Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 7 September 9 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. spam for nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altadyn

Altadyn (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)

Sources: the company web site, press releases, passing mentions, and blogs, some of which don't even mention the company. Searches of the usual types found little better, just one paragraph.[1] Fails

WP:SPA created an article on the CEO, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Lahoutifard. Worldbruce (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising on an company with no indications of notability or significance. 100% advertorial content created by a SPA; no suitable sources. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 9 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. Alex ShihTalk 17:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Lahoutifard

Darius Lahoutifard (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)

Subject's claim of importance is that he wrote the preface to a book, wrote a book his company published, holds an obscure patent, was included by an artist in a work of 1000 internet pioneers, won $100 and "Entrepreneur of the Month" from a blog for "best 30 seconds pitch", and won "Person of the Year" from a non-notable association. Searches of the usual types also found a Google Scholar profile with zero citations,[2] but nothing better. Fails

WP:SPA created an article about a company he ran, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altadyn. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -- bio spam on a collector of vanity awards. Promo language includes:
  • "Executive with extensive management experience introducing and developing innovative concepts into the mainstream markets!"
I'll request a G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Promotional. Deb (talk) 18:03, 9 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kick Natural Energy Bar

Kick Natural Energy Bar (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)

Given an exceptionally AGF straining and probably unwarranted benefit-of-the-doubt... this is... just obviously promotional garbage and needs to be deleted regardless of whether it is notable. Cheers.

TimothyJosephWood 21:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources. ToThAc (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I should clarify. What I mean is that this is exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with
    TimothyJosephWood 23:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Whoever tagged it for deletion does not know ethics of writing and uses insulting language. Article has been discussed before in Speedy deletion and there are independent confirmed sources. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasperna (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Similar articles without reliable cited sources do exist. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A4rabar strictly promotional and from their own website. Compare articles please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderatequite (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vumero

Vumero (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)

Claims of significance are not supported by listed citations

WP:CCOS. Cited sources for claims are materials produced by the organization itself, and I can find no outside reference to the claims online. PureRED | talk to me | 21:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

 Comment: In the interest of transparency, I originally nominated this article as a CSD-A7 but it was declined. PureRED | talk to me | 21:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I believe I was correct in declining A7, because there are multiple credible claims of significance (has received coverage for pioneering professional services education with world championships events, owns the largest Sports Analytics & Sports Technology Conference series in the world, awarded as one of the fastest growing startup companies in Australia) in the article. Said claims need not be supported by reliable sources to disqualify the article from A7 per
    unEinsuno 14:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
To clarify, I'm not stating that I disagree with the denial of CS7. I agree that I mis-tagged it based off the criteria listed. Just want to make it clear that I was the one who tagged it. PureRED | talk to me | 01:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: ITWire is sponsored. YBF does not appear to be independent (it's a coworking space for startups, etc, which has hosted the company). Launchvic does not demonstrate notability (it looks basically like a government f[o]unded angel investor), and the page does not mention the company or its founders. The rest of the sources are primary. I'd accept notability on an NPOINTS basis for their range of activities (doing things, attracting thousands of participants, ...), but I'm not finding indications of in-depth sustained coverage in independent RS for anything, and specifically not at AFR.com (ft, wsj...). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:45, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Daisley (journalist)

Stephen Daisley (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

WP:SPA, since banned as part of a sockpuppet investigation. Edwardx (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the individual were notable, then coverage by multiple, reliable independent sources would exist, and the article wouldn't have to rely mainly on primary sources, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Sro23 (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:05, 9 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 keep. Consensus is that we should not expect the same level of online sources for Albanian subjects as UK / US ones. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Albanian Second Division

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Albanian lower leagues, fails notability criterias and its only one season for each.

I am also nominating the following related pages for same reason:

Jolicnikola (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but you can delete the third division) Linhart (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that we have season articles all the way down to level 10 in England, it would seem to be systematic bias to delete the third/fourth tier ones for Albania. Number 57 09:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per
    WP:GNG pass. Spiderone 17:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @
      WP:NSEASONS is for club seasons, not league seasons, so is not relevant here. Professional status is not relevant to league season articles, hence why we have them on all the leagues listed by Linhart below. Number 57 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Please tell me how the article passes
WP:GNG Spiderone 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't have access to Albanian sources, so I can't. Have you checked them to see what coverage this league gets? Number 57 21:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kategoria+e+Dyt%C3%AB%22 Linhart (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Then delete all
National League (National, North, South)
Isthmian League (Premier, North, South) · 
Northern Premier League (Premier, North, South) · 
Southern League (Premier, Central, South & West)
Combined Counties League (Premier, One) · 
East Midlands Counties League (level 10 only) · 
Eastern Counties League (Premier, One) · 
Essex Senior League (level 9 only) · 
Hellenic League (Premier, One East, One West) · 
Midland League (Premier, One) · 
Northern Counties East League (Premier, One) · 
Northern League (One, Two) · 
North West Counties League (Premier, One) · 
Southern Combination League (Premier, One) · 
Southern Counties East League (Premier, One) · 
South West Peninsula League Premier Division (level 10 only) · 
Spartan South Midlands League (Premier, One) · 
United Counties League (Premier, One) · 
Wessex League (Premier, One) · 
Western League (Premier, One) · 
West Midlands (Regional) League (level 10 only)

season articles. Linhart (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to season articles being deleted especially something as low as the 10th tier provided GNG is not met. This is however merely a case of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
This seems to be a case of quoting OTHERSTUFFEXISTS without the knowledge that it can be used just as much to argue for keeping articles as for deleting them. I'll refer back to the systematic bias point here. Number 57 21:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a valuable comparison, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". There were debates about lower regional leagues and apparently the consensus was to keep them. See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_68#Season_articles_for_Regional_Football_Leagues. And the Albanian second league is not even a regional league, it is a national league. The league itself is notable, the clubs in it are notable, so the season should be also. There are also enough sources (in albanian of course). Keping english, german etc. lower regional leagueas and deleting albanian second division would be just biased. I agree with Numer 57. I must also say that I personaly didn't expect such a proposal from Nikola. Linhart (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given that the first and second tiers are confirmed as fully professional and the third tier is a national level competition, I find it inconceivable that there is insufficient coverage of this competition in Albanian sources not to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments about systemic bias. The lack of notability articles at present does not mean that they do not exist. Egaoblai (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, and as others have mentioned, we have to be careful to avoid systemic bias. If nominator feels this kind of article is not inherently notable, he should establish consensus in the relevant places rather than selectively pick them off one by one. Smartyllama (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the teams in these divisions may not be individually notable, the league as a whole is.
    π, ν) 02:34, 16 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, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hemingway

Nick Hemingway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source is his own website. A search turned up AllMusic (a very brief entry) and Discogs, neither of which is

WP:SPA. Narky Blert (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My own ten minutes of Googling has turned up nothing beyond the nominator's findings: just fleeting mentions on sites independent of the subject.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and A bit iffy. No reliable sources turning up in google, doesn't appear to meet
    WP:CREATIVE.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:36, 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 speedy delete under

(non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 05:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Patrice Bisiot

Patrice Bisiot (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 real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails

WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. The article had me at "author, keynote speaker, CEO and an executive coach". The sources are typical
    WP:SPIP, with interviews, blogs and other promotional coverage. I'll request deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 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 : speedily deleted (G7—author requested) by Ronhjones 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC) czar 16:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Pollock

Holly Pollock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails

WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwardx. You are welcome to delete and close if you don't feel that it is suitable for Wikipedia. --TheDomain (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDomain: What? J947(c) (m) 03:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is not notable and gets deleted then I'm fine with that @J947:. --TheDomain (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being an executive producer of a TV show is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -- the article's creator is fine with the deletion: [5]. I'll request a G7; let's see if this takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 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 speedy keep. Keep per

talk) 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Naked (2017 film)

Naked (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is over-reliant on unreliable affiliated sources and republished press releases. Without any

talk) 20:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:47, 8 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) 19:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IHealth

IHealth (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 seeing sufficient external coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability policy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources are from internal sources by the company. I think if better sources can be found, then it may have a chance to stay.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:33, 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 Speedy close per

WP:SKCRIT #6. Wait until this is off the Main Page. I have no problem with this AfD, but per WP:SKCRIT, articles linked from the Main Page may not be nominated for deletion. (non-admin closure) epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Donald Trump and handshakes

AfDs for this article:
Donald Trump and handshakes (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)

Politically biased. Not in compliance with

WP:NPOV  Eric Cable  !  Talk  18:48, 8 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 keep.

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thornton Chase

Thornton Chase (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)

Thornton Chase is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and in the case of this article almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í. A35821361 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article doesn't have appropriate sourcing right now, but I'm not clear which notability guideline you feel he doesn't meet?
talk) 23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
penultimate_supper, care to update your pov? Smkolins (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I also added some 30 newspaper references to him… Smkolins (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
… well… a few more than that… and other sources…Smkolins (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourcing from 1908 is still sourcing. Being the first American convert of any nation to any significant religious group obviously results in sourcing, and that is the case here. Yes: the sources that write about him are primarily Baha'i, but we don't exclude those from notability any less than we would exclude histories of early Mormon missionaries written by LDS historical scholars. We tend to consider figures that major religions themselves hold notable to be notable. I don't think we'd have any chance of deleting
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please read that essay: it is a valid comparison to discuss how we handle religious figures within Wikipedia and the reasoning behind it. My argument is quite simple: they meet GNG and per NPOV we should treat the Baha'i and secular sourcing like we would for similar figures in other religious groups. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well sourced article about a notable subject. The article should never have been brought up for AfD in the first place.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So - do we have consensus? How do we get this closed? Smkolins (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chase is notable and the improvements to the article do a great job of demonstrating that.
    talk) 11:30, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of international appearances of Ali Ashfaq

List of international appearances of Ali Ashfaq (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)

Wikipedia is not a collection of stats, as established in

WP:NOTSTATS. This is also an orphan page and the only article I could find on Wikipedia that exhaustively lists each and every international appearence by a soccer player, so it's not like there's precedence on this. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    WP:NOTSTATS Ajf773 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that these types of lists are notable Spiderone 10:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whilst there may be grounds to suggest a list of his goals (as an all time top scorer for his country) could be notable, appearances in themselves are not inherently notable. Fenix down (talk) 11:10, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeeHex

BeeHex (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 where all of the sourcing appears to be your standard press churn: the press about NASA is clearly self-promotion that it puts out in its press releases [6], and the rest of the sourcing all appear to tell similar stories that suggest lack of intellectual independence from the organization itself, which per recent changes at

WP:SPIP, don't count towards notability. Everything else is non-RS blogs, publications like TechCrunch, and your standard industry publications. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:35, 8 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 keep.

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

List of top international association football goal scorers by country

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in

WP:LISTCRUFT. Greenbörg (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who is the highest goal scorer for each country is notable as evidenced by their mention on each (mostly) of their individual country's football page, and the fact that every player that nears their county's record gets a chunk of coverage when they are about to pass their predecessor, as evidenced most recently by CR7, but also by many others, including Robbie Keane, Falcao, Messi, and even others who are still some way off, but likely to get there given their youth, eg Wood. This itself I don't believe is the question here, but rather should a combined list of them exist. I suggest it should. This is an article I frequently refer to for easy comparison of those that reach records, to compare for example how many more or less matches these record holders took to reach their tallies. There is nothing in NOTSTATS that suggests this list should not exist. It is not anExcessive listing of unexplained statistics, it is a concise list of explained records. There does not appear to be anything in
    WP:NOTEVERYTHING suggests A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. This is a good example of summarising information from multiple articles into a concise format. ClubOranjeT 12:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - the notion of record goalscorers clearly attracts sufficient coverage to satisfy
    WP:LISTN. It seems to me relevant that we capture a listing of top goalscorers at the highest level of football, namely senior international. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Fenix Down Spiderone 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fenix Down.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasoning. Macosal (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the accomplishment of being a record international goalscorer for a national team is a much discussed and usually well covered statistic. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:19, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lawrence

Kevin Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm unconvinced that

WP:BIO is met here as the coverage is either local or in highly-specialist publications. I have been unable to find any better sources through my own searches. SmartSE (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not enough sources for
    WP:GNGGSF 323 (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:32, 8 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) 19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Wazarat Hussain Naqvi

Syed Wazarat Hussain Naqvi (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)

Subject fails

WP:GNG too. If his party is notable then we should have a article on that rather on him. Greenbörg (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:53, 8 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) 19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Jafri

Asad Jafri (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)

Spent time on searching in WP:RS but there is no coverage in WP:RS. No such impact on Urdu poetry, just a regular professional poet. He fails

WP:NAUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:18, 8 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 redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lesniewski

Joseph Lesniewski (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)

Joseph Lesniewski was an enlisted man in

significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:19, 8 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. Even the latter editors who voted "keep" were concerned about content (including one saying "remove 99%" of it) and possible

crystal balls, which leads me to conclude the best thing is to delete this now, without prejudice to restoring at a later date when events change. If anyone wants the content userfied, leave a note on my talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Peace Treaty with North Korea

Peace Treaty with North Korea (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)

Pure

WP:RECENT events. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

    • Comment Please note that
      WP:CRYSTAL as speculation it is necessary to know for the contributors of this article. To generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, Can we please extend this AfD discussion for another seven day as some of the contributors of this article were not able to express their opinion? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not aware of even any initial discussions about a peace treaty between US/UNC and North Korea. This article is entirely speculative. Korean Armistice Agreement#Subsequent events is a perfectly good place to record any initial moves that might lead toward a peace treaty. In fact this article will duplicate a lot of what is in Korean Armistice Agreement#Subsequent events, and I think it is better there until there are at least preliminary meetings about a peace treaty. Rwendland (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A doubt about initial discussions about a peace treaty between US/UNC and North Korea-> Please see one of the latest example: the Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (Press Release Date: 5 Sept 2017) [1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
    • Comment: per nomination - Please see my comment above about
      WP:CRYSTAL Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep: Thank you for the notice about the AfD - Peace treaty with North Korea - article and please understand that I have no objection whatever to the decision of ("WP:CONSENSUS"?) to Keep(or rename), merge(to other topic) or remove (to draft for improvement and
    Wikipedia:AFC
    process ), however I believe that this article has enough evidence below for the Wikipedia guideline, and I believe that it would be required to open the gate (enough time) of comments from the contributors of this article and North Korea Project participants who are interested in this topic.

It is my understanding about five suitability of this subject on Wikipedia.

  • WP:NRVE
    There are significant independent coverage or recognition on this topic,
  • WP:SUSTAINED
    This subject has a sustained coverage as an indicator of notability

Regarding the key word for 'Peace Treaty with North Korea', Appreciate User:Srich32977 for the links above

> About 1,500 results of news, 1140 results of Books , About 60 results on Scholar, 27 matching research articles and other sources

  • WP:POVNAMING
     : The article has a neutral perspective because of the contributors of the topic.

Regarding the suggested issues, ,

  • WP:GNG

From my understanding about the comment of

Wikipedians instead of getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

    • Comment: I think that it could be appreciable to revise the subject(topic) appropriately based on the contents of the articles, because the substance of the whole contents contains, news, opinions and research results of the experts in the respective fields of North Korea nuclear and ICBM issues. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Strong Keep: I think there is sufficient evidence
    WP:NRVE
    of this topic and other current relevant topics in this encyclopaedia:

- compendium providing summaries from all branches of information. These several adjacent Wikipedia articles below regarding North Korea issues, is useful for the readers of Wikipedia because its one of the primary interests of the global community.

It proves that People desire to know the facts from fiction and to learn more details about it including the summary of books and scholastic writings on this topic.

2017 North Korea crisis, Korean conflict, North Korea and weapons of mass destruction
,

Japan-Korea relations
,

Foreign relations of North Korea,

North Korea–United States relations, Gemvoice (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no realistic prospect of a peace treaty with North Korea as long as its provocative missile and nuclear tests continue and suggesting otherwise (as the article does in its very first sentence) points out this article as North Korean propaganda.Amyzex (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is it North Korean propaganda? -> Please see reference - USA was considering
      Peace Treaty with North Korea for at least more than 23 years. [2] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]

[4] [5]

References

References

  1. ^ "Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations -The Need for US-North Korea Peace Talks". qz.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.
  2. ^ "Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations -The Need for US-North Korea Peace Talks". qz.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.
  3. ^ ""North Korea: 6 Experts on How We Can Solve the Problem including - Treverton, the former chair of the U.S. National Intelligence Council"". TIME.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.
  4. ^ "The story behind Jimmy Carter's North Korean trip". CNN.com. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  5. ^ "Jimmy Carter and North Korea: the 1994 Treaty Halting North Korea's Development of Nuclear Weapons". counterpunch.org. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
2017 North Korea crisis or Korean War
. More discussion may help consensus to emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Comment: Thank you for Relisting discussions and guiding us about Wikipedia
    policy on content forks, Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment We already have Korean reunification which covers this topic. This BALLy essay is not needed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is, as far as I can tell from looking for sources, no peace treaty signed between anyone and North Korea. And the title itself takes an inherent point of view. A treaty, by definition, is between more than one party, but this title only mentions one party. Is it supposed to be about a peace treaty between North Korea and Papua New Guinea, or maybe Gabon, or who? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please refer to the initial version of
    peace Treaty attached between U.S. and North Korea: Agreed Framework

It was the part of North Korea Nuclear deal. - page #3 , U.S. promised to provide North Korea with the formal assurance of peace and Security to North Korea. From my understanding, the current nuclear & ICBM issue would have been removed already, if the agreement was proceeded, I was able to figure it out this information just only a few days ago because of the news release from Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (Press Release Date: 5 Sept 2017) [1] [2] [3] [4]

  • Delete It's not clear which peace treaty the article title is referring to. I suppose it should more accurately be titled

Possible Future Peace Treaties with North Korea Korea, but that would be silly.--Pontificalibus (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Just cannot overlook the
    WP:CRYSTALBALL we would need to use to support keeping this article. This is an essay on a hypothetical scenario and a disorderly one at that; too many opinions and topics are covered (inadequately). Please do not merge or redirect this essay to Korean reunification for there is no benefit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment Please refer that I summarized the opinions and topics on articles yesterday.

With the issue of

U.S. and North Korea via Agreed Framework
. However, it is now we know the fact and so the issue of
WP:CRYSTALBALL
can be cleared.

  • Regarding the term about name of topic.

It's my understanding, concerning the motivation of the peace treaty : there is a clear consensus about the abandonment of Nuclear weapons and Chemical weapons of North Korea.
However, there are some suggestions of the peace treaty partner with North Korea

DPRK
via experts in this field.

- That is the reason behind of the subject: [[Peace Treaty with North Korea],
Regarding the comment on Talk page of the changing name: Please refer to proposed subjects below

  • Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula
  • Diplomacy of UN to North Korea missile tests
  • Options(Diplomacy) of U.S. to North Korea crisis

I believe that it would be hugely favorable for us to have one of the topics above on Wikipedia. There are several topics about North Korea missile tests & crisis on Wikipedia, but as far as I know, there is no space for the summarized advice and opinions from the global experts on this topic.

  • Only for within the latest 24 hours, It is easy to find more than 50 reliable news and opinion articles about North Korea crisis, but it is difficult to see all.

As Wikipedia is one of the primary live Global Encyclopedia on Internet, it would be advantageous to have room for subject above on Wikipedia,

  • Please refer to the three example subject of last 24 hours below. [5] [6] [7]

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those three topics you mentioned belong in North Korea–United States relations.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for your feedback, YES, It is quite related with North Korea–United States relations, however from my understanding, North Korea–United States relations is hard to cover all of this topic as the prevalent nuclear & ICBMs of North Korea are the global issue. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More References

References

  1. ^ "Jimmy Carter and North Korea: the 1994 Treaty Halting North Korea's Development of Nuclear Weapons". counterpunch.org. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  2. ^ "The story behind Jimmy Carter's North Korean trip". CNN.com. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  3. ^ "Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations -The Need for US-North Korea Peace Talks". qz.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-07.
  4. ^ "AGREED FRAMWORK BETWEEN U.S and North Korea" (PDF). IAEA/. Retrieved 2017-09-09.
  5. ^ "North Korea is able to exact nuclear annihilation". iol.co.za. Retrieved 2017-09-11.
  6. ^ "The world's dilemma: Why North Korea will become a nuclear power despite pressure". scmp.com/. Retrieved 2017-09-11.
  7. ^ "North Korea warns US will pay due price for spearheading UN sanctions". smh.com.au/. Retrieved 2017-09-11.
  • Yes, quite. I received a message on my talk page about this from the creator but still stand by my "delete" opinion. I also note that the message still didn't reply to my comment that a treaty needs more than one party. The article obviously refers to a non-existent treaty between North Korea and the United States, so why on Earth, unless the creator is under the impression that everything in Wikipedia is written from an American point of view, doesn't the title mention the United States? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • ' Comment: Dear 86.17.222.157,

As per my kind reply message of your inquiry: '"no peace treaty signed between anyone and North Korea." : I would like to politely share the related factor, the initial version of the Peace treaty was signed between U.S. and North Korea.
Concerning "American point": there was no intention of this side, and so I updated my comment above for clarification: example names- including U.N and Korean Peninsula. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • What peace treaty is notable? The only international agreement that is written about in the article is the Agreed Framework, about which we already have an article. There is no peace treaty. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autodetection

Autodetection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've declined a

Iridescent 13:06, 8 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Brett Serle

Jason Brett Serle (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)

Having found this on my way through some Thelema-related material, I have to question the notability of this fellow in what is a fairly promotional article. References seem to trace back to him, or are passing, or are concert guest kind of listings. Mangoe (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The language used is neutral and not promotional and the facts mentioned are backed by valid references. I do not know how they 'trace back to him' as you say. He is by no means a mainstream figure and is only known in the alternative communities he deals with but I feel his work to be with merit. Fabulistical (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apparent vanity page claiming notability by having a handful of written pieces published, self-produced films entered into film festivals, and self-released music. Links are to small or self-published sources. No significant independent, third party coverage found. Fails meeting notability criteria for WP:AUTHORS, WP:FILMMAKERS, and WP:MUSICIANS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly a 'vanity page' as the language is neutral. Only one of the written works cited are self-published and the music mentioned was published by a notable record company and features another notable artist. The mention of his self-produced work is merely complementary. He is an alternative filmmaker and so naturally his films are self-produced. They have been official selections at notable film festivals and are distributed both here and in the US by notable film distributors. Mind your Mind has also been included in the psychology syllabus in American Universities. I believe it does meet notability criteria when considering that we are dealing with a fringe or alternative personality rather than a mainstream one. Fabulistical (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly fails
    WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Please give valid reasons. Fabulistical (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Failing
    WP:CREATIVE is a valid reason to delete. What criterion in that guideline, exactly, is clearly and unambiguously met by the subject? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete none of the refs support notability for wikipedia. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment above. I believe it does meet notability criteria when considering that we are dealing with a fringe or alternative personality rather than a mainstream one. Fabulistical (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even a fringe personality requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the sources are all fringe, that's just "in universe" coverage that doesn't confer notability. He may be notable in fringe circles, but this is an encyclopedia that is global in scope, and notability needs to be more than just from the fringes. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Hosseini

Arash Hosseini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested

Iridescent 12:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to demonstrate notability. Pahlevun (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources are clearly not independent and fail in establishing the subject's notability. This is a promotional article on a run of the mill businessperson. RetiredDuke 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or even speedy delete, because, while the article asserts a claim of significance, I don't see that it asserts any credible claim of significance as required to avoid
    WP:A7 deletion. I wouldn't object to moving the article to draft space for improvement and AFC submission if notability can be proven. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete, because soureces and references are not enough for this article at all Leodikap (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    Iridescent 15:16, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tywanna Smith

Tywanna Smith (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)

Declined prod. I don't see any way the person meets

talk) 21:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Business related information was deleted- I wasn't aware that only sports related information was acceptable for content. Aleksej Nikolić is of lesser notability but has a page? I am very confused. Jacobbailer (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBASKETBALL (because of the news coverage the EuroLeague gets). Can you find some sources about her professional career from reliable sources to improve the article? -- Dammit_steve (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Will do Jacobbailer (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The goal isn't to link every web page that mentions her: anybody with Google could do that. Read
WP:N for what notability actually means - in-depth and more than local coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A classic case of
    WP:GNG is not met. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Colapeninsula Her professional work post-basketball has press mentions of the type you are talking about, for example, a Huffington Post article was recently published I believe. I'll try to restructure for that as a smaller page. Jacobbailer (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:01, 8 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 04:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beamery

Beamery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed without any other changes. Similar article AfDed earlier this year. References weak, not notable. Rhadow (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are mostly passing mentions or affiliated sources or press releases. Lacks
    WP:CORPDEPTH. Domdeparis (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:47, 8 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) 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kozo the Hippo

Kozo the Hippo (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 fictional character that does not appear in any reliable sources. Fails

WP:GNG and is not mentioned in article of the studio that allegedly created it. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:40, 8 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 05:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alecks Awklr

Alecks Awklr (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. Fails

WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to passing notability guidelines for music producers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 8 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) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wahooly

Wahooly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on a defunct social-network start-up company. The available coverage is typical notice of a start-up proposition, and then of its attempted rebrand and revised proposition the following year, and then closure the year after that (involving a merger into another start-up which has no article, so not a redirect target). The most detailed discussion that I am finding for either brand name is an article early in its lifespan in the Star-Tribune ([11]  – via 

WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- insufficient sources to meet
    WP:CORPDEPTH. No long-term significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article fails to meet requirements for notability, references fail
    -- HighKing++ 21:18, 10 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 06:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pino

Nick Pino (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)

Autobiography in which notability is not established. The only two sources included are not independent and do not provide any in-depth coverage. It fails

WP:GNG Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: these are the only third-party sources I could find: 1 and 2. They're both inadequate.
  1. ...is just him and another commentator speculating about one video-game, he isn't the primary topic of the video.
  2. ...is a compilation of reviews, one of which he features in, again, not the primary topic and no indication that he is well-known as a reliable reviewer.
Aside from the notability problem, we've got a verifiability issue. I've blanked the personal life section because it was completely unreferenced.
DrStrauss talk 11:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources are not independent and don't provide enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. As such, the article does not meet
    WP:AUTHOR. RetiredDuke 14:23, 8 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) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Krauser

Shane Krauser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor radio show host and political figure. No in-depth, reliable, secondary sources. Article relies almost exclusively on primary sources. Article was created as a promo/advertisement for subject Neutralitytalk 03:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete i thought about trying to dig and save this, but yet another promotional article, written by somebody who doesn't care enough to even format citations and just slaps in bareURLs.... Just kill this. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 8 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rushika Fernandopulle

Rushika Fernandopulle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails

WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the multiple, independent sources included in the citations? Would seem to meet the basic criteria ("People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]") Citations include the New Yorker, Boston Globe, and Wired among others. Zapfdingbats (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Far from it; in fact, that New Yorker piece goes several thousand words before mentioning the subject at all -- it is a good cite for supporting the notability of Jeffrey Brenner, though, whose article could use some work -- and provides the subject almost no coverage: his mention in it are quotes from him and a brief description of how he assists a particular clinic, but tells us next to nothing about him. That the other citations are there to substantiate factual elements of the article I don't dispute, but none of them bolster notability. Ravenswing 07:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>>> I have added additional sources that I believe address your concerns. They are from reputable sources: Financial Times, American Medical Association & The Atlantic, and the articles are directly about the subject of the entry. Thanks! [1][2][3] Zapfdingbats (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Innovator finds value in relationship-based primary care model". AMA Wire.
  2. ^ "Fixing the 5 Percent". The Atlantic.
  3. ^ "Rushika Fernandopulle, chief executive, Iora Health, At Work with the FT". Financial Times.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 03:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 8 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indibloggies

Indibloggies (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 blog. Whole article is filled with outside linking. Not to mention the creator of this article is same who created this blog (as can be verified from his user page). Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 14:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it might be seen as a case of COI, I agree. I never really thought that I was doing any illegal thing by creating a page about a website I created (I could have used a different user id if that were not true, and back in 2006 I don't think these were seen in the same way as we do it today, in this era of fake news). The page has no false claims though, mentions only facts. I didn't make a penny out of the effort, in fact I incurred money to keep the website running. It was a great community effort where the awards came from the blogger fraternity, no money, only goodies. BTW, Indibloggies was not a blog, it was a community blog award website. It enjoyed its spate of popularity for 6-7 years and many of the winners went on to become notable authors. The site is now defunct, so you cannot find any newspaper resources anymore. However, it was such popular at a time that it was quoted in scholarly journals https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Indibloggies%22 and in news papers alike https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Indibloggies%22. IHMO, the page should be retained for historical reasons (many pages cross link to it), but I wont mind either if its deleted. I am not in blogging scene anymore like most of the other folks who quit as well. Old things are forgotten and probably Indibloggies should also be. But it was an important milestone in Indian blogging scene, there has been no blog award before it or like it. (BTW, just noticed that the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weblog_Awards_(Bloggies), on which Indibloggies was parodied, is also nominated for deletion :), these are the new times) Debashish (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debashish (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Comment - I removed the inline external links. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 03:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. No denigration to the content of the blog, simply that it doesn't merit an encyclopedic article. Ifnord (talk) 17:36, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 South Shields F.C. season

2017–18 South Shields F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails

WP:NSEASONS by some margin – the club plays in the eighth tier of English football, well below the fully-professional divisions. Prod removed by article's creator. Number 57 08:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
O, not so smart, I thought it was independent of the club, I missed that! Delete then. Govvy (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NSEASONS says should be done when the season is not notable but the team or competition is. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @Smartyllama: Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I read that (the redirecting possibility) as being for when an article is viable but currently only consists of stats. This article doesn't meet the requirements full stop. Number 57 14:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:13, 8 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) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ORS Direct

ORS Direct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

independent, reliable sources that conveys any notability. DrStrauss talk 11:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadads (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- wow, it has survived this long? Purely promotional; no sources, except for promo web links. Basically, corporate spam. I would have requested deletion under G11, but not sure if the prior AfD would prevent that. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 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) 19:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Loft Club

The Loft Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable band. The sources are struggling to show anything approaching

WP:NMUSIC, and a search for them returns a similar show of results. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 8 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) 19:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A D Nasim

A D Nasim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

i dont see the subject meets the basic

WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This does not meet
    WP:GNG, as per nomination. The article reads as a autobiography and the sourcing it provides is not independent. RetiredDuke 17:49, 8 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) 19:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthrax Detection Device

Anthrax Detection Device (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This (badly named) article is about a product from ca. 2005-2007 for which I can only find press releases and similar company-created "news", not the necessary independent reliable sources about it. Seems to have disappeared without a trace (hah!) and never to have achieved the notability required for an article here.

Fram (talk) 08:39, 8 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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danish khan

Danish khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a claim of significance here (the subject holds the Guinness World Record for the longest time spinning a Guinness World Records book on the finger), so it is not eligible for speedy deletion, but I don't see how he meets our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 8 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. Alex ShihTalk 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmartOwner

SmartOwner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR-driven or passing mentions. Previously speedy deleted, and then immediately recreated. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Lacking depth of coverage. Promotional tonality. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nom has given sufficient reason to have this removed. I could also not find reliable sources to have this as an article. The language used is more brochure sounding thus can't have stint here on Wikipedia. KagunduTalk To Me 09:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too soon: if the company survives the test of time and has sources besides promotion, then maybe some day try again. Otherwise not remarkable. W Nowicki (talk) 19:26, 10 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. bd2412 T 03:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Barone

Marcus Barone (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 "motion picture music executive, supervisor, composer, publisher and studio musician". Long list of credits, but length does not equate to notability. The references generally fall into one of the following categories: non-selective roster-like listings, such as IMDb, list of invited speakers and the like; commercial sites where the subject sells his work; or passing references. Before I had started cleaning it up, a number of the references did not support the claims in the article; some had nothing to do with the subject at all.

Barone seems to have no significant awards and no notable work, either in film or recording. His film work credits are on the order of "music supervisor", "executive in charge of music," etc., as distinguished from composer, except on a few minor works. His recording credits is essentially as a studio musician or arranger.

The article was created by User:Hollywood Silicon, who only edited for a week in October 2009; and who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia other than to this article. Most recent substantive edits have been made by User:Marcusbarone, but are little more than an unreferenced catalog of non-notable work. The editor's ID suggests he is the individual who is the subject of the article.

I PROdded it in July. User:Marcusbarone dePRODDed it, leaving a comment on the talk page that I do not think justifies retention. TJRC (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings from MARCUS BARONE and Thank you for your input and concern for me to have a better sourced article.

I removed both lists Filmography which the summary can be linked to the IMDB and the full Discography which at this time, needs more sources. Its difficult getting record labels and information from recordings I worked on the the late 70s and 80s as a session player, but once found, that info will go to ALL MUSIC ROVI first before I post again in WIKI.

I am slowly getting accurate sources together that fit your criteria.

Please don't delete my article.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusbarone (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note from nom. After I made the above nomination, the lengthily unreferenced catalog of film and recording work that I refer to above was deleted by Marcusbarone. That doesn't really change things. The defect with the article was not the long lists; even if referenced, they would not have established notability. The basis on which I propose deletion is the lack of notability of the subject, not merely the current state of the article. TJRC (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Ive started to remove any dead end reference links. Ive also added a few more references that might hold, and Im searching BILLBOARD MAGAZINE for any articles about me. Ive found two and Ive not added them yet. Im looking for more. ALSO ROVI ALL MUSIC will have new input on the list they have , once I fill out the template they sent me to help me add recordings Ive worked on. I need the codes which I have been finding. Also there are a few books that mention me and Im talking to the authors to get the correct publisher's names

THANK YOU MARCUS BARONE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusbarone (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 06:26, 8 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; I have redirected the title to Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, as the subject is mentioned there. bd2412 T 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Hotel Austin

Four Seasons Hotel Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An directory-like page on an unremarkable hotel. Significant RS coverage not found; fails

WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. What comes up is passing mentions or travel guide entries. The article was a part of a group AfD nomination in 2009 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Seasons Hotel Atlanta), which closed as "Keep / nomination withdrawn", hence the second AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
    reliable sources
    .
    1. Gee, Robert W. (2000-07-21). "Welcome to Plugged Inn - Hotels in Austin and elsewhere cater to tech-savvy travelers (just don't try to cheat the mini-bar)". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

      The article notes:

      Some, like the Four Seasons Hotel Austin and the Driskill Hotel, have upped the ante. They offer fast wireless Internet access in public areas -- the lobby, the bar, the restaurant, many of the conference rooms, and at the Four Seasons, even the pool.

      The Four Seasons, as a test case for Wayport, was the first hotel in the world to have a wireless Internet network, in 1997. But only now do some guests come equipped with wireless Ethernet cards that allow them to use the service.

      In a timeline titled "Hotel technology through the years", the article notes:

      1997: Four Seasons Hotel Austin is the first hotel to install a high-speed wireless Internet network.

    2. Barnes, Michael (2017-03-08). "When Queen Elizabeth II stayed at the Four Seasons Austin Hotel". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

      The article notes:

      Do you think they’ll shoot an episode of “The Crown” in Austin? If so, they absolutely must use the Four Seasons Hotel Austin as a location.

      Why so? Because Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II stayed there in 1991.

      ...

      As the venerable luxury hotel celebrates its 30th anniversary, we dig into its pictures and stories at the Austin Found blog. U.S. Presidents have included Presidents George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush, as well as Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, although the latter two did not spend the night.

      The hotel has hosted royalty and heads of state from Saudi Arabia, Spain and Australia. Two who surely appreciated the full-size beds: Former British Prime Minister John Major (6 feet) and former Mexican President Vincente Fox (6 feet, 4 inches).

      Sports legends Willie Mays, Pete Rose and Joe DiMaggio rested their weary frames here, as did Hollywood luminaries Gregory Peck, Lauren Bacall, Rod Steiger, Robert DeNiro, Robert Duvall and Debbie Reynolds.

      The media were represented by Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Mike Wallace and Rupert Murdoch — a more-frequent but extremely quiet visitor to our town during his recent courtship of Texas model and actress Jerry Hall.

    3. Seale, Shelley. "The Telegraph Review. Four Seasons Hotel Austin Austin, Texas, United States". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

      The review notes:

      Timeless elegance and Texas hospitality – that’s what the Four Seasons in Austin is all about. The iconic brand’s hotel in the state capital city lives up to its reputation for the latest amenities, attention to detail and fastidious service.

    4. Dinges, Gary (2015-05-09). "Four Seasons' new owner - loves the Austin market - Chicago company says it's intrigued by other Texas locations". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

      The article notes:

      A chance to buy "the best hotel in one of the strongest markets in the nation" doesn't come along often, Strategic Hotels and Resorts CEO Raymond Gellein Jr. said.

      That's why the Chicago-based company was quick to express interest when the 291-room Four Seasons Hotel Austin went on the market this year.

      Strategic Hotels and Resorts said Monday it will pay $197 million for the luxury hotel, buying it from Lodging Capital Partners and Prudential. The transaction is expected to close by month's end.

    5. Dinges, Gary (2015-01-31). "Austin - Four - Seasons for sale - Renovated luxe hotel 2nd high-end inn this week to go on market". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

      The article notes:

      Suddenly, two high-profile downtown Austin hotels are on the market.

      The building that is home to the Four Seasons Hotel Austin, 98 San Jacinto Blvd., is for sale, a hotel spokeswoman confirmed Friday. The news came just hours after the developer of the W Austin Hotel, at 200 Lavaca St., revealed in a securities filing Thursday that a company had been hired to market that building, as well.

      The Four Seasons is owned by Lodging Capital Partners and Prudential; the W is owned by a partnership led by Austin-based Stratus Properties Inc.

      ...

      The 291-room Four Seasons was built in 1986 and renovated extensively in 2007 and 2014. The Travis Central Appraisal District valued the property at $106.8 million in 2014.

    6. "travel42 Hotel Review: Four Seasons Hotel Austin". Travel Weekly. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

      The article notes:

      Although it lacks the historic charm of the Driskill Hotel and haute, refreshed style at the enormous new JW Marriott, this Four Seasons, located two blocks east of Congress Avenue, remains Austin's most luxurious property, an exceptional endeavor purpose-built to impress even hard-to-please travelers.

    7. "Four Seasons Hotel Austin: A waterfront gem in downtown Austin". Forbes Travel Guide. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

      The article notes:

      Since opening in 1986, Four Seasons Hotel Austin has maintained its reputation for elegance and top-notch hospitality. Situated along Lady Bird Lake, just a stone’s throw from the Congress Avenue Bridge, the Forbes Travel Guide Four-Star hotel has the benefit of peaceful privacy from its tucked-away spot in lively downtown Austin.

      The property’s central yet secluded locale has attracted guests traveling both for business and pleasure, and made it a favorite of visiting musicians and celebrities.

      The hotel is undergoing a massive renovation, which will be completed in the fall of 2017, enhancing the current 291 guest rooms and adding three more (plus five new suites).

    There is sufficient coverage in
    reliable sources to allow Four Seasons Hotel Austin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • Delete. of the sources above, #1 is a mention in an article about hotels in the cit and internet access in hotels generally; 2 a PR piece from a newspaper in its own city; 3 , an uncritical travel guide using promotional language, tho from an usually reliable newspaper; 5 a real estate notice; 6 and 7 are commercial travel guides and unreliable for notability. {{U}Cunard}},you can usually find better sources than these DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph source looks like an advert. As a general rule of thumb, having written / saved a few hotel articles, ones built before about 1930 tend to be notable, ones after that generally aren't aside from exceptional circumstances. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Telegraph source is a review written by travel writer Shelley Seale. She gave the hotel a 6/10 for "Value for money". An advertisement would not give a hotel a 6/10 for "Value for money".

I consider a hotel notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources", not if it was build before 1930. If you are looking for something "exceptional", this hotel is "the first hotel to install a high-speed wireless Internet network" and has had noteworthy guests like Queen Elizabeth II, Gregory Peck, Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Mike Wallace, Rupert Murdoch, etc.

Cunard (talk) 20:29, 16 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 speedy keep. Nominator

(non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

MicroBilt Corporation

MicroBilt Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed without satisfying NCORP. Holding company notability not inherited from subsidiaries. Rhadow (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong

Someone is doing something questionable.
First a tag was placed with several conditions:

  • please edit this page
I did - adding 2 sections, one about MicroBilt Merchant Services, the other about MicroBilt Financial Services. Since both use the "holding company" name, that should count.
  • I have 7 days
Escalated to Article-for-deletion 16 minutes after I made my first edit
  • Nominator: Please consider notifying the author
was not done

The above is regarding [19]

The article was tagged sixteen minutes after my first edit
saying that I should research among:

(Find sources: "MicroBilt Corporation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I chose the one on the right, WP reference, and among the first 3 listed,

  • the oldest was that the NY Times reported on their earnings.
  • The newest was that they were the subject of a lawsuit (2017, in NJ).

Earnings worthy of NY Times attention and a case to be tried by the State of NJ Judiciary,

and THAT IS NOT NOTABLE?

Why the KILL IT approach? Why not FILL IT? Trink24 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Hello Trink24 -- We are talking here about the subject, not about you or the quality of your work. Nothing is wrong. As this article was originally published, IMO it did not meet WP:GNG, keeping in mind specifically that a holding company does not inherit the notability of its subsidiaries. Yes, I promptly tagged it. Today is a holiday; I was watching new articles. A PROD works for seven days. You removed the PROD and any further review. My take was that the article needed more eyes. Now it will get more eyes. If you add the two articles you mentioned: about a lawsuit and earnings, maybe others will disagree with me. Rhadow (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I didn't do my job too well either

Admittedly the NEWS search was basically PR/Press Release (interesting: PR really stands for Public Relations, a Marketing/Advertising/Sales specialty, but the issuing of Press Releases as "PR" is an established technique).

I didn't have much hope for the BOOKS link in the DELETE nomination, but... MicroBilt is given credit for data (an input to ...) and information (the result of crunching data, and THINKING). Anyway: discounting "DIRECTORY" types of listings, I found:

  • Understanding Business Valuation: A Practical Guide to Valuing Small ...

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1937350630 (published 2016)

  • How to Sell a Business for the Most Money Third Edition:

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=145662119X (2014)

  • Valuing Professional Practices and Licenses - Page 7-57

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1454827149 (2013)

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22MicroBilt+Corporation%22 found 5 non-trivials beyond the above 3, and also 2 trivials -- on the first Google page.

From reading Wiki guidelines, I see:

  • notability can't be fixed by editing. A bad article can't harm notability.
  • it's up to the article writer to make notability obvious.

Unless the wording allowing me to remove the PROD notice is improved, to make it clear that it's a protection from AfD nominations, a fatalistic approach might be

  • For now, leave it to the jury, and thanks in advance for those taking the time to vote.
    -or-
  • Await a hint that editing will make a difference

Trink24 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Housekeeping Seal, one sock removed from the floor

Rather than wait with a blindfold for someone to click on the NYT immediately to the left of the WP reference I mentioned/used above... I've done a bit more homework, and... the article now mentions NYTimes earnings coverage and a 2014 comparison, in a positive light, of MicroBilt data versus "the three major credit reporting bureaus."

Cigarette? (I don't smoke) Cigar? Trink24 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:19, 8 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. Obvious nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Lands Central Security Agency

United Lands Central Security Agency (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 and only Google hits are to Wikimedia sites. No hits for the "source" name either. Likely a hoax. Rschen7754 04:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

United Lands Touring Routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United Lands Route 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mobile Control Trailer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United Lands Route 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added 02:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC))

Rschen7754 04:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page should not be deleted as it shows business information. It may be small but it is still a growing article.
    talk) 05:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Moved from talk page. --Rschen7754 05:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These pages are a confusing mess. Is this a private security agency or a pseudo-government that maintains roads/trails and build ships? Why don't any of the articles talk about how the company operates? –Fredddie™ 10:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CSD#A3. –Fredddie™ 10:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC).[reply
    ]
    This seems like you are picking apart the articles — Preceding
    talk • contribs) 04:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No. When I said that, the article looked like this [20]. No context for why it was an article, so it could have been speedy deleted. –Fredddie™ 14:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: None of the articles pass general notability guidelines. As stated in
    WP:CORP, "No company or organization is considered inherently notable.", and there is nothing in the (appaling) sourcing that suggests that this is not a run of the mill company like thousands of others. On top of that, two of the articles have no sourcing whatsoever. RetiredDuke 15:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:27, 8 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. Ignoring the extensive socking, clear consensus to delete, as failing

WP:NAUTHOR. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Syl Tang

AfDs for this article:
Syl Tang (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)

Advertising for her new book, which is so far in only 6 libraries. The only possibly RS, the NYT article, is not about her; it's about personal shoppers, and she is included in it as one client. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nom's BEFORE work already shows there's no passing claim of notability and no acceptable RS about the subject. I would just add that the creator was a SPA whose 3rd edit was starting this article. It seems to be getting increasingly difficult to keep WP from drifting toward being a worldwide directory. Agricola44 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom. The list of articles is not independent and blogs are not
    WP:GNG but it is clearly not enough. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep There is RS from Newsweek and New York Magazine. I have edited the Hipguide page before though it has been awhile. There are formatting issues for sure but not sure where you got the idea that she is a professional press agent per your other nom - she appears to be a Financial Times journalist. That RS goes to dozens of articles. Arabbitortwo (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)— Arabbitortwo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Plenty of GNG - page just needs to be build out. Tang is misidentied in two of the delete noms. Bluebrown321 (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)— Bluebrown321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep All issues remarked have been addressed - plenty of GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrypack1 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Kerrypack1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: Was leaning weak keep until I noticed the above three accounts appear to be sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts. We appear to have possible paid editing here. Montanabw(talk) 19:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a sock puppet - I was a contrib 6 years ago and happened to catch this since pages are related/nominated on same day - see History of the other page. The scope of this Afd should be limited to actual content of the pages frankly, not accusatory, which does not make new contributors want to keep editing. On the merit of the page itself, has anyone actually looked at it? It was up for less than a week and now passes WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources. I think we should keep and allow time for editing because it meets WP: BIO and WP:BASIC. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" Also WP:JOURNALIST. Maybe because I'm new to this, I just read the rules-- WP:GNG and related. Arabbitortwo (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWP:BEFORE confirms C. that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. This was also recently created - two days before nominating for deletion? Should have allowed contribs more time to develop the article. Failing that, would have been good to first try first raising concerns on the article's talk page such that readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. <- this exactly from WP:BEFORE. Further, both this and the other linked proposed deletion now have substantial RS. Yet, you persist. Gladpiefelix (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Gladpiefelix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The SPAs just keep comin'. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that an article passes G11 because it is in theory fixable does not imply we should keep it at AfD; G11 is for only the most obvious advertising--the less obvious or challenged ones need to be discussed here--and the stadart is passing WP:NOt and the notability guidelines. The obvious motivation for this article is to serve as promotion for her new book. This can be seen from the face of the article: avance praise for an unpublished book, lists of mentions "appeared in ..." This violates NOT ADVOCACY, so it doesn't matter even if she were notable. But she is not--the only substantial sources are interviews where she says whatever she wants to--this is not independent journalism, and wherever it appears, it's not a Rs for anything other than that her pr agent got her the interview. That this is a new article is not a reason to keep it--the sooner we get id of advertising, the better. And if by any chance her new book is indeed sufficiently importantto meake for ny , someone not connected with her will write an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but isn't that exactly what we are supposed to do? Improve articles? The guidelines at Afd:

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted 

   If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
   If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.

Why wouldn't we just delete the offending line about the book? I had another look at those interviews. Are you under the impression that New York Magazine, Newsweek, Entrepreneur and the Financial Times all do whatever a publicist says. Not sure that is how media works. there was a good Times article about church and state in media. what you are saying goes against FCC regs. You need industry experts to weigh in here, sorry. Otherwise you run the risk that this sounds like three guys in a room who just don't like the fact that a woman is coming out with a book. I can't believe I am spending this much time defending a company I once edited so many years ago but it reads like a pile-on. There are so many pages on Wiki that are about nothing, this is about one of the few women entrepreneurs out there. I had a look at similar companies and you don't hold others, like Thrillist at all to the same standard. Even other female run companies, Brit + Co with much more promotional language and all the Rs is exactly what you think doesn't work here passes muster. Really sounds like a personal vendetta on a person you don't like -- which I'm sure is NOT what you intend -- but that is how it reads. Arabbitortwo (talk) 14:53, 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.

The result was Procedural close.. Article was nominated twice. An active debate is open at

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Syl Tang

Syl Tang (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)

Advertising for her new book, which is so far in only 6 libraries. The only possibly RS, the NYT article, is not about her; it's about personal shoppers, and she is included in it as one client. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 8 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of David Black

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. There is very possibly a suitable redirect target. TheLongTone (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Considering it was the first prisoner officer murdered since the Gfa and it has recieved enough media coverage I think its existence complies with wiki policy.Mico7898e (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well as the article creator I'd expect you to want it kept. But being the first prison officer to be killed since the Good Friday agreement seems a pretty slender claim to notability. As for the second point, coverage at the time is not enough (see
WP:NOTNEWS).TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 03:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ongoing coverage - e.g. from 2017 [22] [23]. Probably wouldn't have been notable at height of troubles (coverage would've shifted to more significant events) - but as the attack was carried out in 2012, it has received SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the additional providing passes
    WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:50, 16 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 redirect to

(non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 00:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Silver Haze (album)

Silver Haze (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NMUSIC. Basically an unsourced tracklist. Propose redirect to The Quill. Kleuske (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NALBUM, none of the three sources in the article are reliable ones, simply a link to a user-forum rating and two track listing databases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 8 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 no consensus. Before renominating, consider merging to HOT article. SoWhy 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Granot Goldstein

Tal Granot Goldstein (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)

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails

WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CEO of HOT, one of Israel's leading telecom companies (cable tv, data, land lines, and cellular). She has lots of coverage in Hebrew [24]. HOT is no longer public, but when it was a few years ago it had a market cap of around a billion USD. It is currently worth more (possibly as high as 3, probably around 1.5.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article needs sourcing, but sources exist for this CEO os a major corporation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BIO
. Then people could evaluate those. And, I suggest this be relisted (yes, a third time), to allow another week for this to happen.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The coverage offered above is routine, as in:
  • "Hal Granot Goldstein, CEO of the HOT Group, said: "Alongside the expansion of HOT's core product and the launch of HOT [something], and soon Netflix integration into the product..." Etc.
Source: "The competition for viewers continues: HOT launches Rami Levy's television". This is just the subject promoting the company; it's not a source about her.
Such coverage does not establish notability independent of the company, and notability is not inherited from it. A $1bln company is not large enough for its CEO to be presumed notable. If there are better sources available, I'd be happy to look at them. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:Run-of-the-mill executive. The RS mentions are brief and routine, subject doesn't seem to have attracted in-depth coverage sufficient to establish notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and more Edit subject is notable but the references should be more improved Leodikap (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Leodikap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • My understanding is that HOT is fully owned by Altice. Patrick Drahi bought control of HOT, a few years ago, and when they went private (buying out all or most of the other shareholders, and redeeming issued bonds) - it was placed under the Altice structure. The company is however an Israeli company (and I believe it is required to be so). Granot Goldstein is one of the youngest (male or female) CEOs of a major Israeli company (which HOT is - a market cap of over a billion USD is considered big in Israel). The name of HOT may change in the future to Altice, or Altice Israel (they are discussing this, hasn't been finalized yet).Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Regarding a full merger (and not a subsidiary wholly owned by Altice, possibly with the Altice brand (not yet)) - I believe this is not possible in the regulatory framework - which requires an Israeli company for several of HOT's operations.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Travis

Chester Travis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails

WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:14, 8 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 no consensus. Wow. One of the worst debated AfDs ever.

(non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 00:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Maheen Zia

Maheen Zia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage. Fails

WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:14, 8 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. Purely on the numbers this would be "no consensus", but when we look at the strength of the arguments it's clear this is a "delete". The keep !votes make arguments that can be characterised as either

WP:OTHERSTUFF, or an argument to notability based on Kinnard's professional output and its presence in various sources, rather than on coverage of Kinnard herself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Meg Kinnard

Meg Kinnard (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 journalist lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. References are mostly examples of her work product. Vanity page bordering on advertisement. reddogsix (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable journalist. A simple Google of her name turns up countless national articles in every major newspaper outlet in The United States. Additionally, I have also found her work cited in United States Supreme Court rulings and over 50 published books. The entry was flowery in its language. I removed many parts that lended credibility to concerns over vanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestTennHistory (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - most working press members will find their stuff re-used. That does not make the reporter notable. We are not seeing much in the way of the requisite substantial coverage of Kinnard herself. Her family's charitable work, her famous granddaddy and her husband's press releases do not count. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Continued search of Kinnard turns up more examples of outside sources lending credibility to article. Vote prior to mine uses vague, unsourced language to support claims that "most working press members will find their stuff reused," or any evidence of press releases sent by her family as the originating source for information written about her. Articles produced by UT Martin include bylines of UTM writers and don't indicate that the work was contributed by an outside source. This isn't the strongest article, but it has improved substantially since its first writing. Print journalists often get much less credit than those on TV, but are no less "journalist" than their counterparts. In many cases, such as in this one, they leave a much larger impact. Google her name and choose "news" or "books." Diverse inclusion of her articles in major national publications, using her byline, indicate that she is more exceptional than "most working press members." Kinnard has a verified Twitter account with nearly 20k followers. A deep dive into that shows that she was often retweeted by major candidates such as Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Cruz and Bush in 2016. Shining a light on print journalism is something that can only benefit sites like Wikipedia. WestTennHistory (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is debatable whether 140 character snippets are substantial enough to be considered a representation of one's works; however, if we were talking about her articles I would certainly understand.reddogsix (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unfortunately, you have not provided support for your statement. The evidence shows otherwise. reddogsix (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:BIO. Her articles appear in various notable publications, but she hasn't distinguished herself sufficiently to merit an article or awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - I think
    π, ν) 06:20, 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. Ignoring several

WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

HipGuide

HipGuide (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)

Advertising; apparently part of a promotional campaign, and,astoundingly, here from 2007--a great deal of copyediting has been done without dealing with the fundamental problems. The founder of the firm is a professional press agent, and has taken care that there is a good deal of press. I doubts any of it is truly independent, so it also does not meet the notability standard. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We clearly don't agree. As I mentioned before, I haven't edited a lot on Wiki but since I hadn't in years, in the last day or so I read a bunch of the AfD and there were ones that were kept for having literally just one article. One person was even dead! I looked through the pieces on Ft.com, there's 80 of them! And the book's website - as I said, that is how I thought to come back and look up this page - has reviews from people from McKinsey and George Washington, that's notable to me. I just looked at SI - they appear to be the Women's Wear Daily of Germany. The German Audit Bureau of Circulation (IVW) is pretty serious business and I can't imagine they do fluff anything. Anyway, you seem intent on deleting this entry. Myself I'd have tagged it for improvement having just read the WP:BEFORE. But this is exhausting, I have never written an article on here but can tell you, it doesn't make me want to contribute more when it will just get arbitrarily deleted. I've said all I have to say. I think it has more than reasonable notability. Arabbitortwo (talk) 04:08, 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.

The result was delete. And salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip A. Cutler

Philip A. Cutler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability as football player and entrepreneur doesn't satisfy GNG. Current office as a Westmount City Councillor isn't important enough to meet

MOS:CA#Municipal politics. Also - this article has been created (and deleted) twice before by Theswissarmy, whose editing history seems extremely focussed on Cutler, his company, and his alma mater. Salt? Madg2011 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete with
    WP:NPOL, either. We do in Montreal but not in Montreal's smaller suburbs, because the inclusion criterion for city councillors is not "holds office as a city councillor", but "holds office as a city councillor in a major metropolitan global city" — which Montreal is, but Westmount is not. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Student newspapers cannot be used to show wikinotability, so the McGill Daily is a non-starter. WordPress blogs cannot be used to show wikinotability, so nearly all of the rest of those are non-starters. Interviews where the subject is speaking about himself cannot be used to show wikinotability, so the Global News video link is a non-starter. The only one that's a starter is "Westmount to upgrade parking meters", but that's (a) not about Philip Cutler, but merely namechecking his existence as a bit player in the issue that is the subject of the article, and (b) not a notability claim even if it were about him — so it's a starter, but not a finisher all by itself. So, nope, you just batted zero for seven. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - and salt as per nomination. There's nothing on the article establishing the subject's notability, he's just counsillor in a minor city. Wikipedia should not be used as self-promotion. RetiredDuke 18:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet
    π, ν) 02:59, 16 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) 19:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Morid

Ahmad Morid (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)

Although he has about 50,000 Google search results, I can see little

promotional undertones. DrStrauss talk 12:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a lot of claims, but no sources. Could be a hoax, for all we know. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:31, 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.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Moerzinger

AfDs for this article:
Álvaro Moerzinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in any of his positions. a mere 3 gnews hits which just confirmed he held an ambassador position LibStar (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Cleanup From the very little information looks like this subject might indeed be notable, but there simply isn't enough sources to back up the claim and support his notability as of right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindleReader (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment this user is now blocked. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds ridiculous. A lack of sources is a reason for deletion. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack the sources to show notability, diplomats, even ambassadors, are never default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 8 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 keep. North America1000 07:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Runaway Wok

The Runaway Wok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:COI. Edwardx (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 158.59.127.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 8 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 keep. Little participation, article could be renominated in a few months' time.

(non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 00:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sardar Khan Niazi

Sardar Khan Niazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage. Fails

WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He doesn't seem to fail
    Tamgha-i-Imtiaz, the fourth-highest civilian award of the Pakistani Government.[39][40][41][42] He's considered a very important figure, being the Editor in Chief of Pakistan Group of Newspapers and Chairman of Roze News.[43] Statements like "Chairman Senate Mian Raza Rabbani and Speaker National Assembly Sardar Ayaz Sadiq received him upon his arrival," also allude to his importance.[44] He's the head of one of Pakistan's biggest groups the SK Group.[45] The program he hosts Sachi Baat SK Niazi k Sath is grabbing quite some attention.[46] Vice Chairman and Chief Editor of The Daily Patriot.[47] Doesn't seem a delete to me. Lourdes 08:07, 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 redirect to The Visitors (American punk band). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjie Bollox

Benjie Bollox (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)

Differences of opinion on biography AubergSweight (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Benjie Bollox[reply]

  • Speedy keep That's not reason for deletion (although I'm not entirely convinced by his notability, there may be a merge target). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Tom.rivers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Richard3120 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, failing WP:MUSICBIO and having only one good reference IS a good reason for deletion... Richard3120 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that from the case you are presenting... was referring to reason this discussion was started. In regards to notability, I was also able to locate an interview of both UK Subs Charlie Harper and another mention/confirm of Splodgenessbounds. [50] In addition, he is credited with playing drums and co-writing the song Riot on UK Subs Riot Album. The album was released under Cleopatra Records Label. This does help it to meet WP:MUSICBIO.

Tom.rivers (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just chatting back to see if any other opinions and if we can carry this forward as a keep. There is only one criteria from
    WP:MUSICBIO that has to be met and this article/subject meets at least two. (#1 and #2). I would also like to state my account is not single purpose, I am actually a passionate Wikipedia user but have just only recently registered an account so topics I am involved in are currently small and niche. Since this is one of them I obviously feel inclined to comment on the Afd. Tom.rivers (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Delete I speak to Benjie Bollox regularly. He never asked for this page to be created and sees no reason or need for it to stay.

He did want the article free of any bias and kept diplomatic but that has been changed by a recent contributor who has added a certain bias. If there was a perceived bias before the recent changes, that was never intentional.

If the page stays it is better to remove all mention of any other band member’s names and keep it a simple biography of Benjie Bollox which is exactly what this page is about anyway. I think being amicable and removing any bias whatsoever on all sides is a positive option.

If redirection is the option, redirecting to The Visitors page which has very little information about the band and has been written in bias by the same recent contributor would just continue the issue about bias. Considering any issues about notability, it would make more sense to redirect to UK Subs considering that is the main focal point in his notability. According to Google, when people Google Benjie Bollox they also Google other UK Subs members ColonelDavy (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelDavy (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are many reasons for deletion of the page. The article was created by someone who knew Benjie and felt that he was notable to him. As someone who knows Benjie personally, I can confidently say that Benjie never asked for article and he does not see any reason for the article's existence.

The fact that when the page was started filled with unreliable and unverifiable and original research should be enough reason alone to remove the page as it should have been deleted when it was created as it breached so many guidelines. According to Wikipedia, ″the phrase ′original research′ (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist″.

Also, the recent additions breach verifiability, are a conjectural interpretation and do not improve the article. They are questionable and focus on and magnify tiny details around events irrelevant to the article. According to Wikipedia guidelines, ″material about living people that is sourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately″. The recent material also goes against the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. According to Wikipedia neutrality guidelines, ″If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia″.

Bare notability is another reason for deletion, as the article just minimally meets Wikipedia's notability standards as it is presented with very few references. The article also does not contain high-quality secondary sources. According to Wikipedia, ″Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity″. The topic has not ″received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject″ (Wikipedia). Most of the sources lack ″editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability″ (Wikipedia). Wikipedia also states that "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.″. This subject of the article has not gained significant attention from independent sources. Wikipedia states ″No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.″ ColonelDavy (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NOTINHERITED
    that doesn't necessarily make him notable enough to have his own article. And as you can see above, it appears that even Mr. Bollox considers himself not notable enough to have his own article. It seems the only reliable source is the Dallas Observer, but it's a repeated source, and furthermore a local one, so I'm not sure it passes the "multiple, independent coverage" required. I would also question your statement that he passes criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO – although the bands in question did have hits on the UK charts, Mr. Bollox was not a member of them at the time, so he personally has not appeared on any chart hits in any country, as far as I am aware. What will happen now is that this AfD will stay open for a few more days to see if anyone else would like to comment, and it will then be closed by an administrator who will decide on what course of action to take.
  • ColonelDavy: I have struck through your "delete" comment above as you are only allowed one !vote, and you had already asked for "speedy delete" previously. You can see that I agree with you (and Mr. Bollox) that he isn't notable enough for his own article, but unfortunately it won't be up to him to decide – it will be a administrative decision made after arguments have been put forward by various Wikipedia editors. Hopefully some other editors will have some input into this AfD in the next few days. Richard3120 (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard3120: No worries. Where I can agree that there is quite a bit of uncited conjecture in this article and it was like that from the beginning, years before the latest edits. If the article is not deleted sources should be added or the article shortened to only contain source verifiable information. A quick google search shows numerous articles on other encyclopedia platforms that state everything that was in the previously edited article. It appears this original article creation was for self-promotion at one point regardless of what subject states were the facts. This also appears obvious with reverted edit reasons of "changes made without permission from singer". In regards to the charting, there were American charts "Billboard" with The Visitors in Dec 1998 and Jan 1999, however these have not been cited in this particular article. Does anyone have any issues with the particle being cleaned up and shortened to only contain sourced verifiable information until a keep, redirect, or delete is agreed too? I do not mind making these edits. Tom.rivers (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tom.rivers do you have a reference for those Billboard charts? The Billboard website doesn't appear to show any charting history at all for the Visitors. Richard3120 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Richard3120 Here are a couple: Billboard Magazine 12/26/1998 and Billboard Magazine 01-09-1999 The online Billboard "Independent" records do not go further back than the year 2000.Tom.rivers (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks... but those aren't actual Billboard charts, they're "most requested songs on the radio" charts, and they won't pass RS. And they do kind of prove the point that Mr. Bollox isn't independently notable, just as part of a group. Richard3120 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I hear you there and can see where you are coming from in regards to independent notability. Honestly, I do not care if this article is deleted, it just needs to be for the right reasons. The fact that is article appears to have originated for self promotion makes me think of changing to a delete just in that regards. Tom.rivers (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be a simple "delete" - despite not meeting individual notability, "Benjie Bollox" is still a valid search term for a redirect in Wikipedia... I think if this article was redirected to the Visitors or to UK Subs, that would probably be a solution that suits everyone who has taken part in this discussion. But I'll leave that to the closing admin to decide. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If for some reason it gets redirected, it makes more sense to redirect to UK Subs which are a notable band and not the Visitors which was only one of many smaller bands in Bollox's career, and as Richard3120 points out above in regard to the Visitors article ″it's possible that article may also fail notability in future on closer inspection.″ Also to reiterate what I wrote above, the UK Subs were the main focal point of his notability. The whole point of a search on Wikipedia would most likely be from a UK Subs enthusiast. But a delete makes sense as most likely, someone is going to be searching for the term ″UK Subs″ rather than just ″Benjie Bollox″. The page has a strong case for full deletion.ColonelDavy (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:39, 8 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. The socks may be halal, but the article is haram. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halal Socks

Halal Socks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only thing documented by third party sources is trivia, ephemeral news DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets
    WP:CORPDEPTH, although perhaps on a somewhat weaker level. North America1000 01:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
DEPTH for what, exactly? One item of tabloid interest? ``— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:46, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:39, 8 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_September_8&oldid=1142617299"