Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 11

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.

So the long way around, the vast majority of compelling arguments are the ones worrying about the list being INDISCRIMINATE and recommending deletion. And so delete it is. PS: For people who wonder what each ALLCAPS WORD means, just paste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOMETHING into your address bar and replace SOMETHING with the ALLCAPS WORD you are curious about Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of gaming platforms

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}}.

Comparison of gaming platforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While the PROD for the article didn't really contain an argument why the list was unencyclopedic, I believe the article is

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article and discussion have been linked to by the PC Master Race subreddit, with over 10,000 upvotes. --PresN 12:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The administrators of PCMR has asked for people not to actively contribute or to make accusations. Dark-World25 (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not serve an encyclopedic purpose. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 00:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind explaining why? Does this article "serve an encyclopedic purpose": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software ? Encyclopedias I know are full of tables with comparisons. Do you think gaming platforms aren't relevant?
    canvassed to this discussion. [reply
    ]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a sufficient counterargument, regardless of what they think, the articles should be considered on their own merits. While asking why is a legitimate question, it should stop there, without bringing the debate onto other articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • In its current state, it looks like half an article that is completely impregnable to anyone who doesn't know the lingo. Also, I have issues with the "Platforms in Competitive Gaming" section that feels like it just adds to the PC superiority thing the article has going on. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see, thanks for the reply. So if I understand correctly you think the article is biased and fixing it would be too much work for too little gain. While I disagree, I can see your point. Thanks.
          canvassed suspicions. I am not feeling welcome by this hostile behavior. Please do not forget assume good faith. Maybe I also just want a useful encyclopedia. Real Joe Cool (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • My "issue" is that it is odd for users that have not edited in several years to suddenly reappear for the sole purpose of influencing a contentious AFD. You made a single edit two years ago, and have otherwise been inactive for five years. Thank you for clarifying that you "do not intend to participate further here."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • @
              WP:FAITH! tonyxc600 comms logs 04:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • @TheTimesAreAChanging:I'm an active user, here only due to the publicity this got and to share my own valid opinions and contribute to something I feel I might have some insight on. I wholeheartedly agree that you going around tagging canvassing accusations is not contributing at all to this discussion. If someone has a good idea, i don't care if they're a ten-year editor or someone who just created their first Wikipedia account. Please remember TheTimes, RfDs are not seeking a majority vote, simply ideas. You'd do well to focus on the topic rather than on the individuals contributing. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 00:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • • Yes, of course we're "looking for ideas", but we're looking for the ideas of informed, neutral editors who are interested in building an encyclopedia, not conforming to the POV pushing efforts of a Reddit group. It's not hard to tell who is who when people make their first edit in 3 years to make an emotional plea with no basis in policy. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • To be fair, it's clear at this point that there's canvassing going around both for the Keep and Delete argument with a lot of
                      The Fifth Horseman (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
                      ]
• Delete - per nom. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To expand, since arguments have erupted below, and its not as quite as "open and shut" as I would have guessed: The concept is already better covered in a number of other ways that make far more sense. (
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Bad faith nomination. The recent kerfluffle was organized by the exact same editors who vandalized the PC Master Race article about a year ago with a whole bunch of spurious references to Nazi stuff. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is
    WP:TDLI. If what you claim is true, then there should exist a policy based argument to retain the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • No, their claim is that the nomination itself is
      canvassed to this discussion. [reply
      ]
      • Seeing that I've been tagged - no. I don't edit often, but seeing the AfD mentioned elsewhere I took a look as it's an area of interest. I don't appreciate the implication by whomever applied the canvas tag that those opposed to this who contribute infrequently were canvassed. ReidE96 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is zero evidence that the PC Master Race article was ever vandalized. There was a subsection dedicated to its etymology that included a single objective sentence to Naizi ideology, which made sense in context, and which also helped to elucidate why some journalists objected to its appropriation. Alas, some editors attempted to delete the sentence on dubious grounds, and having failed, went running off to Reddit to muster support. — Niche-gamer 09:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That "objective" sentence constituted blatant violation of
      The Fifth Horseman (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Once more, I will say that you are being unnecessarily antagonistic. Operate in and
      canvassed to this discussion. [reply
      ]
      • Once more, I am merely stating the facts. — Niche-gamer 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article definitely has encyclopedic value - it has a large amount of objective useful information organized in a table. Any specific parts which are deemed not objective or have questionable sources can be removed and/or corrected individually, rather than nuking the whole article.
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]

Per

WP:VALUABLE you should state exactly why the information is "useful". What parts can be kept for it to be encyclopedic?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The comparison function of this article in itself is pretty usefull to me. The fact that I don't have to visit every individual page but can use the table is enough reason for me to keep this article. Adding to that is the fact that it includes gaming platforms that are not considered consoles makes it even more useful ~ Zirguezi 07:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "It's unencyclopedic" is the last and weakest reason to delete a page, and hasn't been justified. It's reasonably well referenced and edited by consensus until recently. Nomnating it for deletion because people are arguing about it now is not the right way to solve edit disputes. It doesn't appear to "push PC gaming" any more than Fossil fuel pushes oil consumption. —Ben Brockert (42) 05:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Large amounts of objective information. If this isn't encyclopedic, most other comparison list articles aren't either.
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]

Per

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they may not be encyclopedic either, so that isn't a legitimate reason to keep this one._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The OTHERSTUFF page itself acknowledges that it can be a valid argument - mainly invalid for deletions when saying things like "other thing exists and this is just as famous". I don't think anyone here is arguing gaming platforms are non-encyclopaedic, and given the wide presence of comparison articles on wiki they're fairly established as being a suitable format for an article. Thus, the article should remain. ReidE96 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article consists of a series of unrelated consoles from various generations. This information is presented much more clearly in the "Xth generation of video game consoles" articles. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest problem with that reasoning is that they are focused on video game consoles, not gaming platforms. The three largest platforms for playing video games are Windows PCs, iOS devices, and Android devices - all of which are gaming platforms, but none of which are video game consoles. I'm not sure if they really fit cleanly into those pages. Moreover, this list cuts across generations, allowing direct sorting and comparison between generations and across time. The video game generation articles are dedicated to particular generations, they aren't list articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a particular reason to include gaming platforms in the comparison? The way I see it, operating systems are totally different from consoles, and in fact consoles have their own operating systems, rendering the comparison incomparable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gaming platforms is more abstract. I also see no grounds for exactly how you would fail to compare i.e. a "PC" and an "XBOX One" - please elaborate.
        canvassed to this discussion. [reply
        ]
        • PCs can be custom built in any configuration. Xbox One cannot. There is the potential for a PC to be weaker or stronger than an Xbox One. Therefore any kind of comparison will fall flat. And if we remove the PC, the article is merely a duplicate of other articles that exist on Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't matter the a PC can have many different power levels, that doesn't change how many games are available on that platform. I think this page just needs some edits to clarify information. Rodentman87 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)— Rodentman87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I agree. There is a big difference between gaming platform and gaming consoles. Both lists serve their own function ~ Zirguezi 07:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Listcruft is an indiscriminate or trivial list, but a comparison of video game platforms is neither of those things - gaming platforms are themselves an encyclopedic topic, so there is no reason why a list comparing them would be problematic. The PC, IOS, and Android platforms have a lot more total sales than console platforms because of their much greater longevity and use for non-gaming purposes, not because of bias, and the page itself is quite neutral, simply listing out data, as is the case with most list pages. The argument that it is being used to promote PC gaming seems questionable, and it being a lot of work to make better isn't an argument for deletion, but expansion. If you have some idea of what improvements you'd like to see, it might be worth bringing them up on the talk page. My biggest concern with the article as-is is that it is missing the first four generations of gaming consoles, as well as whether or not "PC" should be broken out into multiple platforms, as Android and iOS are considered separately, so it might make sense to break out Windows, DOS, Linux, MacOS, ect. However, neither of those things are reasons to delete the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that PS3 used to be able to run Linux means that you are essentially comparing hardware with software that is run on hardware. Therefore the article is too problematic to exist in its current form, and if it was distilled to only consoles, it would be rendered superfluous by existing "X generation" articles on consoles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Comparison pages should be made for directly comparable material. As the page stands now, it is a list of random statistics of various platforms across multiple generations that offer no clear overview of the differences/strengths/weaknesses between them. Compare with
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]
  • The PS4 and the iPhone are both just computers. The PS4 is just one which is much more focused on video games. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but there are very few valid points of comparison between them, beyond the fact that they are both computers and they both run games. They serve far too different purposes as gaming platforms to be able to compare. It would be like trying to compare books and TV as sources of entertainment - the category is simply too broad. As a thought, perhaps it would be a good compromise to redirect this to a simple list of gaming platforms, rather than a comparison? tonyxc600 comms logs 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely. I mean, something we can also try is comparing system software instead of trying to compare hardware. Console games are loaded from the console's operating system, and we have articles of their operating systems. How far can we get with that? FosterHaven (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominated under
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]
  • An unfounded and unjust accusation, opinions expressed here are my own gathered from reading the talk page and viewing the edit history of the article. Accusations of canvassing appear to be being tacked onto any comment that certain editors find unfavourable to their personal opinion, thus undermining their argument and devaluing the impact of tagging the few genuine canvassing comments which have appeared. OSUBrit (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm abstaining from this discussion due to my occasional participation on the PCMR subreddit, but I thought it would be prudent to alert everyone that posts claiming that this AfD is some effort to "censor the superiority of PC" are currently trending on both /r/pcmasterrace and /r/KotakuInAction. This is just a notification in case we get
  WP:SPAs on this though, please do not brigade those posts from our end. Let's remain the voices of reason here. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I will be completely honest, this article has serious, but surmountable flaws. This article attempts to compare apples and oranges, insofar as comparing dedicated gaming platforms (XBox/Playstation/etc) to multi-use devices (PC/Mobile phones). That being said, I see this RfD as being fueled by both
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the only view I could see someone currently arguing on, but I strongly believe that this is not the case. The organization of the article needs to improve, perhaps going so far as to separate the article in dedicated platforms and co-opted ones, but the content is useful as a jump-off point and to show the diversity of gaming platforms. I'm also confused by the seemingly incomplete list of platforms; the article has been active for four years yet seems mightily incomplete. My only concern for the future of the article is the length of the list and useability concerns ten generations down the line. We have the articles on "X Generation", but this could/should serve as a high-level, easily-digestible list. Overall, I believe defining "gaming platform" more rigidly would be in everyone's best interest. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The definition would have to be sufficiently broad to accept existing gaming platforms while filtering out cases such as programmable graphing calculators, ATMs, printers and smartwatches (yes, some of them do run Doom). I'm thinking along the lines of one of these:

1. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which one of common consumer use cases is playing video games.

2. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which playing video games is one of main advertised features or one of main reasons for its' adoption by consumers.

3. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which playing video games is one of main advertised features, one of main reasons for its' adoption by consumers, or which has been a target platform for production of commercial video game software

Leaning towards the last - if the game industry recognizes it as a valid target platform, then there's no question it should count as a gaming platform. --

The Fifth Horseman (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep as per OSUBrit's observation. MeanMotherJr (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the AfD appears to be borne out of
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]
• Keep the list is absolutely relevant and encyclopedic. It might have quality and inconsistency problems but deleting it now would prevent us from making it better. ~
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]
• Weak keep, rename to Comparison of home video game consoles While it looks initially quite useful, problems arise when you realise the amount of gaming consoles out there. This is just a random comparison of a few of them, and the article needs serious reform, preferably to provide a comparison of home video game consoles for their respective generations. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @My name is not dave: You may want to consider that such a thing exists already in the form of articles such as Second generation of video game consoles which list all relevant statistics for the consoles and can be compared should a user want to. A duplicate article for all generations would just be a waste of editing time._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think it would be quite comprehensive actually. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @My name is not dave:Comprehensive maybe, but serving no clear purpose. There is no real reason to compare different console gens, as they will obviously be superior to the last. Comparing the gens amongst themselves is far more arguably enyclopedic because it demonstrates how they competed with each other._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would invalidate the comparison - the subject matter are gaming platforms in general and not consoles specifically. --
    The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep. As observed above, the nomination seems a clear case of
  good faith in this. Any problems the article has (and I mean actual problems, not just "it was started by some people from a PC-focused subreddit") should be discussed on the talk page and fixed, instead of resorting to such drastic measures. Indrek (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Repurpose This page would be better served as a comparison of online platforms for games (Steam, PSN, Xbox Live, etc.) and then link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games. Or perhaps as an actual big ol' list of hardware that summarises across all generations. Trying to compare PC to dedicated gaming consoles is really difficult to do as not every statistic needed is tracked so easily for PC. Also, considering how broad the term PC is and how the line between PC and Console is further blurred each generation, trying to compare them in the way presented here seems fruitless.
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]
• Comment I was led here by the post on the PCMR subreddit. I see two major, competing issues. The first is that gaming is complex, and comparing the various platforms on which one can game is a difficult thing to categorize. If you try to limit the article to 'dedicated' platforms, then you're ignoring the great majority of games and the three largest platforms for gaming (Android, iOS, and PC.) On the other hand, the current comparison table is a mess. At the moment, you can't even usefully sort on most of these fields, because the formatting is so inconsistent. (alpha sorts on entries that are supposed to be numeric??)

It isn't actively causing harm, isn't visibly pushing anyone's agenda, and could potentially serve as an excellent synopsis and launch point. Putting the page editors on notice, and then re-examining in the future would seem a reasonable solution. I'd suggest deferring any deletion decision.

canvassed to this discussion. [reply

]

• Delete Article has no encyclopedic value. Only exists due to canvasing from other internet communities like reddit. Let them create their pointless wiki pages on their own websites. Wikipedia should aim to be encyclopedic. 60.226.224.192 (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— 60.226.224.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Encyclopedic content worthy of a list. Deleting under what looks to be a claim of WP:DONTLIKE is not what we stand for here at Wikipedia. To those coming from various Reddit threads, please familiarize yourself with the various related arguments to avoid before !voting, otherwise your opinion may be discounted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is useful in comparing gaming platforms and only uses facts and number and absolutely no opinions. 84.108.117.2 (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— 84.108.117.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep As per TitaniumDragons point, I think PC is too all encompassing: The definition of PC the table appears to use could equally well encompass every other item in the table as they are all "personal computing" devices, but that is not a reason to delete.
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]

• Keep This is clearly an attempt at vandalism by console gamers who somehow think that PC gaming and/or Mobile Gaming affects them negatively. 71.90.44.33 (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— 71.90.44.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete No encyclopedic value due to nonsense comparisons which are very hard to fix because of massive platform differences. Also the table is severely lacking information regarding some of the cells, for example majority of backward and forward compatibility entries are either misleading or very inaccurate. Same applies to a lot of other entries as well. This table would confuse or mislead a general consumer even if he knew all the definitions and wouldn't be useful to anyone else since individual wiki pages for platforms have much more and better structured information. Also if the table is left and fully completed it would become insanely bloated and again, be no use for anyone. P.S. for the redditors who keep spamming "Keep" without actually reading the article involved, please do, you'll see that it's terrible to begin with. SomeGuy147 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— SomeGuy147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep This article falls under the category informational list per the wikipedia notability guidelines, and does not meet the criteria for deletion. Aside from that, this demand that the article be deleted is an attempt at vandalism, after the vandals grew frustrated with struggling to effectively maintain their bias in the list. The list itself provides interesting and useful information that is relevant to a number of separate topics which firmly fall within standard wikipedia article guidelines, such as gaming and esports. It also seems that the primary point of contention was mostly revolving around spurious claims about gaming platforms are organized. Yakri (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Yakri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep There is an encyclopedic value to data pertaining to the usage of various systems used for electronic gaming, which is itself a form of leisure; and how human beings pursue leisure is important for the purposes of research and historical posterity.
  canvassed
  to this discussion.

• Keep keep the comparison as following: comparison between latest models of pc-xbox-playstation-nintendo. And throw other remaining consoles and platforms in a different table. This way, the comparison is fair and the article is actually useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenm v2 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Kenm v2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep the comparison article, with the same modifications Kenm2 suggested above me. There is nothing on the article that makes it worthy for deletion. Lempamo (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete The core problem here is the last column on the table, trying to show how many units were sold; while consoles can be assumed to be principally used for gaming, we cannot make that assumption for PCs or mobile platforms, and when you consider the longevity of the PC platform, the table does appear to be a very poor form of synthesis to show how much better that the PC platform is than the others, sweeping some facts like that under the rug. There is a place for comparing the best estimates of playerbase (groups like ESA and EEDAR have such figures), but that begs a fresh start without so much focus on the technical specs. My "weak" here is only because there may be some content in this that is neutral that could be used towards that, but I don't think a whole lot. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets notability guidelines and does not meet the criteria for deletion. Suppafly (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above, bad faith nomination, topic certainly meets Wikipedia guidelines, and complexity of the issue. Javert2113 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The PC should be allowed to compared to consoles,so people realize that there is a better option than some sort of overpriced plastic boxes. --
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]

• This is where the arguments start to become pretty low-grade...^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to remind that per
  WP:ATTP, bad faith nomination should not be an argument for keep at this point, as the discussion above obviously show that there are legitimate concerns to the article's usefulness. As the nomination is is clearly valid, Please base the discussion on the worth of the article itself. tonyxc600 comms logs 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Per nom, and more specifically per Zxcvbnm's "hit the nail on the head" explaination. Why are almost all the Keep !votes new accounts ? talk about sandbagging. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete. Delete. Emphatic delete, despite the fact that I don't ever remotely expect this or any of the dozens or scores of similar articles we have to ever actually get deleted.
  ^talk 16:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - TJW said it better than I ever could. This is just
  WP:SYNTH at its best (or worst, depending on how you look at it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - This list is lacking scope and purpose. As it stands, the list compares platforms across several generations based on indiscriminate and arbitrary specifications from which no substantial conclusions can be drawn. These platforms were released years apart when the gaming industry was at various levels of maturity and different technologies were available, so trying to compare them in a sense of "which one is better" doesn't make sense. If the purpose for comparison is different, well unfortunately there is no prose nor any basis in
  reliable sources that help explain to the reader what the purpose of the list is. There IS value in comparing platforms to others in their generation, but it's not worth re-purposing the list in that sense because that would be duplication of the history of video games generation articles. Also, there IS value in articles discussing the value of PC, iOS, and Android as gaming platforms, but reducing that argument to a comparison table isn't valuable when those platforms are quite open-ended and don't have characteristics that are as easy to define as, say, the Dreamcast. TarkusAB^talk 16:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment This would be pretty horrific to maintain since it would need to include pretty much every post PDP-1 computer, a bunch of pinball machines, several oscilloscopes and at least one pop-corn machine.©Geni (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but remove PC as a platform, per the above reasons mentioned in both keep and delete noms. A PC is a PC because it's customizable, and can have worst specs than a PS3, or a monster with an 18-core CPU with three-way SLI Titans. Because of that, how do you add that to the list without giving the theoretical maximum spec build, which in theory has no limit? Could super computers with an OS that allows gaming also be added too? I think this is better to add in prose instead of a table. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, lets delete everything then, considering that consoles are over-priced computer with a custom OS. If you want to see it this way, then you certainly would not object to adding

  Xbox One OS into the list of operating systems? Also perhaps if you go there, you would find that Orbis is based on FreeBSD, an Unix based operating system originally designed for servers and PCs, and the Xbox OS is based on Windows. Also, since loading a Linux distro or Windows on a console would turn that into a PC why don't we classify them as PCs? Dark-World25 (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Except that isn't fully true, what about the consoles that used a BIOS to boot and not an OS, such as the PS1 and GameCube? Your argument doesn't wouldn't matter for those, nor does it matter what a modern console's OS is based on, because they are marketed as gaming consoles and not a PC. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well Steam Machines are marketed as gaming consoles... Dark-World25 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Following the same logic leads to removing every system that has functions other than gaming. Not being solely a gaming device does not mean that it isn't a gaming platform (see: Playstation 1 with ability to play audio CDs, Playstation 3 with OtherOS and any console capable of service as a DVD or BD player). IMO the issue is more in how PC should be handled rather than whether or not it belongs on the list. --

  The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, which is why other proposals include making this page only comparing home consoles which have a set architecture, which is probably the best course of action. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't call that a valid option, let alone "best". The article's purpose is comparison of all platforms targeted by the video gaming industry, not just consoles . If you want to keep it but restrict it to only console systems, it would be redundant with

  The Fifth Horseman (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment Ironically it seems that certain editors are clearly canvassing this page with accusations of canvassing towards any account that has the audacity to have not edited an article in the last week, or whatever other arbitrary reasons they can think of. Not that some of these comments could not, or should not, be discounted, but the sheer heavy-handedness of the approach as clearly shown from this discussion's edit history is disturbing. OSUBrit (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Considering the fact that only "keep" votes have been tagged, combined with the allegations of canvassing on the article's talk page (e.g. [1], [2]), this is starting to look like an attempt to discredit opposing viewpoints. Indrek (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's common and accepted practice. Random people don't just wander into these discussions en-masse like this. Its obvious people were asked to contribute here. Many of these video game related deletion discussion go on for weeks and only have 3-5 participants. So it comes off as fishy when 20 newbies comment in the first 24 hours. But beyond that, it doesn't really matter if its directly pointed out, any halfway decent Admin is going to see right through this. A vast majority of the keep votes stick out like a sore thumb. They're not based on any policy or guideline. They vaguely allude to them, and then devolve into thinly-veiled

  WP:ILIKEIT. Arguments like that are generally thrown out and not factored into the final decision. As such, those editors are basically discounting themselves, whether they're labeled as being canvassed or not. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well of course only "keep" votes have been tagged, because if you follow the link to Reddit, it's urging people to vote keep. That's the very definition of Stealth Canvassing, telling people who obviously have not or will not participate in many, or any deletion discussions besides this one to dog pile on it. Ultimately, if this is the only discussion you commented on recently then it will be obvious you were canvassed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  if you follow the link to Reddit, it's urging people to vote keep Interesting. I guess you must have dug deeper into the comments section than I did, because the only urging I saw was to not vandalise any Wikipedia pages (plus a proposal to archive the article to the subreddit wiki). Indrek (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter if there is a comment regarding that, some people will do it anyway, especially when the topic generally hints to keeping the article as the "right thing" without considering that the page might not have a basis for existing in the first place. At least the fact that the talk has been canvassed is clear, w/e it was intentional or not. SomeGuy147 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)— SomeGuy147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete: The comparision is too broad. Blackbird256 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: seems encyclopedic to me. -- The Anome (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but the article is incomplete and additional information on other gaming platforms should be added. The ones included in the article now are not the only 'gaming platforms' in existence, so we should aim to add more information here, instead of taking it away. However, this means the page will likely need to be reorganised to make information more clear. Perhaps the gaming systems could be separated into different sections to make the article more clear, for example a section about dedicated systems (of which I mean things that are mainly used for gaming, such as Game Boys, Game Boy advances etc) and a section about non-dedicated systems (ones which may have additional non-gaming functions, such as the Xbox One or smart phone devices).--Stikman (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Dreadful article that makes no sense. Why do iOS devices have backwards compatibility as a yes with the reason of "Yes, but notably short-term due to frequent OS changes" when this is identical to PC's "partial"? And what makes it backwards compatibile on iOS? That implies it was designed for an earlier system but works on the later ones through emulation or other means, but in iOS it is just running natively, so is that even backwards compatibility? And at the very least as I said, its partial. What is backwards compatible anyway? If it can play one system's game fine, is that enough to be "yes" to backward compatibility? But why isn't it partial because it can't play all the earlier systems games? It's just an illogical thing to even have, there is no clear "yes" to it, it needs to be further explained. The rest of it is just a jumble of random information that is no use to anybody, there is no way of even making a direct comparison between most of these things. The computer sales statistics don't even seem to take into account PCs that have been built by home users, and does it include systems like the C64? That was a home computer. Or is it just x86 PCs? Just a horribly flawed article and should be deleted, one of the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia to the point where I made an account just to say how bad it is.
  canvassed to this discussion. contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Delete primarily for scope and maintenance issues. As it stands, this is a selection (what criteria?) listing picked (what criteria?) summary statistics (what criteria?). To be worthwhile and defensible, it would have to be vastly more inclusive, at which point it duplicates a number of better-developed articles, and rigorous, at which point half the article would have to consist of footnotes justifying the chosen metrics (a couple of the currently present footnotes already nicely demonstrate the problem). This is not a feasible proposition. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This page is being targeted for deletion because people don't like the facts on it, the same people who are nominating it for deletion are editing it to make it look worse. --
  !DERP/3/PiM Talk 19:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Question: (Note, I came here because of
  WP:NPOV carefully before deciding. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Guy Macon:The argument is essentially; this is a Frankenstein amalgamation of a bunch of other list articles into a massive master list of every console ever created, but the creators of the article didn't actually plan to fill out the list; rather, they made it as a way to promote PC gaming as superior to any other gaming platform in existence. Ultimately its massive scope makes it unencyclopedic, as it's unnecessary to compare literally every gaming platform when they go by different metrics._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this list as a way to promote PC gaming. Even if it is, that falls under a NPOV issue that can be repaired. My issue is that the fundamental idea of comparing all gaming platforms in existence is an ultimately unfeasible attempt in comparing apples to oranges. As I said above, there is no way one can compare an iPhone and a PS4 as gaming platforms in any sort of useful capacity. If the article was refactored to group similar platforms together, it it would then become duplicates of existing articles such as History_of_video_games. However, I do concede that there currently lacks an article which succinctly provides an overview of all gaming platforms, and therefore tentatively agree for the creation and redirection to a 'list of video game platforms' page. tonyxc600 comms logs 01:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @
        WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to how vague that classification is._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • A category listing does not provide any useful information beyond the name of the subject article. Nothing about regional availability, launch date, library size, market penetration - all of which are relevant to the subject matter and all of which serve informative, encyclopedic purpose. --
          The Fifth Horseman (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Keep The comparison is very relevant to the topic provided from a different perspective than articles like console generations. Just because it could do with a little improvement is no reason to delete it altogether. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of clearly-defined scope. This is a hodge-podge mix of stats best incorporated into the lists of consoles. We don't need both lists of consoles and a list comparing consoles. Those are the same thing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:NOT is very clear that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, that is it does not gather facts and statistics together without any rationale for the decision to gather that information in one place, which is defined by how reliable sources justify said groupings. This listing is a complete apples & oranges comparison of multiple generations of console hardware with two smartphone operating systems and apparently the entirety of PC history, as if a 1981 IBM PC and a 2017 Dell are the same thing. None of these items directly compare, and I am aware of no reliable sources that would consider a comparison of this type apt. Sure, we compare within generations, but there are other articles that already contain that info. We might as well be comparing a Model T a 1950s Cadillac, a modern Ferrari, and a racing bicycle for all the good that would do us. Indrian (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    canvassed to this discussion. [reply
    ]
    • Since when do Encyclopedias do consumer comparison articles ? - FlightTime (open channel) 01:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Just to bring in a different viewpoint, as all keep arguments seem to be concerned that the article is indeed notable, and delete arguments concerned with NPOV issues & maintainability of the comparison, would a good compromise be expanding
  List_of_home_video_game_consoles to list of video game platforms, and merging in non-dedicated platforms such as mobile and PC in a separate section? Seems like a good way to retain the useful aspects of the current article without the horrifically unsourceable and verbose comparisons. tonyxc600 comms logs 01:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I can get behind this. I think a lot of the issues stem from the fact that PC and Mobile gaming are significant subjects that are more complicated then the current format here allows. This list, in it's current "scope" if you could even call it that, does not need to exist. Ranger10700 (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combining them does sound like a valid solution on face value, but comes with its' own problems. How exactly do we define a platform? "PC" isn't a homogenous platform it's been lumped together as, but rather than a category encompassing several distinct software platforms (some of which are historical, eg DOS) and sub-platforms that operate within those. Creating an exhaustive list of platforms would also require including a number of other microcomputers (Amiga, Spectrum etc). --
    The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep Article has been constantly vandalized, but that shouldn't mean it needs to be deleted. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 03:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is encyclopedic. Article should not be deleted but improved. --007a83 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Vandalism is not a reason to delete a valid article. Purge & Ban the offenders, keep the page. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bad faith nomination, attempted censuring of PC as a platform, deletion and edits (vandalism) does not conform to
  WP:NOTCENSORED. Dark-World25 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Article is comparing platforms. This is just an attack by triggered console users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppington (talk • contribs) 10:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The humourous value of each of these purblind little outbursts, and the fact each is basically a request to completely disregard the comment, must be entirely lost on the gathered reddit crowd... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article, in its current state, has no clearly defined scope. What are we comparing? Is it current gaming platforms or every gaming platform in existence? The various table columns are not helping much, being a hodgepodge of technical specifications and marketing. I think the idea behind this article is good, but it would require a
  ZettaComposer (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete mostly due to scope issues. It is possible this could be an encyclopedic topic, but I highly suspect the obvious offsite canvassing issues evident above would prevent any real improvement on making it less non-neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC) (card-carrying member of the PC gaming master race)[reply]
• Move to
  List of home video game consoles as suggested by tonyxc600 (additionally Split off list of online gaming platforms and list of online game distribution services
  into separate articles)

Let's get it out of way: I have been canvassed. Now, on the subject:

• I do not see the article fitting under
  WP:LISTCRUFT
  by any stretch of the definition.
• The accusations of uncencyclopedic nature do not stick. The article does not meet
  WP:NOTEVERYTHING
  , "A Wikipedia article should (...) <be> a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." , which this article is.
• Wikipedia uses a number of similar broad lists to group and compare devices that share a common role, as seen in
  List of home video game consoles and List of sports cars
  .
• Circumstances of the article's creation do not in and of themselves qualify the article as a deletion candidate. To claim otherwise is a fallacy of origin.
• The article seems to have been intended by the PCMR subreddit to serve as a centralized source of reference for certain aspects of gaming platforms, their market shares and libraries. That information can - and in my opinion, does - have encyclopedic value.

This said, the article has some issues that warrant a heavy retooling:

1. The article overlaps thematically with

list of home video game consoles and list of home computers

(to an extent)

2. The article suffers from trying to integrate multiple sets of information about its' subjects into a singular table. Some of them would fit better into distinct articles.

• The article attempts to expand on the above two by including market data such as size of library and market adoption that those articles do not include (but that may be present on individual console generations' pages). If this article were to be deleted, an article covering the video gaming market (which the video game industry article is at best tangential to) might be justified.
• The article attempts to provide a list of online gaming services and game distribution services available on the platforms. This appears to be something that would warrant at least one, perhaps two separate articles of its' own - List of Online Gaming Services and List of Online Game Distribution Services, perhaps - as it is beyond the scope of the nearest related article ( history of online games in this case )

3. The article suffers from poorly defined scope - some of the edit wars and vandalism accusations revolve around disagreements as to the definition of a "video gaming platform" . A definition has to be formulated regardless of the articles ultimate fate. Video game defines it as "the specific combination of electronic components or computer hardware which, in conjunction with software, allows a video game to operate", but that definition is overly broad (you know how many platforms Doom has been ported to, right? ).

Proposals:

1. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which one of common consumer use cases is playing video games.

2. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which playing video games is one of main advertised features or one of main reasons for its' adoption by consumers.

3. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which playing video games is one of main advertised features, one of main reasons for its' adoption by consumers, or which has been a target platform for production of commercial video game software

I feel that these are sufficiently permissive while filtering out cases such as programmable graphing calculators, ATMs, printers and smartwatches. Leaning towards the last definition, myself.

4. The article is woefully incomplete in its present scope. To be exhaustive, it would have to cover nearly all platforms on both

list of home video game consoles and list of home computers

.

5. The article lists PC as if it was a single, homogenous platform. Ignoring the matter of hardware, each operating system (or, in case of Windows, a family of operating systems) formed a software platform not usually compatible with the others.

• Whether the article is merged with
  list of home video game consoles
  or retained, PC should be split into separate sub-platforms - we need a consensus on the lines along which that categorization should be made. An approach that seems reasonable would be using the operating system as a basis (PC/Booter, PC/DOS, PC/Windows, PC/Linux).

6. The article naming is itself somewhat problematic - it's labeled as a comparison, where not all of the aspects are directly comparable (as noted by other editors). Relabeling it as a list of gaming platforms would lead to less confusion.

--

The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment-This should be placed on the articles talk page for consensus on if it should be moved, the current issue is whether this article meets Wikipedia delations policy. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if this is deleted you should delete Reddit and pc so keep it unless you want to delete our website Reddit article — Preceding
  canvassed to this discussion. — Csgo993334 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• Emotionally charged statements do not make a valid counter-argument nor aim towards arriving at a mutually agreeable consensus. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and try to understand how (or rather: if) this AFD relates to them. --
  The Fifth Horseman (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: Allows a more broad comparison of all generations of gaming platforms than
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]
• Keep: Issues raised do not meet Wikipedia deletion policy, suggest more appropriate avenue be used to resolve these issues and improve the article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 19:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifnord (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luichy Guzman discography

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

)

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 23:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Just merge it into the Luichy Guzman article like you proposed in yesterday's AfD. This is a waste of everybody's time. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Luichy Guzman. Heck, I'll do it myself if someone wants to close this out. Is there such a thing as a speedy merge? Ifnord (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ifnord (talk) 18:27, 15 September 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 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stops (app)

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

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

Non-notable company that has failed to acquire significant coverage since it's founding. Fails

• Delete obviously, as I nommed it two minutes before this AfD was raised. -Roxy the dog. bark 23:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 22:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per the above; no in-depth coverage found to indicate notability.  gongshow  talk  01:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG and nominator's rationale. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:11, 19 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emdad Sumon

Emdad Sumon (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)

References are not from reliable source. All of the references are from unreliable, Non-notable news media. Mar11 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (actually a couple of questions:)) is there a
  WP:COI with this article as it contains these words: "he had been beaten by my mother for seeing movie ..." and "Since 2004 he started my journey commercially ..." or is this a translation issue, and, more of a side issue, there is a Bangladesh company called Codex with a website codex.com.bd, almost identical to this article creator's name, Codexbd, is this a problem? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

From my understanding, this cannot be a translation issue; it is very likely that there is a COI. Also, the username obviously violates

WP:CORPNAME. --nafSadh did say 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Looks like Bangladeshis have learnt how to create Wikipedia "pages" and such articles keep popping up at the same rate at which Facebook pages used to pop up in early days of Facebook Pages. --nafSadh did say 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Purely promotional and no indication of notability. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the GNG and BLP. I'm not sure of it's being worthy of A7, but it is a "speedy" delete in my eyes. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:58, 19 September 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. Sockpuppetry gets your arguments thrown out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debadityo Sinha

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

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

No demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Careful approach required when deleting. The person has been quoted by several national newspapers and magazines. He may be notable in his area of work. The person has a website listing media articles ^[1] Rajindra raju (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashi 1980. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC) [reply

]

• Delete does not meet
  WP:BIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Some level of notability is there from references. Page require some editing. Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashi 1980. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 17 September 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) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coate's

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

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

No in-depth coverage even after its disfunction. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- No secondary references in article ... and nothiong signficant that I could find easily elsewhere. Rhadow (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NORG due to lack of coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:19, 14 September 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) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17 Cosmetics

17 Cosmetics (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)

Trivial coverage. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fixing the broken link yielded an article with barely a mention of this company/brand. Doesn't turn up elsewhere. Not notable.
  T
  17:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Piotrus Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:51, 12 September 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.

Ruchita

Ruchita (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)

Usersify This is a page created by the User:Ruchi04 about themself. The user is a brand new editor. Immediate deletion of their first article can discourage them from editing Wikipedia, article does not have any potential harmful content or promo/adv concern. Requesting an administrator to move this page at the users subspace. Regards Anoptimistix (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. An alternative would have been
  WP:BOLDly moving the page to user space. Otherwise, the page is a speedy deletion candidate (no substantial content/test page). • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is a pointless Afd. Yes, if you're concerned about biting a newcomer, then engage with him or userfy it yourself.
  talk) 19:34, 11 September 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. Hut 8.5 20:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adisa Kabiru

Adisa Kabiru (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)

Purely promotional article with no indication of notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important locally in
  Airtel on the show Airtel Touching Lives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khu'hamgaba Kitap (talk • contribs) 21:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    WP:NOTE. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. The subject of this article fails
  WP:ANYBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. With the exception of the unreliable Venture Capital for Africa profile, none of the sources in the article discusses the subject.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 07:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Versace and GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no demonstration of notability. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608, this subject under discuss need to be kept as Google rank it in the folowing sites: http://search.enableimpact.com/people/kabiru-adisa,https://researchcooperative.org/adisa-kabiru-adeniyi,https://www.founder2be.com/profile/adisakabiru and https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=adisa%20kabiru&stype=topics

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) 19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christoffer Ek

Christoffer Ek (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 who fails

Delete: Per SamHolt6's comments. PureRED | talk to me | 18:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looking at Norwegian sources, I'm not entirely convinced the company wouldn't be notable. Nevertheless, I fail to find any sources that could point towards more work after this campaign, nor indications that print sources would help more. There's an article in small local paper Säffle-Tidningen from around the time of the campaign mentioned in the article, but that won't take us far. /Julle (talk) 05:45, 13 September 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.

A. Alisaffi

A. Alisaffi (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)

Strongly suspect a hoax here. The name turns up absolutely no non-wikipedia mirrors, and nothing on Google Books. At least one of the print sources seems to be invalid, as its ISBN turns up no results. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Not a hoax; the sources are just offline. Andrew D. (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrew Davidson: Then why am I unable to verify that any of the sources exist? It still seems fishy to me that there is nothing online about them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not everything notable is online. That's why editors and writers have such a deep engagement with libraires and the curation of their own personal book collections. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Andrew is correct, the sources are simply offline as I informed you TenPoundHammer on the article and on my talk page. He lived pre-internet and people wrote about him pre-internet. I don't create hoax articles. Its not true that there are no online sources, this Greek auction for instance https://www.karamitsos.com/auction.php?id=444 has many Alisaffi forgeries for sale but that is not the sort of source I would use to write an article. I should be grateful if you would withdraw the nomination since you are in error. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep a thousandfold. I'm the branch secretary of the Preservation of Offline Sourced Articles. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Here are two online webpages that mention him: 1 and 2 though as Philafrenzy says this type of page would not be used as sources. Besides which Philafrenzy knows his stuff and has created numerous philatelic articles, so why would be bother to make a hoax one. ww2censor (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete even if this weren't a hoax, it does not seem to meet notability guidelines given the relative obscurity of the subject and the lack of sources. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• But there are sources, and the obscurity of the subject is irrelevant...No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. The best modern source for his work is the book by Bill Ure, Forgeries of Greek Stamps of the 19th Century, which discusses his output in detail comparing and contrasting it with that of other forgers. see here (Greek). His work is also discussed in Fritz Billig's Großes Handbuch der Fälschungen (German 1933-38) and was noticed as early as 1903 and discussed in Demcker, Goldfuss and Pirl's Germania-Berichte (Vol. II). So we have multiple reliable sources that discuss his work in depth, published in different countries and languages and over more than a century. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As References section and Further Reading list show there is considerable coverage of the subject. ——Chalk19 (talk) 05:48, 14 September 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.

• Redirect to
  chatter) 07:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless there is something else that is waiting to be added, I'm not seeing enough to pass notability. The lede sums it up... "an American heiress, socialite, and celebutante as well as an occasional actress, model, and author. She was the great-great-granddaughter of Robert Wood Johnson I, co-founder of Johnson & Johnson." Being the great-great anything of someone wealthy and notable isn't enough. A brief mention on the personal life area of her father might be warranted.Sgerbic (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Woody Johnson#Personal life - there is some stuff that does belong in Woody's article, such as the diabetes book. The association with celebrity (Redacted) Tila Tequila, I'm not so fond of. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable subject of tabloid coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]