Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 14

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

I can find no evidence of notability for this brand of cement; the only reference is a press release by an importer, and all I find online is another press release by them. The article was PRODded already, but the PROD was removed by the creator (in an edit that did improve the article) so I don't believe it can be rePRODded. The PROD replaced a nomination for speedy deletion as pure promotion, which I don't believe is applicable in its current state (although others may disagree), and I find no other applicable speedy deletion criterion, since it doesn't fall into one of the categories for "no claim of significance". Yngvadottir (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Nothing notable about polymer-treated concrete. You can buy the additive in Home Depot. Rhadow (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortar (masonry)#Polymer cement mortar, which is the generic name for this product. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:31, 21 November 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 per

WP:SNOW. Proposing editor should maybe take the time to read some of the feedback provided on their talk page rather than immediately deleting it. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Uttarapurana

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

This article might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines

talk) 22:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if this is independently suitable for an article, but it is one of two parts of Mahapurana (Jainism), which is certainly suitable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up plenty of sources. "Uttara Purana" seems to be the more common spelling. – Joe (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are about a bazillion mentions in Google books. Notability vbery clearly established.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Topics as such are usually notable whereas most bio articles are not. NikolaiHo^☎️ 06:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough Soucres are avialable for Uttara Puran. Somebody just need to spend some time on it
talk) 06:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Most surviving (and some not surviving) texts from more than 1,000 ago are notable. Given the large amount of google-books and google-scholar references to this one - it is clearly notable as well.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 15 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Jenkins

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

Not notable. Simply being named as a contributor on a few research papers as an undergraduate (and being in a picture on a website) is not a credible claim of importance.

π, ν) 22:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources contribute to Notability. Three are research papers he has co-authored and are not coverage of him. And a caption on a photo is barely a passing mention. MB 01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: Wikipedia is not Linkedin ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG/NACADEMIC. South Nashua (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postcard Cathy (talk) 05:22, 21 November 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 keep. per

talk) 22:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

François Poulin de Francheville

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

This article needs more citations for verification, and its sources remain unclear.

talk) 22:45, 14 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Historians Association

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

Not notable, No working references. Mostly futurology. May not exist. Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely hoax.--Grahame (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~Delete ~~as yet.~~ If it is a hoax, the article itself would appear not. "International Historians Association" has non social media google hits but I have not checked to see if they are the same organisation here. Importantly though, a trustee for "International Historians Association" was a registered business entity for Australian taxation purposes until 24 April 2017. I think existence is satisfied but not necessarily GNG. Also note creation was by a now indefinitely blocked account. Aoziwe (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete. Readily fails GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot see how this can be notable, even if it does actually exist. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; not verifiable. No working references, and none found on Google search. An unclear case for notability even if the facts in the article were supported by references.
π, ν) 04:46, 20 November 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. Though if the nomination wants to consider making something like List of improvised firearms to merge these articles to, that is a separate issue that does not need to be resolved at AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galkatas

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

This stub, along with several others, really belong together in Improvised firearm Anmccaff (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 16:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

Comment - Galkatas definitely meets GNG - sources are evident in a BEFORE (which are absent in the low quality article). The question here really is about merging to improvised firearm while leaving a redirect to the section there. Paltik, Galkatas, and Improvised firearm (which seems to be focused on the really improvised side as opposed to more organized low-scale production by blacksmiths and metal shops) all need improvement. I'm undecided beyond this not being a delete (so keep or merge).Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Has characteristics that are separate from other metal shop production run in other areas of the world. Was used in Sri Lankan conflicts. improvised firearm is a poor merge target as it focuses on truly improvised weapons and not weapons produced by gunsmiths at metal shops. If we have an article on every Colt and Carl Gustav model, we can have an article on a notable regional weapon industry.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned by Icewhiz, this passes the GNG. It might or might not be merged later, but for now, keep it should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the problem I see with this and similar articles is they will tend to develop separately -needlessly, and as POV Forks. Contemporary firearms range from open large scale manufacture down to clandestine individual production, with a wide range of expertise as well. This is, so to speak, a three-dimensional model, not a binary split. Anmccaff (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is simply the Sri Lankan word for home made gun. It is not a recognized English language term and has no meaning outside was the Sri Lanka.--RAF910 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Icewhiz passes
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:19, 21 November 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 United Soccer League#Expansion clubs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USL Atlanta

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

Without additional evidence of notability, this seems like it's

WP:NSPORT Comatmebro (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Every other upcoming expansion team gets one. Why would this one be different? DSM FC (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Soccer League#Expansion clubs for now, until the club is able to establish its notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy If DSM FC is so certain about these clubs he should of kept them on his userspace until they have done enough to qualify for inclusion on wiki. Govvy (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Bushranger. Giant Snowman 16:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - insufficient notability for a standalone article, but a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if you delete it, but it's bizarre to take issue with this when we have the exact same pages for Bimringham, Austin, and Memphis and articles for several other clubs that haven't played yet.DSM FC (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing those out. I'll go and
  WP:BOLDly redirect them promptly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment it seems the article has already been turned into a redirect to
USL Atlanta at the time if this post. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Patrolling admin comment page was moved from USL Gwinnett County to
USL Atlanta. I have updated the nomination. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: My redirecting the other
WP:REDYES" (which I don't quite understand, since there were no red links involved). @Walter Görlitz:, is that relevant to this discussion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Or delete all of the fourth-division teams who have had less press than this team. Sorrt, REDYES was an error. They are a second division team and as many of the editors above have stated, that makes the team notable. Double-standard much? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I don't see anybody above stating that...and the teams do not yet exist, that is the entire point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Soccer League#Expansion clubs for now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:19, 21 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Connor

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The citations although a few seem a bit thin, if the top tier in Ireland was fully pro, I would say keep, but because it isn't he fails NFooty. Govvy (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2017
Keep top tier in Ireland is turning pro. Connor plays for a team which has recently turned fully professional with the supply of 52 week full time contracts to its players so he does qualify — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCsupporter2018 (talk • contribs)

reply Where is your evidence for the league turning pro? Govvy (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford Shamrock Rovers and Dundalk have since joined Cork in being fully professional. The league will soon be fully pro so keep! http://www.the42.ie/john-caulfield-52-week-contracts-3654376-Oct2017/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCsupporter2018 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately as that article says "While 52-week contracts are becoming increasingly more common again, particularly at clubs like Dundalk and Shamrock Rovers, they remain the exception rather than the rule", it pretty conclusively proves that the league isn't fully professional.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ there is tons of League of Ireland players who haven't made an appearance in the "fully pro" leagues as you say. The fully pro league argument is thin and these pages are very useful for League of Ireland fans especially during the transfer window to find out first hand info on players. These pages should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCsupporter2018 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:C543:2300:A850:D861:A1FF:83DD (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — 2A02:8084:C543:2300:A850:D861:A1FF:83DD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep good keeper with bright future. Page should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.118.62 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ he also has already achieved a lot at international level and league of Ireland. Page should be kept. Silly to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.118.62 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Should be kept bright future and good level — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.118.62 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, you may not !vote more than once. As this is not a simple majority vote, endlessly adding "keep" and a comment that isn't grounded in WP policies isn't going to sway the outcome, especially when the closing admin can see that the comments are all from the same person..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 21 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hayat

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

I've been absent from en.Wikipedia for a long time, so I'm more than happy to be found wrong with this nomination, but after stumbling upon it browsing, I thought it seemed tremendously non-notable and basically just a puff piece. There don't seem to be any Reliable Sources for the article, and I don't think being a Member of the Youth Parliament qualifies someone on its own, especially with BLP concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has a very definite
primary sources (his own LinkedIn, tweets, YouTube videos, etc.), coverage of other things or people in which he's the bylined author and not the subject (which are not sources that support the notability of a journalist), coverage of other things or people which merely namechecks his existence and is not about him (not notability-assisting sources either), and purely local coverage which is about him but is being given in the context of nothing that passes a notability criterion at all (e.g. suing a traffic cop over a parking ticket, starting a vigilante operation to catch somebody who stole his laptop.) Exactly none of this represents a valid reason why he would qualify a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete obvious self-promotion by a non-notable person. --RevivesDarks (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS providing significant, long-term coverage: fails
velut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 18:11, 16 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese newspapers: historical sources

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

Seems to be a case of

original research. The article reads more like an essay on loosely-related topics than anything else. Janet-O (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

This page has been around for a long time, but I agree its purpose is unclear. Could it perhaps be moved to a page within Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan as research guidance? --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete - Essentially the same content is already in Japanese_newspapers#Reproductions_of_Japanese_newspapers. I don't see the need for a separate version unless significantly different content is added. The version here has experienced a bit more copy editing, so perhaps some of that can be transferred over. Michitaro (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unsourced and all content exists in another article (where it rightly belongs) as shown above. No need of this separate parmanent stub — Ammarpad (talk) 18:54, 17 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons Africa

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

I'd removed this list from

Nicktoons (Africa) as per NOTGUIDE ... so the editor decides to create a subpage of it instead .... Still fails NOTGUIDE and still fails GNG, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete per
WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete NOTTVGUIDE, basic clone of
chatter) 00:08, 15 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genos Research

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

promotional, and no adequate sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no lead section, no real context and nothing proving its notablilty. PCN02 WPS 19:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH. Borderline A7 + G11. No real attempt has been made to make it remotely presentable; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 19 November 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. MER-C 08:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darry Ring

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

Non notable company (

WP:NCORP). References don't establish notability given they are promotional/advertorials: (1) the Forbes article establishes the owners as entrepreneurs. The company is mentioned in passing. (2) this reads like a press release, (3) is about a singer's wedding (where the ring is mentioned) - probable promo, (4) might pass as editorial, however the use of provided picture material is suspicious, (5) promo, (6) re-reporting the Forbes article. Really just mention in passing, (7) seems self-edited, (8) advertorial. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator is under investigation for sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle. Thanks. Timmyshin (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/G11 like the previous upload of this spam, or wait until the SPI's tags are in place and Speedy delete G5. Given that it's paid editing,
WP:SALT is required to prevent the customer hiring more spammers. Cabayi (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per G5. This belongs to the 123Aristotle sock/meatfarm. GAB^gab 02:43, 15 November 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. "Has a lot of users" is not an established notability criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watopia

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

Watopia is a virtual island in a non-notable piece of software. Should someone choose to write an article about the Zwift software, then perhaps mention could be made there about Watopia, but it certainly does not merit its own article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no need to keep a reference-less orphan article about a "fictional environment in [an] existing place" that only exists itself within a somewhat obscure cycling trainer/game. If someone were to make an article about Zwift itself, then I support a redirect, but until then I see no need having this article at all. PCN02 WPS 19:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous comment: the fact that Zwift is a red link is reason enough. Too many levels of non-notability has given me a headache ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 11:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep. Zwift has over 300,000 users so it's certainly notable, and Watopia is the main element of the system. Ideally a Zwift article should be created (it's about as obscure as the Tour de France) and this content merged in, but pending that, Watopia stays. Dan100 (Talk) 15:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIGNUMBER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete for now, or ideally hold fire until someone recreates
Draft:Zwift page which only needs a bit of editing and more references, which are straightforward to find, e.g. Gizmodo, Bloomberg, Denver Post, Daily Telegraph and (more than a little ironically) Outside magazine. I'd do it myself but I don't have time just at the moment. Qwfp (talk) 14:04, 19 November 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) 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small Brain Records

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

Completely unsourced article about a small independent record label, with a slight

WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, every record label does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because its own web presence verifies that it exists -- it needs to be the subject of enough media coverage to pass a sourceability standard, but there's no such coverage being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a ton of redlinks, no claims of notability, and no secondary references.
π, ν) 17:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:53, 21 November 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.

GMO conspiracy theories

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

This page is nothing but a one-sided POV fork of Genetically modified food controversies, which pejoratively labels criticism of biotechnology companies as "conspiracy theory." Obviously Monsanto et al do conspire—i.e. make secret plans—internally and with others, but these plans should be presented in a more neutral fashion. groupuscule (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Science and technology or possibly List of conspiracy theories#Medicine. Maybe make a few new sections within those and briefly describe the conspiracies, if any, listed in the article in question? PCN02 WPS 19:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

The article lumps in a set of loosely related ideas under the pejorative label “conspiracy theory,” thus associating justified concerns (e.g. “powerless farmers forced to pay ever increasing amounts to anonymous international companies who profit from the cost of the crop seed and from the cost of the herbicides used to spray them”) with spurious and short-lived internet memes about the Zika virus and Chipotle.

Keep. GMOs are a polarising topic. Like other similarly controversial subjects there is criticism that is justified (environmental concerns and IP issues) and then false information that can only be described as a conspiracy theory (deliberate attempts to poison the world). An article that examines the more out there claims is valid. Personally I would like to see this in the larger context of GMO activism, which is a more nuanced and interesting (to me) topic, but there is no
WP:Deadline and there is not much wrong with the article as is. AIRcorn (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This more or less is intended to behave the same as
talk) 22:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Bad faith nomination by an anti-GMO
WP:ACTIVIST who probably should be topic banned. jps (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article could be improved but there's nothing outstandingly wrong with as is. I have to second the notion that this nomination was not made in the best faith given the editing history of the nominater. Capeo (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GMO and food safety related conspiracy theories are notable enough to be covered. —Paleo Neonate – 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (
WP:SNOW) per kingofaces and others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per Aircorn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SNOW. Bad faith nomination of a well-sourced article based on what seems like overt POV pushing.
talk) 12:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The second sentence of the lede reads as follows:

These conspiracy theories include claims that agribusinesses, especially Monsanto, have suppressed data showing that GMOs cause harm, deliberately cause food shortages to promote the use of GM food, or have co-opted government agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration or scientific societies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Industry influence on the FDA and the AAAS is a mater of record (Michael R. Taylor, [1], [2], [3], ), so to call this idea a “conspiracy theory” is wrong—since, according to the definition on Wikipedia, a “conspiracy theory” posits an “unwarranted” conspiracy (and is a “derogatory” term.)

The last section of the article, titled “Ethical Criticism”, showcases a long quotation smearing GMO critics as “paranoid and misinformed” or as privileged Whole Foods shoppers. Its underlying premise is that biotech foods are truly wonder foods that will save the world, and so anyone who opposes them is wittingly or unwittingly doing something unethical. This is not useful, encyclopedic information.

Perhaps some of the people advocating against deletion could state a little more clearly their vision for how this article could be written in a neutral way. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. It would be inappropriate to respond to the above claims here. The place to discuss that is the article talk page. Even if the article isn't neutral, We don't delete articles because they are not neutral. --Guy Macon (talk)

Keep: the editor who filed this AfD has not provided a valid reason for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all of the above. These conspiracy theories really do exist, and the deletion argument is largely a matter of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 15:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Additional comment. Just a note that the same nominator has also created another article in what appears to be in opposition to this
talk) 21:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Question/observation for keep voters above. Check out the most recent addition to this article, a description of two films "which countered the growing anti-GMO sentiment among the public". In my view this provides a great example of how the "conspiracy theory" label creeps into a smear against all opposition to genetic engineering. Notice that
Genetic Literacy Project is given as a source. I don' see anything here discriminating between "quack" and "legitimate" criticism; I see all criticism being painted with a broad brush. To those "keep" voters who believe this article needs to exist in its own right in order to discriminate, specifically, the quackery, do you consider this most recent edit acceptable? I would really like to have a dialogue about this, as I indicated above. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 18:41, 19 November 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

DCM Shriram group. Redirects do not require notability, merely appropriateness. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Fenesta

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

Fails

DCM Shriram group, and that appears to be all that is appropriate. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent,
DCM Shriram group. I see no in-depth coverage supporting independent notability, just links to what are essentially press releases and promotional blurb. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not sufficient claim to notability even for a redirect. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does a redirect need notability? The company is mentioned at the suggested target, and though there's not a lot about it there, it is Wikipedia content and people should be able to find it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 15 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Hall

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

Fails

WP:BIO. Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability Rogermx (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a postdoc it's too soon for the subject to pass
WP:BLP1E that hasn't even happened yet. – Joe (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. She's clearly too junior for
WP:GNG for non-academic material, making academic notability irrelevant. I expanded the bare-url sources in the article and added another, which saves her from BIO1E: she's "one of the few female founders of tech start-ups in Perth" [4]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The article about RateMySpace is in her university's promotional magazine, I don't think it can be considered an independent source as far as
WP:SIGCOV is concerned. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep She passes GNG and I've rewritten the article, too and added a little bit more. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes
talk) 02:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

In light of article expansion, as nominator will change to keep. Thank you for upgrading this article. I love a happy ending. Rogermx (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes
WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as there are sufficient sources for
WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:49, 18 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panjabi Hit Squad

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

Non-notable musicians. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 21 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skindiver (trademark)

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

Violated

WP:PRODUCT - Trademark is dead in US according to US patent office http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:ek2t7e.2.2. Cannot find any reliable source that discusses product and indicates owner of it or where it is trademarked. Rogermx (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 20:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 22:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 22:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete as per nom. Refs are largely to a body-modification wiki, and aren't about the Trademark, which is the nominal subject of this bizarre article.
π, ν) 17:07, 20 November 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 keep arguments are more convincing(ly supported by evidence). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gator's Dockside

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

no evidence of significance, let alone notability. Local references only--and they are pr or pr-based DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the article looks like a business listing and the references appear to be native advertising. Simply not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable; advertising and trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional references added since the article was PRODded support
WP:SIGCOV. A regional chain to be sure, but one which has attracted notice in several independent media sources over the years. The article can certainly be improved and expanded, but it no longer is supported solely by pr pieces or only local coverage. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- an unremarkable restaurant chain, not meeting
WP:NCORP. Reads like a directory listing and / or franchise ad; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. There's a lot of coverage in gnews search - most of it is routine, but there are also incidents like [5] [6] [7] [8] and others - they got
that's not what AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 21 November 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Millar

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

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

I reviewed the article Steve Millar and its edit history. Some observations:

The article itself includes nothing of notability. The subject attended high school, released three self-produced albums, appeared in groups of no significance beyond being local bands, and apparently is not involved in anything of note other than performing with a band that is at hire to play for events.

The edit history indicates that most of the article was written by unregistered editors (only IP addresses and redlink authors are noted) and that the appearance of established editors (myself included) was for general cleanup.

Meanwhile, the only citation links to a Mac site that has nothing I could find to confirm the subject's biography.

I could be wrong but this article strikes me as being the work of people who are close to the subject. What I am certain of, however, is that the use of language here is promotional (making more of things than is there) and that the lack of significant detail (information of interest to general readers) indicates little could be done to improve the article. Allreet (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AFD. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply