified claims about his clients' careers. That an admin would rest their consclusions on the very local and contested "consensus" on a Wikiproject talk page rather than input on the BLP or RS talk pages from genuinely competent and experienced editors is discouraging but not at all surprising, and they should recuse from further action here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to learn about Mark Spiegler's alleged track record of fictionalization and how it has contributed to this article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please also discuss whether this could be redirected as proposed if you !vote delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like above fails PORNBIO and general notability. I am sure she will have a page at some point though. This is the IDEAL example of a WP:TOOSOON page. DELETE is the clear call.GoldenSHK (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does Mia Malkova^[2] meet the WP:PORNBIO and not Lana Rhoades. Someone explain it to us. Scenicview1 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

References

^ Malkova, Mia. "Mia Malkova".

^ Malkova, Mia. "Mia Malkova".

Comment I would call on a passing-by admin or the eventual closing admin to strike the comment above. User "Scenicview1"'s entire argument rests on
"but other stuff!", along with an unhealthy barrage of racism accusations against participants in this deletion discussion, e.g. "I know racism still exists against these people, but come on now." above. This toxicity and personal attack needs to be snipped now. Thank you. TheValeyard (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Passes
XBIZ Best New Starlet Award, with the award being ~~notable~~well-known and the category significant. There is enough non-contentious biographical information to support the article beyond being a stub. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: That's not the PORNBIO standard. Just a few days ago the Alektra Blue article was deleted by consensus, and she'd won the equivalent category in a "notable" award set. And the sourcing here is dreadful. There are only three substantive references; the first (Penthouse) [78] is both flimsy and unreliable; the third (XBIZ) [79] is nothing but PR copy masquerading as an interview -- "Lana Rhoades is an icon in the making. As surely as era-defining pinups Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe and Raquel Welch came to symbolize sex for entire generations, the newly crowned 2017 XBIZ Best New Starlet is destined for immortality" -- spare us this utter bilge, so palpably nonsensical it would give Sean Spicer pause. The AVN piece is similarly riddled with the standard porn agent cliches -- "“But then me and my boyfriend broke up. We dated for three years. … I’ve only had sex with one guy before porn" . . . and promotional comments from her agent and folks hawking the videos she performs in.[80] Not a sign of fact-checking is evident, and in the XBIZ piece written after she changed agents, big chunks of her bio have been changed. Hell, they don't even agree about what her first "Boy-Girl" porn film was. There's no reliable biographical information on which to build an article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll correct my rationale to address your issue. I believe the XBIZ Awards is well known (a different subjective standard than notability) more so than the FAME Awards that was not adequate for keeping Alektra Blue, and the category significant therefore she passes PORNBIO. As for your comments about porn cliches, which contentious details have made it into the article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Loves You

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

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

No evidence is provided that this short film is notable Grahame (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citations were provided indicating it was screened in the major cities of Australia. It has also earned notability as an important new artistic endeavor by the director. It is notable in its genre as being a film short that escapes some of the standard tropes. This genre is itself a niche -- being an LGBT film directed by a woman. That it had a continent-wide screening is a breakthrough development and is notable in itself. Thanks much. GetSomeUtah (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need those citations here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, I found a few NOT in the article: Velvet I-D Vice The Brag Heaps Gay Teen Vogue but I do not have access to Australian search engines. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Heapsgay and i-D are the #1 and #2 references of the article, and velvet is there too. Perhaps you were looking at an earlier version of the article. As for Schmidt's comment regarding putting the citations here, are you asking that the article be duplicated on this discussion page? I'm new at this. The citations (currently 7) are prominently displayed on the article page. GetSomeUtah (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but most of those citations speak toward her earlier film. Non-blog commentary meeting
WP:RS are needed speaking about this latest. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the clarification. My understanding is that Ms. Rhodes has made only one film ("Lo Loves You"), and my reading of the citations is that they all refer to that one film. If I am mistaken, forgive me. GetSomeUtah (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I really wanted to !vote keep here, but I just can't see the depth. Yes, it has been screened in some big cities, but apart from one screening in Newtown where it was the curtain-raiser for another film, I'm not seeing any details of that screening. These screenings could have been to half a dozen people in someone's lounge room. This uncertainty gets back to the lack of good secondary sources about the film itself; what we do have that is substantial is mostly primary source material or not about the film itself. I'm sure it's a good film and I wish it all the success, but at the moment it just doesn't have the depth of coverage that we need to write a decent and neutral article about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Delete - for almost all the identical reasons explained by Lankiveil. Screenings are not the same thing as being released in theaters. Not enough good in-depth coverage from independent sources to show it meets
WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss whether this could be merged/redirected to Cloudy Rhodes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Lankiveil - GretLomborg (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign players for Botev Plovdiv

Foreign players for Botev Plovdiv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD (removed by the article's creator with no rationale). We have here a list of every foreign national who's played for a particular Bulgarian football team. While "other stuff doesn't exist" isn't an argument itself, I've not found any other such lists at club level - there are plenty at a league level. Moreover, there's no indication per
WP:LISTN that this particular group of players have been discussed as a group. I admit I have precisely no Bulgarian, so it's possible that I'm mistaken in this claim, but what research I can do doesn't show it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as per nom.
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to LISTN concerns raised by nom Spiderone 15:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable list; consensus in past that these are non-notable. Giant Snowman 17:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable list, at best merge to parent article. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 19:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Vichare

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

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

There is only one potentially notable film. He made the debut in it. Looks like clear
WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet
WP:TOOSOON. --bonadea contributions talk 07:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Bonadea; doubtless, in the way of some career trajectories (excluding mine!), he will pass our notability guidelies, but not at this time. —
velut luna 09:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't Delete Have added one more reference citation of his lead role in another TV serial.
AfD. [reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
talk|c|em) 12:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Probably part of some large scale marketing exercise for the movie - Aarti the unknown love story, Draft:Sunny Pawar (social activist), Draft:Ankita Bhoir (Actress). Jupitus Smart 09:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the userspace draft User:VidhiV/Sarika Mene, which was submitted to AfC. --bonadea contributions talk 08:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable currently and we don't have a crystal ball Spiderone 16:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable at present, per above really. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Clear delete.
(non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 09:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

John Stringer (Christchurch)

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

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

It appears that the article has been created by John Stringer himself, who intends to use it as his official profile. Key parts of the article are unreferenced or referenced using social websites. The article is not written in an encyclopedic style - rather, it engages in promotion and apologetic of his activities. (He might be notable, but the article in its current state is unsalvageable; if Wikipedia should have an article about this person, it should be rewritten from the scratch.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete: a non-notable failed political candidate that fails
WP:POLITICIAN. Mattlore (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I have speedy deleted this after blanking by the creator (G7).-gadfium 09:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cyanide & Happiness. No consensus to keep despite sources mentioned. Leaving the history in place in case anyone wants to merge something. So Why 09:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joking Hazard

Joking Hazard (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)

Fun but not individually notable, secondary sources are almost entirely lacking. Delete or merge to Cyanide & Happiness. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk) 06:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I found the following from using Google News, and this isn't all of it: Daily Dot, Daily Dot, The Escapist, Polygon, WSJ, ToyNews (unsure on reliability), IGN (video). From this, I'd say keep, but at minimum merge into Cyanide & Happiness. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C&H per nom. I think it's sufficiently covered there already, but there is some content that could be merged. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lottoland

Lottoland (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 essential an advertorial defending the legality of the operation DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely false assertion. The article describes an object perceived in many countries of the world. The sources are valid. It belongs to the subject that in Germany, state Lotto companies claim that the activities of Lottoland in Germany are a violation of the German Inter-State Gambling Treaty. This controversy is clearly adressed. Both views are described on the basis of valid sources. Above that: There is not a single court in Germany that prohibits Lottoland’s business. Atomiccocktail (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty big company, well known to may, sourced article.Fleets (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a bit on the promotional side, and first-party sources should be replaced where possible, and more criticism and third-party analysis added (I started a criticism section). But it's notable with coverage in respected newspapers internationally e.g.[81][82][83][84][85]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid
point on paid editing, this is definitely not the right place. --90.186.3.196 (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company in question has notability beyond the nom's point about gambling operations. Sources meet
WP:VER.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete G5 - Original was speedied A7/G11, the second as a G5. Paying someone to bring the article in from :de: to evade the block is meatpuppetry pure and simple.
Einfach machen Hamburg is plain sockpuppetry. Cabayi (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. So Why 09:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oru Varthai Oru Latcham Juniors

Oru Varthai Oru Latcham Juniors (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 television program. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NTV Spiderone 16:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two relists and no discussion for over a week, and none further expected. (
velut luna 14:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Palm Bible Plus

AfDs for this article:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwordSearcher

Palm Bible Plus (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 for a decade, and I can't find any references. Fails notability criteria. Original author says "I agree that this can be deleted". Hirsutism (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Only RSs I found so far are review and one short news item on Czech media portal mobil.idnes.cz (called palmare.cz back then): [86] (2002), [87] (2003). Interesting to note, Czech Republic is one of the least religous countries in the world. Finding such coverage in their media shows BibleReader/PalmBiblePlus was important application for Palm platform. However, I don´t think the article is keepable without more sources. Pavlor (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another source - review on mobiletechreview.com (I don´t know this page, but may be RS) [88] (2003). If this is RS, I would lean to keep. Pavlor (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another (Czech...) source - big four page review on palmhelp.cz (community help page, which accepts articles from members, but has also its own editing staff and article in question was written by editor in chief; hard to judge as reliable source, but it is not a mere blog): [89] Pavlor (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are sources with broad coverage of this application. However, I´m not sure about reliability of some of them (mobiletechreview.com, palmhelp.cz) - my "keep" would be strong otherwise. I will try to rewrite the article with the help of the sources listed above, probably not before the end of this week. Pavlor (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 09:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milkshake Duck

Milkshake Duck (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)

Minor online term that has only been in use for a week or so.
WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies here, I think it might be better suited for Wiktionary with a stripped down definition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TussilagoFanfara (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No reason for a article on this very recent word.Busterbeam (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Actually, it's been around for at least a year, only in June of this year did it become more commonplace. There definitely is some
WP:NEO concern here, I agree, but I think that an existing term that got latched onto due to recent events avoids those issues. There also may be a merge target too for this. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think it should be considered even a term pre-June 2017, only a tweet joke. The article falsely cites a source, it doesn't say it was used then, only that it was applied to past events. The Oxford blog article (mentioned, but not cited in the aricle) about the word is skeptical at best about it. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Transwiki and make it a wiktionary redirect: This is why Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I see some good coverage on this meme. The E3 controversy has been linked to this meme by Kotaku and Inverse as well. The New Republic mentioned its use by the Oxford English Dictionary, and then there is this Observer article. I think it is likely to stay in public consciousness and I think it is notable. ~Mable (chat) 09:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTNEO, & WP:NOTKNOWYOURMEME - GretLomborg (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Most of the deletes are essentially versions of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rules and guidelines about Wikipedia is NOTTHIS or NOTTHAT are all very good rules of thumb that work in most cases, but they are not blanket prohibitions. They are all trumped by the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on all topics that are well-sourced and of significant notability, and there are sufficient high-profile sources to meet that bar here. So in this case all your guidelines are belong to us. Gamaliel (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - As creator of the article, it was notable when the article started and has only grown in prominence. WIRED has used it in prose inline [90] with the assumption readers understand what it means. Oxford dictionary has it (literally and figuratively) on their "radar." [91]. The argument
WP:NOTDICTIONARY doesn't hold water - the article talks about the phenomenon, its origins and its longevity in popular culture. All of these things a dictionary entry would not cover, but an encyclopedia does. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to
(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Luftwaffe Honor plate

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

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

An apparently trivial decoration; significant RS coverage not found either in English (link) nor in German (link), just passing mentions and / or non RS. A de.wiki article exists but is equally unconvincing for notability: link. Article includes no sources, apart from links to self-published web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Keep -- It is appropriate to have an article on an award (if verifable), but probably not even a list of awardees. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure if it was an official decoration; it might have been a personal gift from Goering, by the look of things and given the dearth of coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect – the award existed from June 1942 until December 1944 and could be presented to soldiers of the Luftwaffe who fought in ground combat, similar in nature to the
Honour Goblet of the Luftwaffe for aerial crews and paratroopers. The honour plate was replaced by the Honour Roll Clasp of the Luftwaffe. If the consensus here is to delete the article, I would suggest creating an article "Awards and decorations of the Luftwaffe" and article similar to Awards and decorations of the Kriegsmarine by @OberRanks
:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.105.23 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 92.204.105.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. The award itself is notable, although its recipients aren't inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- so far, none of the Keep voters have offered any sources. This looks to be a trivial award. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect/merge to an appropriate list of Nazi decorations. The measure of notability is coverage in reliable sources, and, as noted above, this seems to be mentioned only by self-published websites. Sandstein 10:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to
List of military decorations of Nazi Germany. It is covered in Insignia, Decorations and Badges of the Third Reich and Occupied Countries by R. Kahl and in Osprey's The Hermann Göring Division. No reason to excise from Wikipedia, although a paragraph (with image) at the list article would suffice. Srnec (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Srnec. Non-notable enough for a stand-alone article but sufficient sources exist to warrant mention in the appropriate list article. Regards So Why 12:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing identified after relisting swayed the discussion in favor of keep. Still probably just borderline notability, but hopefully stronger sourcing will develop over time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Hutchings

Candice Hutchings (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)

Scant coverage in independent reliable sources, no awards won, fails
WP:CREATIVE. Rentier (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Author Comment - Plenty of public recognition in Canada and the US as a public figure. Note for
WP:BEFORE to improve the page prior to nom Styles01 (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Meets
WP:GNG with several references from independent reliable sources including: Canadian major news outlets such as CBC (Canada's largest public broadcaster), SiriusXM (The Largest Radio Network in The United States and Canada), The Social (CTV - One of Canada's largest public broadcasters), The Toronto Star (one of Canada's largest news publications). Styles01 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As for
WP:CREATIVE -- in the field of vegan cooking, Hutchings is one of the first to create vegan junkfood and vegan comfort food, with one of the largest online followings in the space. (See statistics and references on page). Further, the body of work extends to over 300 videos, an internationally published cookbook, and over 300 recipes online, the subject of over 200,000 monthly views on each the videos and webpage medium. Styles01 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dissection of sources, as of now, without considering their reliability:

The subject's own Youtube channel

A brief mention among 50 other Youtubers

Two word mention among 20 other channels (the two words are "Edgy Veg")

A brief mention on a blog among 20 other Youtubers

A brief mention among 10 other channels

Looks like a TV appearance by the subject (video not available in my region) - an interview, which contributes little to notability

Looks like a TV appearance by the subject (video not available in my region) - an interview, which contributes little to notability

Looks like an appearance in a podcast - an interview, which contributes little to notability

Four word mention ("Candice Hutching (Edgy Veg)")

Rehash of the previous news, this time the subject is not mentioned.

Yet another news about the same thing, this time the channel's number of subscribers is listed in addition to a quote from her. Trivial coverage.

Link not working

The subject's own video

The subject's own book (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edgy Veg Cookbook)

A (short) interview with the subject

No mention of the subject here

Three word mention ("The Edgy Veg")

Three word mention ("The Edgy Veg")

Three word mention ("The Edgy Veg")

According to
WP:GNG, significant coverage should "address the topic directly and in detail". What I see here is a collection of brief and trivial mentions that does not satisfy this criterion. Rentier (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Author Comment - 10 Additional citations / references added to further corroborate the meeting of
WP:CREATIVE Styles01 (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
specifically addressing from
WP:CREATIVE

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

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

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.

The persons body of work has has won significant critical attention

The additional citations now show a wide variety of peers and successors referencing the subjects work in depth, as well as a variety of reliable sources covering the subject or their novel contributions craft in depth. They also show a variety of "roundups" of the top vegan chefs on the internet (best 50, best 20, best 11, best 10) specifically and directly noting the subject.

Per
WP:GNG
"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" several of the references are from Canadian, UK or US national media outlets (CTV, CBC, SiriusXM, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Daily Mail, Toronto Guardian), several of them are ENTIRELY on the subject, and those that aren't include the subject of moderate mention within a shortlist of other notable subjects. " Significant means that the subject is mentioned in the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

re: #6 and 7 above - they are full segments on one of Canada's largest national broadcasters, where the subject is sharing her craft with a studio audience, and a panel of hosts (Canada's version of "the View" in USA). The show is widely viewed by a national audience in Canada. Presumably if it was the American "View" the commenter would consider that notable.

re: #12 - the webmaster has said that they are currently porting the site to a new server, that new server will hold this page

updated #16 to include mention - awards to be announced next week. Styles01 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the above, and given the subject is the author of an internationally published work by a reputable Canadian publisher, has had featured appearances in Canada's top media, combined with the easily verifiable size of this person's fan-base (as evidenced by the cited videos and social media links), this article meets
WP:GNG Essabowser (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note to the closing admin. Please note that Essabowser is a paid editor who has been maintaining a Wikipedia page of another Canadian YouTuber. Rentier (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. I have a personal relationship with another unrelated Canadian YouTuber. I am not a paid editor, nor do I have a professional or paid relationship with the subject of the article. However, my profession is working with Canadian YouTubers, so I consider this my field of expertise.

Delete per Rentier. Fails
WP:CREATIVE. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A news search shows a number of usable sources, some press releases, but not exclusively. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by policies WP:Deletion policy and WP:Not, because what's in the article is highly suggestive of a personal website or listing, and that can be removed without any exceptions; examining the sources above, there's only a dozen and they're all announcements including from special interest or trade publications therefore not usable for independence, worse if some of them, a quarter of them are labeled press releases. The first Keep vote is only a WP:ITSIMPORTANT. The continual basis here is whether it's suitable for an independent encyclopedia and non-independent sources wouldn't fit that. Our encyclopedia goals have always been based on neutrality and integrity and accepting any kind of promotionalism, even if recoated, would not convince. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is covered in reliable sources (like Toronto Star) over time as Ritchie333 has displayed above. SwisterTwister, your argument that the article is "highly suggestive of a personal website or listing" isn't a a valid argument for deletion. Neither does whether or not an article is "promotional" become a valid argument for deletion since that is a problem that can remedied with editing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no because the relevant policies are WP:Not webhost and WP:Promotion, both of which say can be an immediate factor in deletion alone without guidelines. In fact, GNG explicitly states "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason" which links WP:What Wikipedia is not, therefore the policy takes clear priority over gudelines. Can you describe a policy that would supersede these? Because while I cited 2 in mine, I'd like to know what would counter that, if at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:NOT states that articles must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, which this one is. Also, WP:GNG in regards to promotion addresses articles which do not pass ANYBIO, which this one does as per The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. If the subject is covered in multiple reliable sources as turned up by Ritchie333 and added by me to the article, then we are not dealing with a promotional article; we may instead be be dealing with promotional tone which can be addressed through editing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the sole factor, what is instead the article suggests a webhost profile of which we have WP:Not a webhost. The sources offered as I highlighted above are actually announcements and notices in special interests publications such as how-to's guides, and for that, we actually have WP:Not a guide which says "should not be guides or describe how to use it". Also, GNG is not able to supersede WP:Promotion since the latter is a policy, regardless of sourcing. Adding to this, WP:Deletion policy importantly notes: "anything unsuitable for an encyclopedia" which would apply here. "multiple reliable sources " is not entirely the case since that user who offered them, agreed there were press releases. See GNG section that reads Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. I'd willingly reconsider if you can substantiate how this directly affects policy and what specific section, since

I also had quoted above the part where GNG says "is the topic unsuitable for [WP:What Wikipedia is not". I agree with the philosophy that we must ensure we cut no corners in accepting content and this article shouldn't be taken any differently, therefore my analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GNG per Ritchie333. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Yes, some of the sources are passing mentions. But several of them are "significant coverage", and I think this subject passes the threshold required by Wikipedia. I know that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for a keep, but I once nominated a YouTube cat for deletion and the keep votes drowned out the delete votes about 10 to 1, and that cat had way less significant coverage than this person. I don't see how you justify deleting this article. Rockypedia (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Ukrainian origin

List of English words of Ukrainian origin (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)

We already do this at en.wikt, specifically
WP:NOT#DIC. Gamren (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I don't see the point of this. And also, we have another wiki for this. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging
stand-alone list"?
Is there a good target to merge this article to if it does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists?
Cunard (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I was able to find this brief mention:
Antor, Heinz; Bölling, Gordon; Kern-Stähler, Annette; Stierstorfer, Klaus, eds. (2005). Refractions of Canada in European Literature and Culture. Berlin:
ISBN 3110919249. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
The book notes:

Just a Kommedia by Nika Rylski is about preservation and assimilation, tradition and the new environment; and the relationship between the two poles is expressed by cultural symbols and language. The Maple Leaf and the Ukrainian flag stand side by side. The national anthem of the Ukraine mingles with that of Canada. Items on the menu are Kasha and Big Mac, Borscht and Hot Dog, and in parts of the text Ukranian expressions intrude on the English dialogue thereby dividing and transcending the two worlds.
This mentions Kasha and Borscht.
But it by itself is not enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists.
Cunard (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree, per nom. Thank you for inviting. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Loanwords and borrowings is a valid academic topic. There are many books on the subject of loanwords in particular languages and from particular languages (book search; titles include Spanish Loanwords in the English Language, Loanwords in Japanese, Native American Loanwords in Current English, Arabic and Persian Loanwords in Tagalog, etc.). The list of loanwords in Wiktionary is not a substitute for this one: a list of article titles is not a substitute for a glossary, which has terms with accompanying glosses or annotations. Despite the many books on similar subjects, there is very little specifically about Ukrainian loanwords in English. One example is a book chapter by the chief editor of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, which includes some discussion and also a glossary: Katherine Barber (2008), Only in Canada: A Treasury of Canadian Language, Toronto: Oxford University Press, p. 79 (preview on Amazon). This is a small subject, and suffers from systemic bias in Wikipedia as well as globally. All the more reason not to delete this list or related articles. —Michael Z. 2017-07-14 01:20 z

Keep: First and foremost, this is a valid academic subject. Second, we have articles called List of English words of X origin for literally around a hundred languages. Ok, the fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to keep as such. Still, if we have a similar article for almost any other European language (and we do), then why pick out the Ukrainian one in particular for deletion? Either start a discussion to delete all such articles (and I'd oppose it if the discussion came up, as it is a very valid academic subject) or speedy keep this one. Jeppiz (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's misleading to say that this exact same thing is on Wiktionary, as the Wikipedia page offers more information (including subcategorisation and word meanings). The topic of loan words and words from foreign languages is clearly notable, and you could argue that subdividing that by language is a sensible way of representing a notable topic in a manageable way (creating subpages for large topics is allowed). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:CLN. While there is a category for this, the list itself gives more information and context for each entry. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per arguments already offered by other editors affirming the validity as an academic subject. Loanword studies are entry level linguistics, ergo certainly not OSE or NOT#DIC. All of the related articles should be challenged for deletion base solid
arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. I'm not doubting the good faith of the nomination or those who agree with deletion: I'm wondering at why this was started on a random article in the group rather than presenting a solid argument for the elimination of all of the related article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A9. by
JamesBWatson (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The Night Begins to Shine

The Night Begins to Shine (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 song, does not meet
song notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Artist doesn't have a page, iTunes and blog sources, no significant indication of notability. 03:27, 19 July 2017 (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 merge to Variegatic acid. So Why 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3-O-methyl variegatic acid methyl ester

3-O-methyl variegatic acid methyl ester (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; there is a lack of in-depth secondary source coverage of the compound. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect) to variegatic acid. Perhaps there is not enough for a stand alone article, but the single sentence "fact" can be merged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I don't see any evidence that this is a notable chemical compound. Merging this and
3,3',4,4'-Tetra-O-methyl variegatic acid methyl ester into a "Derivatives" or "Related compounds" section at variegatic acid is a reasonable option too. ChemNerd (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Krylova

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

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

There is a claim for notability, but article looks as very promotional in it's current form and not encyclopaedical. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the image on Commons is a pretty clear copyright violation, and this article's content follows in the same style— it's not a copyright violation, it is a violation of policies regarding promotion and notability. Subject may be notable, but the evidence for this, if true, is all in Russian. No corresponding article on the Russian Wikipedia. Circular file. KDS4444 (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 16:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - The subject has received at least some non-trivial international coverage and is a former Mrs. Russia (which I assume is a notable title). [92][93][94][95][96]- Mr X 16:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though needs less promotional rewriting, granted. Corresponding article on Russian wikipedia. In addition to MrX's list, here is more coverage from The Telegraph: [97]. --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also found/made a non-copyright violation image. --GRuban (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs improvement and more verification, but the subject appears to meet
WP:GNG criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEC APC character set

NEC APC character set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted as it is a non-notable character set. It was prodded for this reason but was contested.The subject of the article is not notable as there is not significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
NEC APC. This is worth keeping, as an indication of one of the differences between the NEC-APC and the IBM-PC (both contemporary MS-DOS boxen), but I can't easily justify a separate article for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@
NEC APC if merged. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This argument is void. First of all, these links are fine, but even if they were not, it wouldn't matter a bit in regard to the relevance of the information. Also, if there are issues, they can be worked on over time - this is what we are doing all the time. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would not add much to the merged article (it is just a table of characters). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be "just" a table of characters to you, who is obviously not interested in this information. However, exactly this table of characters is of major interest to people carrying out data/program conversions, doing computer forensics, or dealing with internationalization issues. They are also interesting for computer historians. This is exactly the information such people expect from an electronic encyclopedia. Character sets are part of the legacy or "essence" of what's left today of platforms like NEC's APC family, and it is important to preserve it for generations to come. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While long abandoned the
NEC APC series of computers once was an important mass-produced alternative personal computer platform competing with the IBM PC architecture. In many ways it was way ahead of IBM's PCs, so it is historically interesting to see and learn what the differences where, why they were developed the way they were, and how and why one platform won over the other. The APC series is of encyclopedic relevance and is notable beyond any doubt. Its character set is only one aspect, but from our perspective today, character sets are part of the "interface" needed to know to access and interpret old data and programs. This is important not only for historical research, but also for computer forensics and for implementors dealing with system or database development or internationalization issues. Therefore, character sets of mass-produced computers and devices as well as those of significant solitaire machines (like those of the main-frame era) are in general important encyclopedic information that needs to be preserved and that people are expecting to find in Wikipedia. The fact that this is also a character set supported by MS-DOS
(although a rather esotheric adaption of it) makes it notable as well.

As it was pointed out before, it would be possible to merge this info into the main
NEC APC
article, but I would prefer it to be kept in a stand-alone article because we have a long-time project running trying to collect and preserve character set information in Wikipedia and this is the standard format we have chosen for articles about character sets. Keeping the character sets separate from the main articles about their platform helps not to clutter those main articles with huge tables (and to distract from character set issues for those interested in character sets), it also allows easier cross-linking between related character sets, and gives more room for future expansion, f.e. adding conversion lists to Unicode (where possible), an often sought after info today. In some cases character sets also have histories and uses beyond those related to their main platform. This can be described in a dedicated article about a character set, but might be off-topic in a generic platform article. So, in order to try and keep a similar format for all character set articles it is desireable to keep the NEC APC character set article as a separate article as well.

In general, we can be thankful that someone finally spent the time to create this article, as it was one of the former red links in the list of character sets still to be added (it was on my long-term "to-do" list as well). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a valuable article. Character sets are like historical artefacts and Wikipedia should try to preserve these. For example, we have
WP:GNG which I am unable to access. Looking at the historical significance, I would suggest to keep it. I don't think merging is a good idea because there a lot of information here and the table could use a separate article.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Arguments put forth by KAP03 are unconvincing. Online sources are scarce so we need to err towards keep on technical topics which predated the internet. ~Kvng (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep History lesson by Matthias very convincing. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Alfredo Sica Bergara

Luis Alfredo Sica Bergara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet
WP:BIO. Article is a bullet list of things he did. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

delete none of the roles held are inherently notable. Google news doesn't yield anything too. LibStar (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against recreation as a properly sourced and NPOV article. A Train^talk 09:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch constellations

Dutch constellations (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 one sentence article basically about the template and links to Dutch cartographers/explorers. All the information on it is present elsewhere. This article does not appear to serve much of a purpose. TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. @
WP:NPOV This page was seemingly deliberately created to promote Dutch-related pages, and was introduced by User:Zingvin on the Constellation page (and other related subjects). I.e. Here. [98]. On this Constellation
page there has been a concerted effort to promote this, easily seen by the the number of reverts I have made by several different users pushing the same promotional edits.

This includes anonymous editors: User:203.205.34.102, User: 1.53.54.186 These edits being a suspected sockpuppets from the edits here.[99] ), and recently User:190.10.149.71 [100] - all relating to the same subject and/or Dutch articles. Notable all of these editors have appeared in this page's own revision history and all around the same time and all suspiciously after Zingvin's initial edits .[101] Another sock suspect is User:Ziaozi who added this. [102] or User:42.117.77.225 here.[103] (with User:Zingvin adding these categories here.[104])

My own complaint is that these edits are seemingly nationalistic and greatly overstate their importance, as I stated after this edit.[105] This editor has multiple times, as seen on the "Revision history of "Constellation""[106], repeatedly has added the same text several times, and ignored others advice. Worst, they have not engaged via the Talkpage, and have avoid gaining consensus. Also the editors above argued on Dutch constellations here.[107] and here.[108] Worse again, they ignored advice. (Further discussions of this being overstated appear under "More on Plancius" here.[109]

I am also concerned with
WP:OR

Please note that I am not in any way involved in the creation or promotion of the above-mentioned page. If you have any problems with my edits regarding the origin of the southern constellations, for which I prefer to cite relevant rather than outdated sources, please address them directly on the appropriate talk pages or on my talk page.
AstroLynx (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"...for which I prefer to cite relevant rather than outdated sources." Sorry evidence says the contrary, as per your admissions to my linked pages above. All I'm saying is the recent behavior is suspicious and likely agenda driven. You may or may not not be involved, but the direct evidence is as presented as I see and experienced it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you accuse me of being a sockpuppet, you will have to present better evidence. Otherwise it is just malicious slander.
AstroLynx (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@
AstroLynx: "If you accuse me of being a sockpuppet..." Please read more carefully I've never suggested such things, simply based on your many useful contributions in your own contribution list. Those that could be sockpuppets are those mostly reverting Dutch pages only to support this topic as IP addresses. (I've only mentioned you here to be transparent.) If I've inferred you are a sockpuppet, I unreservedly extend my apologies. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Apologies accepted – discussion closed.
AstroLynx (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note; I have recently greatly modified the Constellation page to remove this bias. Possible sockpuppetry here needs further investigation IMO. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Can we block anonymous users? If so, this should also be taken to
WP:SPI. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"Can we block anonymous users?" Yes if they are proven sockpuppests. Multiple users reverting documents for the same kind of agenda just seems to say yes!

As it plainly says above: "Be aware that using 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." Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The question of how Dutch astronomers classified the heavens into constellations is an interesting issue, which might usefully have an article. What we currently have is Category:Constellations listed by Petrus Plancius, which is inaccurately named since it covers other cartographers too, and the template. This article is trying to be a main article for the category and template, but is currently failing to be such, as it is a minute stub. We have recently had a lot of category-spamming on Dutch subjects, but this is not probably part of it. I would suggest renaming the category to reflect its content and tagging this article for expansion, unless we have a general article on the subject already, I mean on the three astronomic cartographers involved. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 02:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - GretLomborg (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
List of Dutch inventions and discoveries already covers a similar topic under "First systematic charting of the far southern skies (southern constellations) (1595–97)". An article of Dutch astronomy in a particular period might be notable if sources exist treating the topic as a whole, but as it stands this is no more valid than constellations named by people from Liverpool from 1600 to 1700. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Lourdes 05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Futerfas

Alan Futerfas (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)

Speedy declined on the bizarre ground that working for the Donald confers notability. There is nothing in the article to suggest that this is anything more than inherited notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is clear and concise! 4 articles in 5 seconds of Googling: The Washington Post, USNews, this article is 10 minutes old, Jewish telegraph Agency, Newsweek. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced. See
WP:NOTNEWS. Loads of people are the subject of a brief flurry of media attention; this is not the same as being notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I just reread Notnews, and I am not convinced, so I guess that's that. I am interested ot hear what EEngs has to say, I know he has strong feelings regarding wikipedia being used as a newspaper. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While there has an incredible flurry of news activity regarding the subject during the past 48 hours, I'll bet sums that they will still regularly be talking about this guy for the next few years. From my
past experience with NOTNEWS AfDs, some of which I !voted delete at, I have it found it better to wait some time after article creation, as it is easier to ascertain the level of good coverage as opposed to "They are writing articles on this guy? Me too!" which can just contribute to ref spam. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep The only thing that makes me pause is that these sources are all
Donald Trump Jr or it could be Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Or it could be something different altogether. Who knows? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

EXTRA Strong Keep The fact that they, it, is bare boned is not justification for deletion. If some of the wasted energy pursuing deletion, was apllied towards enhancing; this would benefit all. The fact that an article does not already exist is astounding and those favoring deletion may need to consider that. --
XfD. [reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment So I've been poking around back in my time machine :) and I found some older sources which help against SUSTAINED (if that is going be invoked): he was lawyer of defendants in Mafia case back in 2016 and here he is important enough to be mentioned twice as the lawyer in a cyberattack case against JP Morgan in 2014. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of Futerfas is very weak and prevents us from creating an NPOV article on him. Basically the Washington Post headline is a total attack "Trump Jr. hires a lawyer who defends mobsters". This is a back handed attempt at guilt by association. This is passing news, with no evidence that Futerfas as a lawyer is impactful. We should delete this article until we have thought out articles on the subject, not last minute news reports that are sensationalized to drive sales.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To continue on the problems with the Washington Post article, when someone writes that a victim was "an innocent teenager" they are clearly pushing a very specific point-of-view. No teenagers are innocent, and to describe them as such is to play them up as undeserving victims. They may well be, but the wording is clearly biased.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This passage later in the Washpo article tells me it is leading in a very biased way, and should be questioned as a good source that provides a good base to create a balanced article "He started his own firm the same year and expanded it over the years to cover a range of white-collar prosecutions, federal investigations and cybercrime cases." The whole "Trump Jr hires a mafia lawyer" is much less informed than "Trump Jr. hires a lawyer specializing in cyber crimes", which would seem to relate a lot more to some of the potential allegations against Trump Jr.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a search for Futerfas articles not mentioning Trump. There is a super lawyers profile, but I am not sure if that is reliable. Then there is this article [112] about a case of someone accused of securities fraud who had Futerfas as their lawyer. Here is a link about a case that Futerfas argued before the supreme court [113] but it seems to count as a primary source. What I really want to see is a scholarly discussion of how Futerfas's actions have increased the rights of defendants, preferably something that does not have an underlying assumption that convicting people accused of crimes is always a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - he is notable as a criminal defense attorney, particularly for the mafia and the Trump Jr only solidifies his notability. Here are some scholarly discussions, although I do not agree with the premise that these are necessary for notability of a criminal defense attorney. See [114] [115] [116] He is not Johnnie Cochran, but then again who is? --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable criminal defense attorney. In this case, working for notable clients means doing notable work, which makes him notable. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 02:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep always to be sufficiently consistent coverage to confirm to
velut luna 06:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

[2] Malkova, Mia. "Mia Malkova".

[3] Malkova, Mia. "Mia Malkova".

[1]

[2]