Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seek and Destroy (1996 video game)

Seek and Destroy (1996 video game) (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 article doesn't cite any source. A Google search only shows up links to wikis and archives, so it doesn't seem to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The VGRS search turns up... not a lot. --Izno (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Numerous magazine reviews establish notability. Additional reviews at http://hol.abime.net/1862/review . Deltasim (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Deltasim. You often need to look in magazines when writing about older games, especially if they're not still very well-known to this day.--
  talk 08:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Mobygames has a buttload of reviews and even has many of them archived as PDF's 1993 version 1996 version Most games prior to a certain date don't have online reviews and are only in magazines. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets
  WP:GNG per sources added to the article after this nomination and presented in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 6 August 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 doesn't seem to be any clear agreement whether the sources presented here, and those used to improve the article during the debate, can clearly show notability. The discussion has got quite heated, so I think it's best to close it now than prolong the argument for another week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedego Electric Bikes

Pedego Electric Bikes (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)

Our policies WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Promotion are explicitly clear what can and cannot be accepted, and business webhosting is one of them, take for example: 1 is an indiscriminate news "guide-like article, 2 is an self-service business profile, 3 is company website, 4 is a similarly worded indiscriminate guide, 5 is from an indiscriminate trade publisher as is 6 and 7; with 8 being about store locations, which the first policy explicitly says: "business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions ". Acceptiny shape or form of advertising makes us a search engine or advertiser, and that's explicitly what our fundamental pillars fight against, this is no differently. If we then consider what else exists about this company, see this and this, with the latter offering: 1-9, 11-13, are store locations and 10, 15-20, 21 is a self-service company profile, 22-23 are business listings so are once again guides before repeating back and forth on the next page. WP:Notability makes clear: A topic is presumed to be notable if it is not excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia not policy. The WMF has also made clear that we are not to accept any advertising including covert ones, so the 2 accounts here and here aren't any different. Also, as WP:Notability says, articles must be in notability-condition to be accepted otherwise, or else it's simply a misuse of Wikipedia mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Keep – Meets
  WP:AUD, having received national-level news coverage in Newsweek, Maxim and CNET. After some minor copy editing, the article does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - These are the same exact sources posted here and the Huntington Beach Independent is in my analysis above, source of which in itself is unacceptable for WP:CORP as it's an announcement, see policy statement above. WP:AUD actually says nothing about instant guarantees and, like with WP:Notability, emphasizes WP:What Wikipedia is not, is priority, not contrary. WP:GNG actually says: Sources except routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention". If we somehow start considering republished press releases as these are, independent, then we are not longer WP:NPOV (policy). Current article as currently existing has not significantly changed or shown this is not simply a hosted business profile. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The sources provided above are
  notable
  company. Is it really necessary for large swaths of text to be in bold here?

Did you actually read the sources above? Sorry, no offense, and I try to

assume good faith, but it seems unlikely, per the timespan of this discussion thus far. Furthermore, regarding "These are the same exact sources posted here", the CNET article I posted above is not the same CNET source that is in the article, it's an entirely different article, and the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Weekly and Huntington Beach Independent articles I posted above are not in the article at all. As such, it comes across that you have not actually read the sources I posted above at all, which is disappointing, because these discussion are supposed to be objective and fact-based. Lastly, after some simple copy editing, this is the current state of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy keep SK#1 or Keep  After skimming it three times, I still don't see an argument for deletion in the nomination.  Nor do I see the evidence of using WP:BEFORE to confirm that there is a value to an AfD.  I also made a casual review of the article and the names of the publishers of the sources and the titles of the sources and the date of founding of the company, and the only WP:NOT problems I see here are that Wikipedia is not censored and that Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Here is the first sentence from the 11 April 2015 Newsweek article, "Since its humble beginnings in 2009, Pedego has been....No. 2 in the U.S. and making a considerable footprint overseas as well."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep is inapplicable given there are 3 policies in the nomination and the fact COI accounts is a factor, and I even linked news searches. As for Keep, what's the policy basis for contesting the said policies? There's no weight on how this nomination is violating policy or is malformed at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you will read what I said, it says, "I...don't see an argument for deletion in the nomination".  Your reply here is that policies are mentioned in the nomination.  There are even more policies mentioned at WP:Policies and guidelines, but that doesn't make WP:Policies and guidelines an argument for deletion for Pedego Electric Bikes.  I can't refute an argument that doesn't exist.  However, given the extensive work your nomination has caused other editors to do, it is also not right that this AfD should be closed WP:NPASR when the worldwide scope of this topic is clear from the sources.  Yes, you've linked news searches, but there is no context for why you've done this.

COI accounts is not mentioned in the nomination and has nothing to do with this AfD, because even if they exist, which is hard to prove, the article has been edited recently. 

I also stated, "Nor do I see the evidence of using WP:BEFORE to confirm that there is a value to an AfD."  I don't understand why you'd put effort into that nomination and then skip the essential elements of preparing the community for a discussion.  It makes no sense to me.  Please withdraw this nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For analysis purposes, I will pin everything these sources say and, regardless of whether there's this or that, they are still promotional because:
• manufactured the Pedego Electric Bike, a colorful, sleek-looking beach cruiser with a battery pack that allows...exercise, and....the throttle and glide with nary a foot-pound or coulomb expended,
• manufactured the Pedego Electric Bike, a colorful, sleek-looking beach cruiser with a battery pack that allows one to decide when and how much one should exercise....twist the throttle and glide....,
• has dedicated Pedego store nearby....opened new stores in....making for a grand total of 65 brick-and-mortar shops from New Orleans to Dubai. Prices....$2,295 and go....depending on options,
• glide down the boulevard at 20 mph with your glutes as free from stress.... Thank Pedego’s pedal assist mode, accomplished with a wee twist of the wrist,....delivers a jolt of juice to....rear-wheel hub motor when your own energy reserves....ot....hit an uphill grade, whichever comes first.,
• shifting, seven-speed Shimano gear hub, grabby-good Avid BB7 brakes and a responsive twist-grip throttle, Do buy an industrial-strength lock for this....the battery locks up nicely,
• Stretch Cargo design, capable of holding up to 400 pounds, meaning another human being or two or a backpack full of gold bullion ---- Pedego $2895.00,
• Ford-branded beach cruiser powered by an electric battery that buys the rider up to 20 miles of pedal-free operation -- or longer, if the rider pedals part of the time., He formed the company,
• The plug-in electric bikes, which retail for about $2,000 to $3,000 (the Ford Super Cruiser is $3695), are designed in Irvine, pre-assembled in China from parts built there and elsewhere in Asia, then finished in California, said the company's seller,
• Electric bike brand Pedego has opened a store in Belmont . The bicycles are designed to provide an environmentally friendly alternative means of transportation. The shop is open for sales, tours, and rentals. The company is based in Orange County, Calif., and has more than 800 stores around the world. The Belmont shop is at -- Electric bike brand Pedego has opened a store in Belmont . The bicycles are designed to provide an environmentally friendly alternative means of transportation. The shop is open for sales, tours, and rentals. The company is based in Orange County, Calif., and has more than 800 stores around the world (this one is a clearly labeled "area business" therefore not significant), The Indepdent is also clearly labeled as "community news" therefore not significant, see:
• new 39,000-square-foot building will have a showroom where people can view and test out the products, though they are not sold on site. The bikes are sold at more than 80 Pedego stores nationwide, including one in Huntington Beach at 301 Fifth Street, and other bicycle shops. The bikes, said CEO. [The CEO] said the bicycles -- he said, "That's what our bikes are". and all of these are in serious violation of WP:Not how-to since it not only says how you use the bicycle, but what its components are, what it costs, what the background is, etc. Not once was there a single paragraph without the company or employee's involvement, therefore that would not satisfy WP:NPOV. Accepting any promotionalism in exchange for eliminating NPOV altogether, is a serious concern for an encyclopedia. As the company well knows, there are numerous PR agencies or hosts it can use, but it should be clear Wikipedia is not one of them. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The comment directly above contains
  WP:INVOLVED in this AfD discussion, so I posted a request for this matter to be addressed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG with material including LA Times and Newsweek, as well as other slightly less historic publications like Maxim. Article could be expanded with details such as product reviews in the various publications already cited. The AfD debate above seems to be drifting far from the topic and irrelevancies should be taken elsewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. the purported references are essentially PR. It doesn't matter where they are published, the criteria for substantial discussion excludes this sort of dvertising. This article started as a blatant advertising draft by an obviously coi editor. Two experienced editors refused to move it into mainspace. The ed.primarily defending his own work above wrote the rest and moved it himself. What I do not understand is why that editor thinks other people's advertisements to be worth the effort, either writing them or defending them. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi
  news articles are derived from PR, such as links to press releases from which the articles are supposedly based upon? Press releases are often easily found in Internet searches. One can type in the titles of the articles I listed above in Google searches to find potential duplicate content in PR sources. My searches have not yielded any proof that the sources are PR-derived. Without any proof, your assessment comes across as speculation, rather than as fact-based. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete because it's natural that any company will have public relations and that's what those jobs are for, to help and promote the company at their own gain and will, and it's been applied in nearly every other AfD, and this is no different. For example, I looked at the next sources posted in the nomination's News Search, and 24-34 are all the same announcements in the same manner so the clear logic is, not that all publishers copied each other, but that the company handed it to them, therefore it's primary enough to violate GNG. Take sources like this, this, this; they're all from different websites, supposed times, areas and people yet it's the same content, including content that mirrors their own press releases like this and this since they're equally posted at different websites, time and areas. See WP:NOT's quote: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors. That's actually also considering the same sources claimed to be acceptable by one of the Keeps, so the concern of such promotionalism still exists. That is exactly what's offered here, and that's an acceptable policy-based nomination. As mentioned, the article should actually be improved so there are clear chances of gauging whether the article can be accepted or not, and not simply the claims if it could. The concerns simply aren't in the article or sources alone, but in the history, see this one account which made a clear violation of WP:Not FAQ, so I agree that's a serious concern enough to warrant deletion. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets
  WP:AUD, having received national-level news coverage in Newsweek, Maxim and CNET. After some minor copy editing, the article does not have a promotional tone at this time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've thought about this for quite a while, and there sure are a lot of articles that appear to provide notability. However, none of them meet
  WP:NCORP
  standards:
  • Maxim - I don't believe this is an independent source. Maxim is by and large not a cycling publication, and while I don't know what the US standard is, over here such glowing gadget reviews in light reading such as fashion / GQ tend to be paid for. It doesn't help that Maxim's other bicycle reviews exhibit similar prose. And beside the point, this confers notability to the product, not to the company, which is mentioned once in the form of a bare URL.
  • Newsweek - The source does actually discuss the company. However, the author is David Weiss, who may well be the same David Weiss who authored the Maxim puff-piece, so it likely fails the independent critierion.
  • CNET - Finally a reasonable review that mentions the cons as well as the pros, but it's coverage of the product, and not the company. Per
    WP:PRODUCT
    : "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right."
  • LA Times - May well have been based on an updated riff of [6]. Even if not, and if this is indeed an independent source, I'd argue that as
    WP:GNG
    is not being met here.
  • OC Weekly - A product review which does discuss the company, but doesn't meet
    WP:ORGDEPTH
    , since the company discussion part is sourced from quotes and reports by the company owner.
  • Huffington Post - This may well be significant coverage, but I'm not sure how independent it is, and certainly how reliable, considering it's chock full of company owner quotes.
  • Boston Globe - Routine coverage
  • Huntington Beach Independent - Local coverage of the opening of new company headquarters with a parade. This is not coverage of the parade, but merely an announcement relayed from the company in one way or another
  • Forbes - Another product review, company not discussed

On the whole, we've got a lot of dubious sources, some of which may be independent, some of which may meet

WP:GNG, but considering how shaky the foundations of building this article would be, and how easy it is for a company with a PR department to produce such sources, I'm inclined to vote delete. Daß Wölf 23:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment No compliance with

WP:Before

.

Pointedly, it is the largest electric bike retailer in the country. Mark, Lois Alter (26 January 2015). "Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs Creating Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs Creating Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs".

The Huffington Post. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Says who, the company? That claim in Huffington Post (whose reliability has been questioned by me and others above) is hyperlinked to the LA Times source. As for that article, just look at its structure. We have Company #1 and Company #2 that have joined forces. The cooperation has produced a new product, which is described, touted, and priced. The lesser known company's history is told, with their other products also mentioned and priced in passing, and we also have quotations from owners/spokespeople describe their plans for the future. Over half the article's paragraphs are of the type "company/owner/spokesman said...". No commentary by the article author, no opinions or any statements by a third party whatsoever. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but that's a press release to me, not a reliable secondary source which I'd like to have to cite such a bold assertion.

As for

WP:BEFORE, I had found other sources on Google, but I don't see much of a point in dissecting every three-paragraph report on a store opening or closing. If you have any better sources, feel free to drop a link. Daß Wölf 01:10, 5 August 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) 19:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Heponiemi

Aleksi Heponiemi (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A conference "Rookie of the Year" award in a minor league does not satify
  WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 5 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Dellandrea

Ty Dellandrea (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete only a junior and has not played any league specified in WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails Nhockey, but actually does OK next to the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails
  WP:GNG is met. An article in a local paper saying he'd be appearing in an under-17 tournament (not even a world championship) isn't enough for me. Papaursa (talk) 21:22, 7 August 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) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleHR

PeopleHR (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)

Lacks

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not meet
  WP:GNG, as per several source searches; not finding enough coverage to qualify an article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH. There are very few references out there at all actually and the ones that are there simply mention the name. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fsils GNG and is lacking in
  WP:CORPDEPTH. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:25, 5 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Tarz

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

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

Proposed deletion declined by the author without addressing the concerns: the channel has 1,147 subscribers and the allegedly viral video has 254,787 views. No meaningful coverage of the Youtuber in RSs, fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notable for one YouTube video. Sources do appear to meet
  WP:ONEEVENT I do not find the subject notable enough to further the goals of the encyclopedia. Due to Wikipedia's policy against citing YouTube as a source, the inclusion of a relatively obscure YouTube does not bode well for the future improvement of this article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete No evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails
  WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 20:11, 3 August 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. This has remained listed for 8 days with no arguments to keep it. Enigma^msg 00:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buchalter

Buchalter (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)

Questionable notability. Many of the sources (3-8) are merely listings on websites or various "top places to work" clickbait lists. Sources 1, 9, and 10 aren't primarily about this law firm; again, just top 50 type lists for regional law firms. Source #2 doesn't support notability by itself. Note that the editor who created this article is blocked for undisclosed paid editing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete not notable enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:NOQUORUM? I would have expected this to be treated as a PROD, especially with two editors agreeing on deletion. (This guideline changed substantially a few months back, so you may be unaware of it.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @BU Rob13: The guideline says "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the AfD nomination as an expired PROD." and "If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page." (emphasis added both times) Here we have comments from another editor, so the first part does not fit and we had no relist, so the second part does not fit neither. Personally, I would not mind the guideline to read "no comments from any editor besides the nominator or only delete comments" but alas it doesn't. I am aware that my adherence to written policy and guidelines has been criticized just recently but I don't think it's appropriate to ignore the guideline when it was just worded like this a few months back. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll make the bold fix; I was the person who did the re-write in the first place, and I didn't anticipate anyone interpreting additional support for deletion as somehow supporting keeping the article for longer... ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:51, 30 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.

Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to
  Mir Sham ud-Din Iraqi. Appears to be the same person. Better article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - It looks like the merge tag was there before you submitted this to AfD. Is there a reason why this should be deleted and not merged to the other article? It seems like an uncontroversial merge/redirect and seems like a reasonable alternative search, and thus a fair candidate for redirect. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like Uncontroversial merge to me, now the other article has been identified. It needs a proper merge, by someone who knows about the subject, not a mere redirect. I am concerned about the number of red-links in the article we at discussing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 1 August 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) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Srinivasan

Shankar Srinivasan (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 person fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the nomination. Poor blog sources do not establish notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not see and did not find significant independent coverage in reliable sources to show
  WP:GNG is met. There's also nothing that supports a claim of martial arts notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:20, 5 August 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.

Laurie Davidson (actor)

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

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

Article about a newly graduated actor who has gained a lead role in a US cable TV series this month. As such, he doesn't yet meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep (as the primary author) This is an easy
  WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Fails
  WP:BLP1E (well, strictly speaking the "event" is the same TV show but that's not what BLP1E is about). Regards SoWhy 08:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep
  WP:NACTOR. DrStrauss talk 17:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I think a consensus has been reached here and I agree with it: NACTOR isn't met, but GNG is definitely met. Given the refs, I think NACTOR will be met eventually at this rate anyway. South Nashua (talk) 13:07, 3 August 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) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taskwise

Taskwise (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 company fails notability standards. Daylen (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG poorly sourced to blogs and press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Probably could go with speedy as there are virtually no sources out there, especially nothing in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 5 August 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.

Glorious India Award - Rich and Famous NRIs of America

Glorious India Award - Rich and Famous NRIs of America (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)

Struggling to see any basis for why this "award" might be considered notable. Can't find anything beyond regurgitated press releases, and can't find the awarding criteria. Edwardx (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Not able to locate reliable sources--Wikishagnik (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 30 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. SoWhy 07:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis BITS Pilani

Oasis BITS Pilani (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)

What was true for the

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A large pile of junk. Nothing to establish notability. I chopped an enormous amount of promotional text. Salt. 104.163.142.4 (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. festival apparently at a single college. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 7 August 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.

]

Dustin Cumming

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

Dustin Cumming (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 individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has appeared on multiple notable television shows. A news search brings back some press releases, but also some LA Times articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I concur with Ritchie333. He appeared on several notable shows and has continual ongoing press in Los Angeles Times, and is now publishing a book. According to Wiki guidelines, "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." A news search brings back 4 LA Times feature articles; other newspaper articles can be found on the web. All the other co-hosts for the Selling NY, Million Dollar listing also have Wiki pages (those pages are written similarly) and most of the hosts of the same TV shows have Wiki pages deemed "notable" pursuant to community standards. If permitted, I can provide the reference links to all the other TV hosts with approved-Wiki articles. Also, he is co-writing a book with a New York times bestselling author (who has a wikipedia page) to be released in 2018. Mbarywiki (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Comment: I am somewhat new to Wikipedia. This is my first voting situation. Wanted to cast one vote only -- rather than take an "all or nothing" approach, I am more than willing to hear suggestions on how this page can be improved and further edited and to learn from people who are more experienced. If I did not follow the protocol, I apologize. We all have a learning curve. Mbarywiki (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this isn't "purely promotional", it is surely close enough. SPA creator, whiff of Coi, minimal 3rd party sources. If this were about a genuinely notable subject, cleanup would make sense, but this is a case where the
  Britanica test makes sense: In a pre-internet world, would the subject have shown up in People, or an Encyclopedia? Broadsheet or tabloid? Journalism or Press release? This looks on the wrong side of all of these. Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: The creator of this article just changed the words I wrote above, and added a second keep vote. I've reverted both, and left a talkpage warning. Anmccaff (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the page just added a couple of blatant examples of flouting

WP:NPA. I've reverted them, and left a warning. Anmccaff (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Diffs? I have warned the editor above about warning without evidence, removing comments they don't like, and claiming personal attacks where none exist. If somebody disagrees with you at an AfD, accept it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This TV Personality is note-worthy. Any & all doubt can be removed by the numbers- which are completely objective. The article created is already getting approximately 100 views per day from the general public while in the voting process. If he wasn't note-worthy, he wouldn't have been covered by the LA Times repeatedly nor would anyone be interested in publishing his book. RobertUpton (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• — RobertUpton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am very dubious about how this AfD has gone. The above "editor" has, as noted,
  sock puppetry is at play here, especially as it comes not long after Richie advised a keep result is likely if another keep vote is given. I think the admin who handles the AfD should be mindful that the support for keep isn't necessary, at this stage, as strong as the article editor would like it to be. In fact, it would seem only 1 recognised editor, with the conflicted article author aside, has thus far voted to keep. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I am a newbie... Some Wiki veterans have been teaching me through their positive example (Thank you Ritchie333.) As I understand it, this discussion is supposed to be about whether someone is notable, has sources, and how the article can be improved. According to Wiki guidelines, "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." A news search brings back 4 LA Times feature articles, and several notable TV shows. This article subject has the required coverage from independent reliable sources. Several co-host and co-authors have independent Wiki pages. I understood this page is for discussion of the merits. Lets please discuss the merits (without personal attacks on private pages (talk)) and focus on the discussion at hand. If a topic received coverage in reliable sources and co-hosts all have standalone Wikipedia articles, seems clear that this article should be "presumed suitable for a stand-alone article." Lets focus on the merits. I am most grateful. Thank you. Mbarywiki (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just need to take a step back and let the process run its course; continually defending your own view when others don't absolutely agree with your position isn't all that helpful to achieving a fair consensus. Whilst it's a slight COI to post in an AfD for an article you are the primary author for, I think it's generally still allowed but you had a chance already to express your viewpoint so please just let it run. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify to Draft:Dustin Cumming as I can't find a compelling reason at this stage to vote for or against deletion, but moving to the draftspace would afford the editor some time to improve the article outside of the mainspace. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bungle Thank you for the invaluable direction and feedback. Much appreciated. Mbarywiki (talk) 19:04, 6 August 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 Wait (Phase album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Article doesn't comply to both General Notability and Notability:Music guidances.--SubRE (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Only it does... :) any experienced wikipedian with music background can see with a bit of googling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The sources are either
  notable.--Darth Mike^(talk) 17:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep *You are absolutely ignorant... we need indie rock experts here not your personal views... the BBC thing covers it... go read what rotation is... It's not down to your personal opinion on what's notable... Mid range acts have encyclopedic interest... their fans pack clubs and their fans buy records... You don't know anything about music... Google rolling stones sticky fingers, arguably the biggest band and their most known record and let me know how many non primary mentions you will find let alone, king crimson, etc. or a big mid range band... Post punk revival is a niche genre, but let it to the experts to decide you can't just do things because of spite... I can start pasting links I found but unless experts on the matter comment I don't see how this is constructiveMusicPatrol (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @MusicPatrol: consider yourself warned. Please remain civil, even if you disagree with a certain opinion. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more, although the article seems to meet the notability criteria. I guess it's subject of where you are in the world and what's your search engine. 3 years is a lot of time for an album and 404's are taking their toll. This place is for constructive discussion and knowledge sharing, not rivalry between the users! Peace brothers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.229.76 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I will go with keep as well, done some edits, meet's notability criteria, it certainly needs to be worked on, but I wouldn't say it should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.229.76 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article can be fixed, deleting should be the last resort! Asouko (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment how many do you need and in how many languages? It does pass general notability One, two, three, obviously the magazine that has Eric Burdon interviewed that has their review and interview and is a reference in the article is great too, or the cover/co-operation with them being discussed in Rooms Magazine... Asouko (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't why are you removing big chunks of text @
  A Social Grace, I don't get your fixation but the articles are totally fixable and notable and parts of progressive rock wiki project Asouko (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Just to sum up... We know how hard it is to prove a negative, please reread all the comments above, the article should stay and I will improve it in time, there is material for it in the internet and magazines. You can't just erase an article just because someone woke up on the wrong side and decided to tagbomb for whatever reason, especially when experienced editors have tweaked the article in the past and never left a tag, notability once established is not going away... there are enough sources to prove notability Asouko (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article says that something was "designed by the respected in the field of commerce artist, Alexis Marcou". Hmmm. Of course, "the respected artist Alexis Marcou" would be perfectly idiomatic and grammatical. (Yes, it's somewhat peacocky and unencyclopedic, but this is a separate issue.) However, using a preposition phrase to modify an adjective used attributively, without moving that adjective, brings a result that's unidiomatic at best. This infelicity isn't of a kind that I often encounter. But this page on the band's own website says: "All complimented by the famous for his Marvel​ and DC Comics​ works Bill Sienkiewicz". I start to wonder if the two writers could be related. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC) ...typo fixed Hoary (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about whoever did it inspired by a press release? Somebody pinged my but I can't find the link really could you help Hoary? MusicPatrol (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage about the album from independent, reliable sources to show it passes
  WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think you didn't have a proper look there, having charted on last.fm and having songs aired on BBC aside from the reviews should be a strong enough proof for you that it should be kept MusicPatrol (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet [[[WP:NALBUM]] and significant RS coverage not found. I'd normally say "Redirect" to the band (Phase (band)) but given the amount of SPA editing, best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]