![]() |
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No indication of notability. It's difficult to discern what the article is actually about. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Iloilo City#Economy. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Still unconvinced this is a notable mall. Very small retail area for a mall and lack of independent coverage Ajf773 ( talk) 23:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was Protected redirect and merge to A Course in Miracles. The consensus have been established with more clarity after contributions from editors outside of the topic. Protected redirect and merge to A Course in Miracles#Associated works appears to be the most agreeable option. Alex Shih Talk 16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm renominating this for deletion as I said I would during the deletion review. I'm afraid Mr Renard does not meet the minimum threshold for a Wikipedia biography, in that there is insufficient information about him as a person in the reliable sources. The sources don't tell us his date of birth, nationality, profession, or really any other biographical information at all ---- so it's simply not possible to base a biographical article on reliable sources. What limited sources we do have relate purely to his books. His biography should be deleted. — S Marshall T/ C 21:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Changed to merge, better solution. Slatersteven ( talk) 07:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we can close this. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
No, it's a way of saying why the fuck should we waste our time analysing something now, when we know what the outcome is going to be?We do? From the last AfD, a cursory glance would inform you of an obvious "Delete" result. It's only because Ritchie took the time to review the arguments that he realized that nobody was arguing about the article, but about the behavioral accusations. Even if one trims those out, we're left with the "Delete" side arguing "There's no notability, check these search results." and the "Keep" side arguing "Shut up!!!1!" So that seems like an obvious "Delete" to me, as well. But then, look at the !votes here... So I'm not sure what you think the obvious outcome is going to be. There's more people voting to keep this time, but their arguments have nothing at all to do with the notability of the article, which is pretty much a non-argument. To be honest, were I the admin handling these AfDs, I'd have close the previous one as "No Consensus" with a strong encouragement to try again without the bickering. But this one? I'd close this one as "Delete" with a suggestion that everyone who !voted "procedural keep" should probably read WP:CONLEVEL and WP:LAWYER and please try to remained focused on the content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The article notes:
What propels a book to the number 2 spot on Amazon—second only to the new Harry Potter—when there have been no major trade reviews, no advertising, no national media exposure and no placement on any regional or national bestsellers lists? What motivates 141 readers to post glowing reviews? In other words: What's the deal with Hay House's The Disappearance of the Universe?
Originally published in May 2003 by Fearless Books, Gary Renard's Disappearance—subtitled Straight Talk About Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness—was picked up by Hay House, which published its edition in October.
The book sold 25,000 copies in the Fearless edition and more than 30,000 for Hay House before the author and Hay House decided to turn up the volume. Renard hired Peggy McColl, whose company, Dynamic Destinies, does online marketing for authors and publishers. Renard paid McColl's consulting fee; Hay House pitched in for the contact lists and other costs, and Fearless publisher D. Patrick Miller contributed his labor.
...
Much of Disappearance grows out of Renard's study of A Course in Miracles,the 1976 three-volume set of books that became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups. Course remains a cult favorite, retaining a spot above 500 in the Amazon rankings and selling an estimated 1.5 million copies. Renard said Disappearance (his first book) took him nine years to write, "and it's all true." It describes Renard's conversations with a pair of "ascended masters" (spiritual guides) who began visiting him in 1992 (they recommended he study the Course). He added, "Yes, it was a great campaign, but it also took a strong book to make it as successful as it was. The book was already an underground hit—it had great reviews and a strong Web site presentation, as well as excellent word of mouth in the spiritual community and an author who has flown 100,000 miles in the last year to promote it."
The article notes:
Author Gary Renard received some strange visitors while meditating in his home alone one evening.
Renard claims in his book, "The Disappearance of the Universe," that he opened his eyes from a meditation session to find a mysterious young couple sitting on his couch. In 17 subsequent conversations with the couple over the next nine years, Renard says they revealed themselves as ascended masters sent to teach him about the "divine intelligence of the universe" --- religion, reincarnation, forgiveness and more.
To those unfamiliar with Renard, his claims may seem a little hard to swallow. But through word of mouth, his book, based on teachings from and time spent with the couple, has found a significant place in the spiritual world. Its even been compared with the spiritual society's signature book "A Course in Miracles," by Helen Schucman and William Thetford. Both books are based on the author's writings on a series of divine visits and conversations. Renard's book also contains analyses of some of Schucman's primary teachings.
Two sources about a book are enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. The Publishers Weekly review can be used to establish notability for The Disappearance of the Universe. But as an article about an event listing, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution source likely is not enough to establish notability. Since there is only one solid source about The Disappearance of Universe, I do not recommend creating an article about the book since it probably would get deleted or merged.
I therefore support a selective merge to a new section called A Course in Miracles#Associated works per Timtempleton because the Publishers Weekly and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles clearly connect Gary Renard and his book, The Disappearance of the Universe, with A Course in Miracles.
searches for this subject require more targeted searches and take time, I understood that to mean that you needed time to find your sources. If I've got that wrong, then please post them now.— S Marshall T/ C 23:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
And the truth is that I am "badgering". I'm positively required to do so by the second paragraph of WP:BLP ---- a consideration that far outweighs the essay on which Softlavender would like to rely. Policy demands that I am, and I quote, "very firm about the use of high-quality sources". So badger, badger, badger.— S Marshall T/ C 16:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played in a fully pro league JMHamo ( talk) 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 02:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
DGG ( talk · contribs) thinks this is spam. But an article that has survived nine years since its creation and five years since its last AfD discussion deserves better than speedy deletion. I have no feeling on the matter. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
1) US patents for inventions in India are rare for individual researchers. Does DGG mean to say they are not of value? http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Health/2017-07-11/Indian-doctors-get-US-patent-for-hair-regrowth/311514 http://medicaldialogues.in/bravo-apollo-spectra-doctor-invents-injection-for-natural-hair-re-growth-bags-us-patent/ http://www.deccanchronicle.com/science/science/110717/two-win-patent-for-hair-regrowth.html 2) Are awards by the Royal College of Surgeons Glasgow and the highest Ophthalmological Society in India "no major awards"? 3) Here is another: http://network7mediagroup.net/dr-debraj-shome-dr-rinky-kapoor-awarded-at-pharma-leaders-power-brand-awards/ Who decides btw what are major awards? 4) http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JQkcvMjAxMC8wOS8xOSNBcjAwMTA1&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom First page, all ediions mentions, in India's largest newspaper are worth nothing? 5) Adjunct Faculty at Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, India, for a surgeon, is worth nothing?! http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/IIT-B-docs-use-nanotech-to-treat-cancer/articleshow/5570967.cms 6) 51 seminal publications are worth nothing? http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2185464 7) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Debraj_Shome/publications 8) Can you then specify what actually is worth something? Sitting and editing articles and putting them up for deletion on Wiki?
The result was merge to Trisha Paytas. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
There already is a discography section at Trisha Paytas — that's sufficient when virtually all of these songs appear to be self-released. Anyone can self-release songs; that doesn't make them notable. This article is a blatant attempt at promotionally adding more and unnecessary pages to Wikipedia in order to further her brand — including by inappropriate addition of purely decorative images of artists in no way involved with the subject and only here to make this seem more notable and important. The main article Trisha Paytas is constantly beset by promotional and evidently WP:COI edits. Tenebrae ( talk) 21:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable writer lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. self-written unsourced self-promotion, G11 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:FILMMAKER. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Diamond Bus#Black Diamond. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non notable bus company, Sources were added in the prev AFD however 2 years on and we have nothing that confirms notability, Fails NCORP as well as GNG – Davey2010 Talk 23:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. After extended discussion, there is a clear consensus favoring deletion of the article as it stands at this time. This is without prejudice to the future creation of an article on this topic, if reliable independent sources are found to support such an article. Editors who believe that an article meeting Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion may consider creating a draft at Draft:Mavenlink, excluding the sources deemed objectionable and instead providing reliable independent sources, and submitting this draft for consideration through the usual process for evaluation of drafts. bd2412 T 03:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Blatant Promotions. Highly misleading, Press coverage online blogs presented as source for notability. Light2021 ( talk) 05:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not, 2 is only 1 review, 3 is like the 1st one and, worse, because it's a company interview therefore not independent at all and 4 is following this, 5 is a funding list which cannot satisfy WP:ORGIND since it says "anything directly or indirectly by the company or where the company talks about itself, routine announcements or listings", 6 is like the first one, and actually from a local TV station (therefore not substantial or significant) and
The tool, dubbed Mavenlink Resource Planning and Management, intends to treat your projects and resources as interconnected cyclical processes more akin to enterprise resource planning (ERP) rather than one-off tasks. This pivot is designed to give managers and planners the ability to address company changes that might affect multiple project timelines, budgets, and profitability. The solution spans the service lifecycle from sales commitment to project delivery and postmortem analysisand finally 7 and 8 are once again
anything directly or indirectly by the companysince it says
Upstairs at Mavenlink, employees are helping fast-growing businesses navigate digital obstacles. Andy Leavitt of Mavenlink describes the company's mission this way: "Anybody who bills for a fee, we want those businesses to come to us."and
the company quickly expanded into Utah to find the tech talent it needed to help clients manage projects all over the world. As WP:Deletion policy and WP:NOT state quite clearly, we are not a promotional webhost and suggesting that we make exceptions simply because of publication name is violating our fundamental pillar WP:Neutrality. As for GNG, it actually says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" and "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason" (links to WP:What Wikipedia which is cited as a guaranteed policy factor). To analyze the Keep votes, one of them suggests a local trade publication but these are exactly "directly or indirectly by the company", the next offers the same business journal and none of that actually gives us new material to examine. See also WP:GNG which clearly states
Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia articleso GNG cannot be an instant guaranteed it can be accepted since there are still valid concerns. As for copyediting, the specific page about this process actually says "Promotion cannot be improved if it still other concerns", and this is especially valid when considering clear COI as this, this, this, this, this and others, so suggesting that we brush it under the rug in absence of taking action on it, is not part of our goals here. Considering these were repeated back-to-back patterns, it's highly likely to say they were company employees, worse when they themselves were either sourcing back to the company website or pasting from it, therefore we have applicable concerns in our Terms of Use violations. In fact, the only changes made here were to remove a few pieces of puffery but the promotionalism was still noticeable, that is instantly evidence for WP:Deletion policy as unsuitable encyclopedia material. Suggesting that we act closer to a news source and cover special interests or trade subjects, would be violating WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper (policy). As the nomination states, "Blatant promotion" is in fact perfectly applicable. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is not routine coverage. The article contains detailed analysis and questioning of Mavenlink's decisions:
This article from Computerworld is also skeptical of Mavenlink's decisions:While this is the obvious next step for Mavenlink in its expansion it may be making an error. Currently the SaaS company is hosting its data on AWS in Oregon with a disaster recovery centre in Virginia. Asked whether they would be opening up a European instance Mavenlink responded: “Given the networked ecosystem architecture of our application, we are leveraging the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework for data privacy, and leveraging other, modern methods to deliver performance across global geographies.”
While Mavenlink are now certified under the EU-US privacy shield this may not be enough to win some clients. This is especially true in Germany where data sovereignty is especially important. The EU-US privacy shield was criticised heavily last year. Most major hosting companies now have European data centres there seems little reason not to have an instance in the EU. It will be interesting to see what the Mavenlink strategy on this will be going forward. It may be that they are awaiting a critical mass of companies before opening up a non-US instance. The risk is that without that data centre in Europe they may find that some companies will not want to sign up.
Critical analysis of a company's actions is neither routine coverage nor an advertisement.MyPOV
I'm not convinced. Not because I believe the hype that SaaS requires no professional services, but more because Mavenlink has a difficult job to do here. For one thing, it has to differentiate its own product from the on-premises offerings out there. The general way that SaaS vendors do that is by articulating the ease of use, reduced time to value, better economics and easier integration that SaaS products bring. But by introducing MavenOps, Mavenlink needs to start articulating the very opposite: that SaaS is hard and that consulting is needed to deliver value.I'll be interested to see how this plays out, but I suspect Mavenlink's move has more to do with a difficult economic climate and pressure to deliver financial results than with any customer-facing factors. One to watch, but I'm not sure they're onto a winner here.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Too soon, has not broke through yet in a sufficient fashion. Geschichte ( talk) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete.Per WP:G7 by User:Cyp. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Unsourced BLP with no indication of notability. Salimfadhley ( talk) 19:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:MUSICBIO. Notability claims to be an international audience following a 2017 single, but the ref cited does not state this. Comatmebro ( talk) 19:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) -- Nevé – selbert 16:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Glorious Revolution#William and Mary made joint monarchs with a hatnote to the College of William & Mary. This article is a stub and a wp:fork. -- Nevé – selbert 19:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1, the nominator has not only not advanced a reason for deletion, but seems to be under the impression that this is a forum for a name change or the article's content. Procedural close on the basis that it is not- the article talk page is! (non-admin closure) — fortuna velut luna 07:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I have tried to modify this page to show Jam Filled's true history. Jam Filled did not purchase Arc Productions, It did not change it's name to Arc Productions. Arc Productions went bankrupt and Jam Filled purchased some of the assets only. The contracts were renegotiated with the client and many ex Arc employees were hired many people back. In stead of removing this page, I suggest changing it back to Arc Productions and stating that is went bankrupt. Jam Filled is celebrating it's 10th year anniversary this year, and we do not want to be associated with the past of Arc Productions. Although we now share some history, we have our own and would like to create a page for that.
On a side note, over the past 12 years, I have worked for all the companies continuously from DKP, IDT Entertainment, Starz Media Canada, and Arc Productions. With more authority than most people (if not all), I can clearly tell you that Jam Filled is not the same company.
560 Employees that worked for Arc Productions can tell you same. John Hickson ( talk) 18:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Unsure if being nominated as district judge is a credible claim of notability (i.e. may be CSD-A7). Kleuske ( talk) 18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
About a non-notable proprietary retirement funding vehicle, the Private Retirement TrustSM, or PRTSM. No coverage to meet WP:GNG. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Promotional article that fails WP:N both on grounds of lack of sourcing and being excluded as promotionalism by WP:NOTSPAM. All of the coverage that exist that I could find contains a disclaimer that it is from a press release, which means it doesn't meet our standards to count towards notability per WP:SPIP. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
– What needs to be corrected? Help me StanislavP ( talk) 11:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sorry, no salting. We don't salt articles just because of one AfD; repeated recreation would be a better case for salting Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is a transparent forum shopping attempt to squeeze in a topic that has, as noted on the Talk page, "been speedily deleted four times previously", is tagged for a lack of verifiable notability per WP:GNG, and has been declined three times in the WP:Articles for Creation process. — BarrelProof ( talk) 16:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
No in-depth coverage. Just trivial coverage about his venture. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW - withdrawn by nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Only news coverage is in relation to her campaign announcement video from this week. This should be a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2018#District 6. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 19:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix ( talk) 15:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Provisional keep - There are more secondary sources on Suptic than those currently included in the article. We should determine whether or not Suptic meets the notability requirements before deleting the article. Clbsfn ( talk) 05:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable musician TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 15:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a business exec directory. No evidence of editorial references establishing individual notability. Mention is mostly in relation to the post at coop in trade magazines (quotes about industry topics, quotes about business performance, mention at retirment). All fairly routine for a company exec. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Never elected to the provincial or federal assembly. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Borderline G11 article that fails WP:N on two fronts: it does not have the sourcing under WP:CORPDEPTH to meet the general notability guideline and it is excluded from inclusion in the encyclopedia by WP:NOTSPAM. All of the available sourcing is press releases, blogs, trade magazines with low publication standards, or other sourcing not independent of the company. The article is written in a promotional tone with the clear intent of raising the profile of the organization. I almost tagged it with G11, but decided that AfD might be a better route. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The organisation is a non profit organization so there is no real promotion here, although i would be happy to accept changes to the language. I understand there is not a lot of independent media coverage but that is because it operates in a niche industry. I believe the organisation is notable for its membership size and it has also already been approved on the german version of wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Proposal_Management_Professionals Alex King-Zhang ( talk) 20:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Needs more in-depth coverage from the media, beyond the single story in Variety. Binksternet ( talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Prod contested by author. Local politician with no indication of notability. Provided references do not mention subject at all, and external link only confirms his status as district magistrate with no supporting text. If kept, should be moved to "Mahendra Kumar (magistrate)" or some such. -- Finngall talk 01:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 09:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Previously deleted as G11 and cleaned up a bit: article appears to be a commissioned work designed to promote a non-notable businessman. None of the awards are enough to get him past WP:ANYBIO, and there isn't enough sourcing to get him past the general guideline in WP:N. Should be deleted as a non-notable promotional article created in likely violation of the terms of use. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Wikipedia-based class projects are a good thing, and something that we encourage. We are, however, first and foremost an encyclopedia. Any articles those projects produce must meet our requirements. There is strong consensus here that this one does not, for the reasons stated. You might want to read Wikipedia:School and university projects for some ideas on running future projects. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Essay / POV fork of other articles (notably Prostitution and Sex trafficking). Written from a wholly US standpoint. Not encyclopedic. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Child marriage#Africa. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
POV fork of Child marriage with matching source(s). Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. See my recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution and State Sanctioned Violence for a mini-essay on class projects. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
IP contested PROD: concern was that this article is in violation of WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. CU on the account links it back to a university, which suggests that this is a poorly implemented class project. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This page was made under false pretenses and substantiated by paid content from blog-mills. An IP user made a series of edits to the Glide (software) page and changed the content until it was entirely about GiveHope rather than writing the article themself. I accidentally moved the page before doing due diligence and seeing that it had been hijacked in content. Edit history is at Glide as I moved it back upon realizing the error. JesseRafe ( talk) 14:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Denver Randleman was one of the NCOs in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; neither his rank ( staff sergeant) or his highest award ( bronze star) qualify him for notability under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, he went on with his life, becoming successful in business but garnering no significant coverage. The character "Bull Randleman" had a point of view segment in the fourth episode of the miniseries. Randleman is listed in several Ambrose books as having provided an oral history to the Eisenhower Center and is mentioned in passing in a Brotherton book. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Current sourcing is almost all primary. Searches turned up virtually nothing. Certainly not enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Article creator contested PROD. This is a non-notable film that fails WP:N by not meeting either the GNG or NFILM. I could find no sourcing for it in reliable independent sources after completing a BEFORE check, which would not be expected for a film that debuted in the United States. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. There's consensus within the established group of editors who have participated here that the article should not exist on Wikipedia currently. This AfD has now had 12 days when we normally allocate 7, and no coherent arguments have been put forward which explain why this article should be kept or how it complies with our policies. I see no benefit in leaving this AfD to run for another 36 hours before formally closing it, given the disruption and particularly the unacceptable allegations being leveled against participants. Nick ( talk) 18:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable graphic designer with little in the way of actual coverage and who's article serves as little more than his resume. I can find nothing beyond passing mentions of this person as an individual. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. So Why 19:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non notable person. Proded article with reasoning "fails to meet WP:NAFL or WP:GNG. Twelve years since drafted, no more notable since then" prod was swiftly removed by creator of page, so now nominating for deletion. Flickerd ( talk) 13:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz talk 03:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable participation article. There is no GNG... Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America 1000 17:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
provided sources don't meet WP:NCORP, most are primary. There are some press releases out there but not the significant coverage we need. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 15:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America 1000 17:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I nominate this article for deletion because it is insignificant in Wikipedia. Mark Jhomel ( talk) 08:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Todd Bertuzzi. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Sportsfan 1234, Madg2011, and Bearian: This afd was had the incorrect name in the template for another page ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade Jenkins). The template has now been updated. Yosemiter ( talk) 19:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Lacks GNG. Only reference is a dead link. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Below dictionary standard. Unreferenced and uninformative. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Does not seem to be a notable subcaste. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 19:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Due to minimal discussion, if any established, non-COI editor objects, WP:SOFTDELETE applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The subject does not seem to be notable. He appeared as a fitness coach in a reality TV series, but the cast members of this show do not seem to be particularly notable. The bulk of the sources are self references or press release type articles in alumni newsletters. There does not seem to be broad coverage of the subject. Winning state charter school teacher of the year is not a significant prize. There are WP:AUTO concerns, but I don't think the subject is notable enough regardless of who wrote the article. only ( talk) 17:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with the assertion it's not noteworthy. Too Fat for 15 is the only reality weight loss show to be nominated for a Primetime Emmy, and the subject was the star of the show. How many other reality stars from cancelled shows have articles written about them? Additionally, per the NJ Dept. of Education, 35% of all public school students attend charter schools. As a result, the award is much bigger than some give it credit for. The subject also received awards and recognition from Michele Obama's Let's Move campaign and the President's Council on Physical Fitness. E! News also named him America's Most Knowledgeable Fitness Personality while on Too Fat for 15. Those accolades make the subject noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.94.134 ( talk) 01:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — 173.54.94.134 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Not a notable college NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a person whose only reliably sourced claim of notability is having been a non-winning candidate for federal and provincial office. As always, merely being a candidate in an election that the person didn't win is not a notability claim that passes WP:NPOL, and neither is being the first candidate of any particular ethnic background (and even then she isn't even the first in the province's history, but merely the first in the history of one particular party, which is even weaker as a notability claim). But there's no sourcing here to get her past WP:GNG for her work as a lawyer or community activist. All of which means that nothing here is a valid reason for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 23:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Catfish and the Bottlemen. North America 1000 18:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable. Already redirected but creator reverted. There is no reviews or charting info for this EP. Also, the EP features songs that would later be featured on their debut album. Jennica✿ / talk 08:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Bypassing the PROD process, as I feel a fuller discussion is merited here. The subject of this article is a recently-deceased meteorologist, whose claim to notability is that he was a fellow of what appears to be the sort of "peak body" for his profession and served as an office-holder thereof. That said, there's not an awful lot beyond that statement, which suggests that GNG may not be met. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOK/ WP:BOOKCRIT due to lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See related discussion about the story's protagonist in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Mikhailovich Lebedev. This article - as well as the articles about the protagonist and the book's author - cites various unreliable fringe sources as evidence that they were fooled by the premise of the story. Location ( talk) 03:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 10:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Only ref provided is to what looks like a blog. Could not identify multiple instances of non-trivial discussion in reliable independent verifiable published sources. Google search only seems to have obituaries. KDS4444 ( talk) 03:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
*Delete The article's only source is someone's blog and my own search didn't find significant independent coverage in reliable sources.
Papaursa (
talk)
02:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Article PRODded with reason "Only in-passing mentions of foundation in third-party sources listed, no in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. (Note that some references do not mention this foundation.)" Article dePRODded by article creator (SPA and likely COI editor; given that this was their first edit, I would not be surprised if this was a case of undisclosed paid editing) after addition of more in-passing mentions. Most of the references mention the Foundation just once ("funded by the Drake Foundation"), none of them give any other info beyond "UK based non-profit" in a few of them. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 09:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. No consensus for a redirect So Why 18:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:PROMO Classicwiki ( talk) (ping me please) 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I recommend a selective merge to Karen Pritzker, the only co-founder of the company with a Wikipedia article, per WP:PRESERVE. Jason33661 ( talk · contribs) worked hard writing this detailed article; some of the material can be preserved in Pritzker's article.
There is no prejudice against undoing the redirect if more sources that provide significant coverage about LaunchCapital are found.
The result was redirect to Bhadohi. So Why 18:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Small institute with a dozen professors. There is a bit of coverage here and there, but it's all either routine, passing mention, or local. Much of it is along the lines of "So-and-so from IICT, and now lets talk about something else entirely". Maybe there's better sources in non-English languages, but I'm in no place to find them if there are. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any indication whatsoever that the channel described in this article exists. While Fox Life does exist and does appear to have some kind of presence in the United Kingdom, that does not appear to be a separate British feed. The only other hit I could find online about a Fox Life UK and Ireland is on Wikia. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 07:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Merely publishing a magazine doesn't makes it notable. This magazine fails guidelines lay out by WP:MAGAZINE. Greenbörg (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Not even a 'minor newspaper'. Greenbörg (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
No significant evidence of notability. Hayman30 ( talk) 03:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. So Why 18:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Promotional stunt by a fan. Has serious issues of impartiality of tone and undue weight, peacocking. Fails GNG Umair Aj ( talk) 08:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Speedy keep Has reliable coverages by Times of India, Hindustan Times, India Today and News 18 passes WP:RS thus it passes basic WP:GNG. Further lots of Reliable coverages provides in-depth coverage about the song which makes it passes WP:NSONG. Further quotes are attributed to their respective authors. This cannot be promotional, it is very well sourced with reliable coverages. If this is promotional than every film which is going to be released in the year 2018 but has an article about it in the year 2017 is also promotional. Article is started according to notability policies and has reliable coverages by reputed news media of India Anoptimistix Let's Talk 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Anoptimistix ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Comment: The nominator of this XfD has not notified the author of the page before taking it to AfD. Further it is to be noted that they were blocked for
sockpuppeting,they may create multiple accounts for deceiving and to disrupt and influence this discussion.
Anoptimistix
Let's Talk
17:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Originally BLPPROD, sources were added but not really enough for a BLP article to stand. Clean up was done(by someone else) to remove unverified things, which was nearly the entire page. Claim to notability is being a retired judge of "Supreme Arbitration court of the Constituent Western Armenia". I originally thought this was a sub-national position in Armenia, but after further research it seems to be a position in the unrecognized state of Western Armenia. That was sourced back to the about us page of the reference that says he was a supreme court judge. [29]. The other source indicates he was a district court judge in Armenia, which isn't a international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office that WP:POLITICIAN needs in order to pass. WikiVirus C (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable company. The only claim of significance of this company is that it is "one of the TOP-10 digital agencies in Ukraine" according to the Ukrainian Advertising Coalition. But according to this source, the UAC only rates 22 digital agencies, so falling into the top 10 of such a small group is not really that notable. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Not notable actress and the article is highly promotional Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Unable to find WP:RS for this. Listed sources are unreliable/self-published. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Malunrenta ( talk) 14:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Previously deleted as CSD A7, but additional minor referencing added upon recreation, so I'm taking it to AfD. The sourcing is trivial mentions, and they award a non-notable scholarship to individuals at only two universities. The coverage in sources fails WP:ORGDEPTH, making it not meet our inclusion criteria of WP:N. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:USCJN - county court judge with no further indicia of notability. I found the original source, from which the original article content was closely paraphrased, and found no further information there to support general notability. bd2412 T 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Ineligible for PROD, has been PROD'd several times in the past (including twice by me because I have the apparent memory of a goldfish, mea culpa). Mr. Beres does not pass NJOURNALIST or the GNG. He is merely a man doing his job and while his job involves presenting the news, he has not been a subject of the news as an individual. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
BLPPROD was incorrectly removed as all of the sources in the article are unreliable sources connected to the subject or from other unreliable sources such as blogs. The case against inclusion is strong from a notability standpoint as well: the only source to be found about him on Google other than YouTube is Wikipedia because the bot indexed this after the BLPPROD was removed. Additionally, the content is promotional in tone, and appears to have been written by an SPA with the intent of promoting the subject, making it excluded by WP:NOTSPAM and failing the second prong of WP:N. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. A7 — Spaceman Spiff 09:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. WP:AUTO and likely WP:PROMO pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
No claim made for notability. No RS that discusses her, only trivial mention in articles about her father. Fails WP:NMUSIC LK ( talk) 06:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America 1000 18:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Undue amount focusing on weight, even if it is important to her story. Most likely fails WP:NMODEL. Classicwiki ( talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 22:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Not even a 'minor newspaper'. Greenbörg (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to English Schools Foundation. So Why 10:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Non notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. All sources are biographical, routine, and non-news related, and do not indicate the notability. alphalfalfa( talk) 01:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Added several additional sources, including some from national newspapers (South china morning post). Clearly meets notability guidelines, especially compared to other articles. I would also like to point out that none of the sources are mine, so therefore I am not sure what te list is talking about. I do not take ownership of Wikipedia articles Hyungjoo98 ( talk) 10:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC).
Keep - Key part of Hong Kong history in regard to those who attended as well as school itself, which is linked strongly with Hong Kong Park (one of the major parks in the SAR).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 ( talk • contribs)
Another comment - only English language references are included at the moment. Chinese language ones are much more numerous (due to HK being majority Chinese speaking). In addition, the suggestion to move to a local wiki is misguided, as Hong Kong is too large to be considered just "local interest". Passes WP:SIGCOV even with just English language sources. Hyungjoo98 ( talk) 04:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, You are absolutely correct that a plethora of sources does not indicate notability, and that "because lots of Hong Kong people went to it" is not argument (in fact, it can't be an argument, considering the small size of the school). However, this are not the issues that are discussed here. The issue is whether the sources indicate notability. I have stated earlier that there are national-level sources (South China Morning Post, Brand HK (HK Government newssite)), which mention Glenealy School, indicating its notability. In addition, these sources are not of simply local importance, making a move to a local Wiki inappropriate.
In regards to merging to page to the main ESF page, this would create an extremely large and cluttered page, as the ESF is a large organisation which oversees the operation of a very large number of schools. Hyungjoo98 ( talk) 14:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. No page on other projects. No link to verify his claim of winning the award. Pride of Performance is awarded to 'hundreds' annualy and is not a reason to keep this bio if this is verified. Greenbörg (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Puff piece about a non-notable technician. Full of peacock terms and contains references to paid-for awards. the only sources found were social media, blogs and passing mentions. fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMMAKER Domdeparis ( talk) 10:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Promotional bio. No signs of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The major argument in favor of keeping is that WP:NACADEMIC assumes that full professors are notable. Several people disagree with this.
My own reading of WP:NACADEMIC leads me to believe that this argument is a mis-reading of the Specific criteria notes for criteria 5, which says, The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or Distinguished Professor [...] can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level. That doesn't mean that full professors are notable. It means that named chair appointees must also be full professors. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Not in any way notable, does not meet criteria in WP:ACADEMIC Scrabble Scribble ( talk) 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Snowclone#The Mother of All X. Select verifiable entries can be merged from the history. So Why 09:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
(not a !vote) Not really a disambig page. It is an euphemism used by some to describe some battles, not really mane them. Similarly, Idiot (disambiguation) does not list Donald Trump, although not an uncommon reference.
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:WEB / WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Sources present in the article are WP:SPIP or passing mentions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. None of the keep !voters disputed the analysis that the reliable sources provided do not actually contain the subject. So Why 10:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
See Foreign relations of Azerbaijan/ESISC report. ESISC just a Baku's lobbyest, the report just a propaganda. There is no any response in the media, only the articles of ESISC itself. Divot ( talk) 21:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Colapeninsula The article is mainly based on report developed by an independent international think tank and portrays the findings of the report based on the investigation carried out and comprehensively described not only within the report itself, but also in articles in numerous foreign media. The aim - as it goes with each article in Wikipedia and the general mission of any encyclopedia, is to bring more clarity to the term cognac diplomacy which is being frequently used in connection to Armenia’s informal diplomacy, which was also acknowledged by Armenians themselves. Respective article is provided. Vugar Z ( talk) 09:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep: First of all concerns expressed in the comments did not exist before the user Divot made the edits. He changed the article entirely and provided biased view and only after this proposed it for deleting. The original version of the article reflected numerous links of news coverage
regarding the topic moreover the article didn’t only base on ESISC report. There is not any view of author in the article and every paragraph is noted with source and was written in neutral language. Therefore I’m undoing all changes made by Devot. Every editor is more than welcome to contribute to the article based on Wikipedia rules but not vandalizing the page as Divot did. @Divot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coneyislandqueentobe ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Венецианская комиссия благословила…
Заявлением о подкупе Венецианской комиссии займется полиция Армении
Полиция Армении начала следствие по заявлению о подкупе членов Венецианской комиссии -- Coneyislandqueentobe ( talk) 14:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep This article is developed in line to Wikipedia rules with respect to neutrality. ESISC is an international think tank established in Brussels. There are articles on media in Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia. These links existed in the text before edited by Divot. Divot’s thoughts are contradictory as he names the organization to be Baku lobbyist at the same time he amends the article so that it reflects pro-Armenian position as criticizing Azerbaijan. Another contradiction is that why there are numerous vandalism attempts and changes made to the article if the purpose is to have the article deleted. Kingedik ( talk) 13:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep: please note that the term of cognac diplomacy was existing before the report and below is several articles on media in Moldova and Armenia itself where this term is noted. In Article in Armenia Armenian author notes that cognac is considered as the element of national diplomacy.
See
Ashot Martirosyan's interview
Sona Sh (
talk)
19:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Coneyislandqueentobe links about "Cognac diplomacy" is full of fakes. F.e. "UK journalists managed to catch on to bribe Mark Pritchard, a member of the British parliament from Conservative Party, took who agreed to work as a consultant for the Armenian-Lebanese group SOUFAN". In the source we can see only "The parliamentarian who sits on the most APPGs is Mark Pritchard, the Tory MP for the Wrekin, a member of 41 including the country groups for Armenia, Bosnia and Bulgaria. He has also declared an interest as an consultant on the strategic security group Soufan, for which he is paid £2,074 a month.". Divot ( talk) 21:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep: I hold the view that, the page should be assessed in its original version, before the edits were made by those who proposed the page for deletion. Simply by referring to Wikipedia rules, one can reaffirm that the page is not eligible for any of the reasons for deletion: Article does not violate any copyright, does not amount to vandalism, is not placed for advertising based on irrelevant encyclopedic content, provides a number of reliable sources. Very importantly, the article meets the requirements of notability guidelines. A quick reminder that, according to these guidelines, “Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article”. And I’m quoting the guidelines again:“If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability”.Evidence of notability of this article comprises recognized publications, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources. Last but not least, I would like to remind that, prior to nominating a page for deletion alternatives to deletion - like improving the page should be considered. Wikipedia can be made a better resource of knowledge if users contribute by improving the articles, rather than trying to delete everything that contradicts their views or opinions. Gopalo ( talk) 09:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Although the edits I have made last time, are based on real information and real sources user Divot made vandalism by deleting them and violated Wikipedia rules. Therefore, I stop editing the article and call administrator to review the previous version of the article after which Divot made last changes and to make the decision basing on it. Sona Sh ( talk) 12:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The article «Коньячная дипломатия» (Cognac diplomacy) was deleted from russian Wiki as not notable subject - [45]. Divot ( talk) 11:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was no consensus. So Why 09:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The subject of the article doesn't have enough third party coverage (yet) to warrant its own article. It's been deleted several times already for the same reason, including one revision created by myself. Since I think it's just WP:TOOSOON for his article, I believe it would be best to move it to a draft and WP:SALT it for its own good. Buffaboy talk 02:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable biography. McCarthy makes noise, but most of the citations refer to articles about other people in which she is just a sideline note. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 03:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet general notability guidelines or musical notability. No independent references in article, and no independent references found on Google search, which yields only the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Black triangle (UFO). So Why 18:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The TR-3 Black Manta is a supposed "black project" aircraft for the U.S. Military. There is little evidence to substantiate the claims in the article and most of the references that do exist are highly speculative. As a result, much of the content of the article is either original research or synthesis. Noha307 ( talk) 20:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 09:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Unsourced. Also, a search didn't find me any obviously independent coverage (fails WP:GNG). Hakken ( talk) 12:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 18:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Author who does not appear to be notable. One book only. Philafrenzy ( talk) 10:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Article is a corporate Spam. Press coverage combined into one wiki article. Writing is corporate brochure and reads like a work of online PR. Light2021 ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. ReelNepal listing movies by this person is not sufficient for notability. First AfD was closed as no consensus per WP:NPASR for having minimal participation. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 03:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a notable band; only one release of theirs seemed to have charted, and even then, only in Melbourne. I also could not find enough significant coverage about this band; even the only YouTube video I could find admitted that the band "was not very commercially successful". Given the band's age, it's possible that some coverage might exist offline, and indeed, the same YouTube video hints that the band might have been somewhat influential in the Melbourne music scene of the 1970s. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable company. Lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Already deleted by Jinian ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) So Why 20:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Probable hoax. I can't find anything to support the existence of this band. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 20:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This casting director, executive producer and "digital strategist" fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 18:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources giving in-depth discussion of subject. (The IMDb website doesn't count because it contains user-generated information, and is therefore in conflict with WP:USERGENERATED.) Binksternet ( talk) 00:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Article to be moved to Pagal Nilavu (TV series) per MOS:CAPS. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable television program. Lack of GNG. Most sources are from Youtube. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable television program. All sources are primary (the awards won are by the channel that airs the show...) Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was Rename. I'll move this to Background singer, over the existing redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Article which serves mainly as a list of people who did background vocals on songs without being officially listed as contributors. Many of the individual examples are referenced, albeit much more frequently to unreliable sources like fansites than to reliable source coverage in media, but what's lacking is sourcing to demonstrate that the concept of uncredited background singers is notable enough in its own right to warrant a separate article from the general concept of background singers. Yes, this happens, but there are no sources comprehensively analyzing its notability as a concept -- all this does is WP:SYNTH a bunch of discrete and otherwise unconnected examples, and thus it constitutes an act of original research to call this a notable thing. Bearcat ( talk) 20:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No indication of notability. It's difficult to discern what the article is actually about. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Iloilo City#Economy. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Still unconvinced this is a notable mall. Very small retail area for a mall and lack of independent coverage Ajf773 ( talk) 23:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was Protected redirect and merge to A Course in Miracles. The consensus have been established with more clarity after contributions from editors outside of the topic. Protected redirect and merge to A Course in Miracles#Associated works appears to be the most agreeable option. Alex Shih Talk 16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm renominating this for deletion as I said I would during the deletion review. I'm afraid Mr Renard does not meet the minimum threshold for a Wikipedia biography, in that there is insufficient information about him as a person in the reliable sources. The sources don't tell us his date of birth, nationality, profession, or really any other biographical information at all ---- so it's simply not possible to base a biographical article on reliable sources. What limited sources we do have relate purely to his books. His biography should be deleted. — S Marshall T/ C 21:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Changed to merge, better solution. Slatersteven ( talk) 07:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we can close this. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
No, it's a way of saying why the fuck should we waste our time analysing something now, when we know what the outcome is going to be?We do? From the last AfD, a cursory glance would inform you of an obvious "Delete" result. It's only because Ritchie took the time to review the arguments that he realized that nobody was arguing about the article, but about the behavioral accusations. Even if one trims those out, we're left with the "Delete" side arguing "There's no notability, check these search results." and the "Keep" side arguing "Shut up!!!1!" So that seems like an obvious "Delete" to me, as well. But then, look at the !votes here... So I'm not sure what you think the obvious outcome is going to be. There's more people voting to keep this time, but their arguments have nothing at all to do with the notability of the article, which is pretty much a non-argument. To be honest, were I the admin handling these AfDs, I'd have close the previous one as "No Consensus" with a strong encouragement to try again without the bickering. But this one? I'd close this one as "Delete" with a suggestion that everyone who !voted "procedural keep" should probably read WP:CONLEVEL and WP:LAWYER and please try to remained focused on the content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The article notes:
What propels a book to the number 2 spot on Amazon—second only to the new Harry Potter—when there have been no major trade reviews, no advertising, no national media exposure and no placement on any regional or national bestsellers lists? What motivates 141 readers to post glowing reviews? In other words: What's the deal with Hay House's The Disappearance of the Universe?
Originally published in May 2003 by Fearless Books, Gary Renard's Disappearance—subtitled Straight Talk About Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness—was picked up by Hay House, which published its edition in October.
The book sold 25,000 copies in the Fearless edition and more than 30,000 for Hay House before the author and Hay House decided to turn up the volume. Renard hired Peggy McColl, whose company, Dynamic Destinies, does online marketing for authors and publishers. Renard paid McColl's consulting fee; Hay House pitched in for the contact lists and other costs, and Fearless publisher D. Patrick Miller contributed his labor.
...
Much of Disappearance grows out of Renard's study of A Course in Miracles,the 1976 three-volume set of books that became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups. Course remains a cult favorite, retaining a spot above 500 in the Amazon rankings and selling an estimated 1.5 million copies. Renard said Disappearance (his first book) took him nine years to write, "and it's all true." It describes Renard's conversations with a pair of "ascended masters" (spiritual guides) who began visiting him in 1992 (they recommended he study the Course). He added, "Yes, it was a great campaign, but it also took a strong book to make it as successful as it was. The book was already an underground hit—it had great reviews and a strong Web site presentation, as well as excellent word of mouth in the spiritual community and an author who has flown 100,000 miles in the last year to promote it."
The article notes:
Author Gary Renard received some strange visitors while meditating in his home alone one evening.
Renard claims in his book, "The Disappearance of the Universe," that he opened his eyes from a meditation session to find a mysterious young couple sitting on his couch. In 17 subsequent conversations with the couple over the next nine years, Renard says they revealed themselves as ascended masters sent to teach him about the "divine intelligence of the universe" --- religion, reincarnation, forgiveness and more.
To those unfamiliar with Renard, his claims may seem a little hard to swallow. But through word of mouth, his book, based on teachings from and time spent with the couple, has found a significant place in the spiritual world. Its even been compared with the spiritual society's signature book "A Course in Miracles," by Helen Schucman and William Thetford. Both books are based on the author's writings on a series of divine visits and conversations. Renard's book also contains analyses of some of Schucman's primary teachings.
Two sources about a book are enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. The Publishers Weekly review can be used to establish notability for The Disappearance of the Universe. But as an article about an event listing, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution source likely is not enough to establish notability. Since there is only one solid source about The Disappearance of Universe, I do not recommend creating an article about the book since it probably would get deleted or merged.
I therefore support a selective merge to a new section called A Course in Miracles#Associated works per Timtempleton because the Publishers Weekly and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles clearly connect Gary Renard and his book, The Disappearance of the Universe, with A Course in Miracles.
searches for this subject require more targeted searches and take time, I understood that to mean that you needed time to find your sources. If I've got that wrong, then please post them now.— S Marshall T/ C 23:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
And the truth is that I am "badgering". I'm positively required to do so by the second paragraph of WP:BLP ---- a consideration that far outweighs the essay on which Softlavender would like to rely. Policy demands that I am, and I quote, "very firm about the use of high-quality sources". So badger, badger, badger.— S Marshall T/ C 16:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played in a fully pro league JMHamo ( talk) 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 02:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
DGG ( talk · contribs) thinks this is spam. But an article that has survived nine years since its creation and five years since its last AfD discussion deserves better than speedy deletion. I have no feeling on the matter. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
1) US patents for inventions in India are rare for individual researchers. Does DGG mean to say they are not of value? http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Health/2017-07-11/Indian-doctors-get-US-patent-for-hair-regrowth/311514 http://medicaldialogues.in/bravo-apollo-spectra-doctor-invents-injection-for-natural-hair-re-growth-bags-us-patent/ http://www.deccanchronicle.com/science/science/110717/two-win-patent-for-hair-regrowth.html 2) Are awards by the Royal College of Surgeons Glasgow and the highest Ophthalmological Society in India "no major awards"? 3) Here is another: http://network7mediagroup.net/dr-debraj-shome-dr-rinky-kapoor-awarded-at-pharma-leaders-power-brand-awards/ Who decides btw what are major awards? 4) http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JQkcvMjAxMC8wOS8xOSNBcjAwMTA1&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom First page, all ediions mentions, in India's largest newspaper are worth nothing? 5) Adjunct Faculty at Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, India, for a surgeon, is worth nothing?! http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/IIT-B-docs-use-nanotech-to-treat-cancer/articleshow/5570967.cms 6) 51 seminal publications are worth nothing? http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2185464 7) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Debraj_Shome/publications 8) Can you then specify what actually is worth something? Sitting and editing articles and putting them up for deletion on Wiki?
The result was merge to Trisha Paytas. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
There already is a discography section at Trisha Paytas — that's sufficient when virtually all of these songs appear to be self-released. Anyone can self-release songs; that doesn't make them notable. This article is a blatant attempt at promotionally adding more and unnecessary pages to Wikipedia in order to further her brand — including by inappropriate addition of purely decorative images of artists in no way involved with the subject and only here to make this seem more notable and important. The main article Trisha Paytas is constantly beset by promotional and evidently WP:COI edits. Tenebrae ( talk) 21:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable writer lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. self-written unsourced self-promotion, G11 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:FILMMAKER. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Diamond Bus#Black Diamond. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non notable bus company, Sources were added in the prev AFD however 2 years on and we have nothing that confirms notability, Fails NCORP as well as GNG – Davey2010 Talk 23:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. After extended discussion, there is a clear consensus favoring deletion of the article as it stands at this time. This is without prejudice to the future creation of an article on this topic, if reliable independent sources are found to support such an article. Editors who believe that an article meeting Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion may consider creating a draft at Draft:Mavenlink, excluding the sources deemed objectionable and instead providing reliable independent sources, and submitting this draft for consideration through the usual process for evaluation of drafts. bd2412 T 03:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Blatant Promotions. Highly misleading, Press coverage online blogs presented as source for notability. Light2021 ( talk) 05:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not, 2 is only 1 review, 3 is like the 1st one and, worse, because it's a company interview therefore not independent at all and 4 is following this, 5 is a funding list which cannot satisfy WP:ORGIND since it says "anything directly or indirectly by the company or where the company talks about itself, routine announcements or listings", 6 is like the first one, and actually from a local TV station (therefore not substantial or significant) and
The tool, dubbed Mavenlink Resource Planning and Management, intends to treat your projects and resources as interconnected cyclical processes more akin to enterprise resource planning (ERP) rather than one-off tasks. This pivot is designed to give managers and planners the ability to address company changes that might affect multiple project timelines, budgets, and profitability. The solution spans the service lifecycle from sales commitment to project delivery and postmortem analysisand finally 7 and 8 are once again
anything directly or indirectly by the companysince it says
Upstairs at Mavenlink, employees are helping fast-growing businesses navigate digital obstacles. Andy Leavitt of Mavenlink describes the company's mission this way: "Anybody who bills for a fee, we want those businesses to come to us."and
the company quickly expanded into Utah to find the tech talent it needed to help clients manage projects all over the world. As WP:Deletion policy and WP:NOT state quite clearly, we are not a promotional webhost and suggesting that we make exceptions simply because of publication name is violating our fundamental pillar WP:Neutrality. As for GNG, it actually says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" and "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason" (links to WP:What Wikipedia which is cited as a guaranteed policy factor). To analyze the Keep votes, one of them suggests a local trade publication but these are exactly "directly or indirectly by the company", the next offers the same business journal and none of that actually gives us new material to examine. See also WP:GNG which clearly states
Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia articleso GNG cannot be an instant guaranteed it can be accepted since there are still valid concerns. As for copyediting, the specific page about this process actually says "Promotion cannot be improved if it still other concerns", and this is especially valid when considering clear COI as this, this, this, this, this and others, so suggesting that we brush it under the rug in absence of taking action on it, is not part of our goals here. Considering these were repeated back-to-back patterns, it's highly likely to say they were company employees, worse when they themselves were either sourcing back to the company website or pasting from it, therefore we have applicable concerns in our Terms of Use violations. In fact, the only changes made here were to remove a few pieces of puffery but the promotionalism was still noticeable, that is instantly evidence for WP:Deletion policy as unsuitable encyclopedia material. Suggesting that we act closer to a news source and cover special interests or trade subjects, would be violating WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper (policy). As the nomination states, "Blatant promotion" is in fact perfectly applicable. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is not routine coverage. The article contains detailed analysis and questioning of Mavenlink's decisions:
This article from Computerworld is also skeptical of Mavenlink's decisions:While this is the obvious next step for Mavenlink in its expansion it may be making an error. Currently the SaaS company is hosting its data on AWS in Oregon with a disaster recovery centre in Virginia. Asked whether they would be opening up a European instance Mavenlink responded: “Given the networked ecosystem architecture of our application, we are leveraging the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework for data privacy, and leveraging other, modern methods to deliver performance across global geographies.”
While Mavenlink are now certified under the EU-US privacy shield this may not be enough to win some clients. This is especially true in Germany where data sovereignty is especially important. The EU-US privacy shield was criticised heavily last year. Most major hosting companies now have European data centres there seems little reason not to have an instance in the EU. It will be interesting to see what the Mavenlink strategy on this will be going forward. It may be that they are awaiting a critical mass of companies before opening up a non-US instance. The risk is that without that data centre in Europe they may find that some companies will not want to sign up.
Critical analysis of a company's actions is neither routine coverage nor an advertisement.MyPOV
I'm not convinced. Not because I believe the hype that SaaS requires no professional services, but more because Mavenlink has a difficult job to do here. For one thing, it has to differentiate its own product from the on-premises offerings out there. The general way that SaaS vendors do that is by articulating the ease of use, reduced time to value, better economics and easier integration that SaaS products bring. But by introducing MavenOps, Mavenlink needs to start articulating the very opposite: that SaaS is hard and that consulting is needed to deliver value.I'll be interested to see how this plays out, but I suspect Mavenlink's move has more to do with a difficult economic climate and pressure to deliver financial results than with any customer-facing factors. One to watch, but I'm not sure they're onto a winner here.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Too soon, has not broke through yet in a sufficient fashion. Geschichte ( talk) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete.Per WP:G7 by User:Cyp. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Unsourced BLP with no indication of notability. Salimfadhley ( talk) 19:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:MUSICBIO. Notability claims to be an international audience following a 2017 single, but the ref cited does not state this. Comatmebro ( talk) 19:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) -- Nevé – selbert 16:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Glorious Revolution#William and Mary made joint monarchs with a hatnote to the College of William & Mary. This article is a stub and a wp:fork. -- Nevé – selbert 19:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1, the nominator has not only not advanced a reason for deletion, but seems to be under the impression that this is a forum for a name change or the article's content. Procedural close on the basis that it is not- the article talk page is! (non-admin closure) — fortuna velut luna 07:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I have tried to modify this page to show Jam Filled's true history. Jam Filled did not purchase Arc Productions, It did not change it's name to Arc Productions. Arc Productions went bankrupt and Jam Filled purchased some of the assets only. The contracts were renegotiated with the client and many ex Arc employees were hired many people back. In stead of removing this page, I suggest changing it back to Arc Productions and stating that is went bankrupt. Jam Filled is celebrating it's 10th year anniversary this year, and we do not want to be associated with the past of Arc Productions. Although we now share some history, we have our own and would like to create a page for that.
On a side note, over the past 12 years, I have worked for all the companies continuously from DKP, IDT Entertainment, Starz Media Canada, and Arc Productions. With more authority than most people (if not all), I can clearly tell you that Jam Filled is not the same company.
560 Employees that worked for Arc Productions can tell you same. John Hickson ( talk) 18:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Unsure if being nominated as district judge is a credible claim of notability (i.e. may be CSD-A7). Kleuske ( talk) 18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
About a non-notable proprietary retirement funding vehicle, the Private Retirement TrustSM, or PRTSM. No coverage to meet WP:GNG. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Promotional article that fails WP:N both on grounds of lack of sourcing and being excluded as promotionalism by WP:NOTSPAM. All of the coverage that exist that I could find contains a disclaimer that it is from a press release, which means it doesn't meet our standards to count towards notability per WP:SPIP. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
– What needs to be corrected? Help me StanislavP ( talk) 11:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sorry, no salting. We don't salt articles just because of one AfD; repeated recreation would be a better case for salting Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is a transparent forum shopping attempt to squeeze in a topic that has, as noted on the Talk page, "been speedily deleted four times previously", is tagged for a lack of verifiable notability per WP:GNG, and has been declined three times in the WP:Articles for Creation process. — BarrelProof ( talk) 16:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
No in-depth coverage. Just trivial coverage about his venture. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW - withdrawn by nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Only news coverage is in relation to her campaign announcement video from this week. This should be a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2018#District 6. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 19:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix ( talk) 15:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Provisional keep - There are more secondary sources on Suptic than those currently included in the article. We should determine whether or not Suptic meets the notability requirements before deleting the article. Clbsfn ( talk) 05:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable musician TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 15:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a business exec directory. No evidence of editorial references establishing individual notability. Mention is mostly in relation to the post at coop in trade magazines (quotes about industry topics, quotes about business performance, mention at retirment). All fairly routine for a company exec. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Never elected to the provincial or federal assembly. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Borderline G11 article that fails WP:N on two fronts: it does not have the sourcing under WP:CORPDEPTH to meet the general notability guideline and it is excluded from inclusion in the encyclopedia by WP:NOTSPAM. All of the available sourcing is press releases, blogs, trade magazines with low publication standards, or other sourcing not independent of the company. The article is written in a promotional tone with the clear intent of raising the profile of the organization. I almost tagged it with G11, but decided that AfD might be a better route. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The organisation is a non profit organization so there is no real promotion here, although i would be happy to accept changes to the language. I understand there is not a lot of independent media coverage but that is because it operates in a niche industry. I believe the organisation is notable for its membership size and it has also already been approved on the german version of wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Proposal_Management_Professionals Alex King-Zhang ( talk) 20:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Needs more in-depth coverage from the media, beyond the single story in Variety. Binksternet ( talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Prod contested by author. Local politician with no indication of notability. Provided references do not mention subject at all, and external link only confirms his status as district magistrate with no supporting text. If kept, should be moved to "Mahendra Kumar (magistrate)" or some such. -- Finngall talk 01:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 09:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Previously deleted as G11 and cleaned up a bit: article appears to be a commissioned work designed to promote a non-notable businessman. None of the awards are enough to get him past WP:ANYBIO, and there isn't enough sourcing to get him past the general guideline in WP:N. Should be deleted as a non-notable promotional article created in likely violation of the terms of use. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Wikipedia-based class projects are a good thing, and something that we encourage. We are, however, first and foremost an encyclopedia. Any articles those projects produce must meet our requirements. There is strong consensus here that this one does not, for the reasons stated. You might want to read Wikipedia:School and university projects for some ideas on running future projects. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Essay / POV fork of other articles (notably Prostitution and Sex trafficking). Written from a wholly US standpoint. Not encyclopedic. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Child marriage#Africa. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
POV fork of Child marriage with matching source(s). Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. See my recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution and State Sanctioned Violence for a mini-essay on class projects. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
IP contested PROD: concern was that this article is in violation of WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. CU on the account links it back to a university, which suggests that this is a poorly implemented class project. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This page was made under false pretenses and substantiated by paid content from blog-mills. An IP user made a series of edits to the Glide (software) page and changed the content until it was entirely about GiveHope rather than writing the article themself. I accidentally moved the page before doing due diligence and seeing that it had been hijacked in content. Edit history is at Glide as I moved it back upon realizing the error. JesseRafe ( talk) 14:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Denver Randleman was one of the NCOs in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; neither his rank ( staff sergeant) or his highest award ( bronze star) qualify him for notability under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, he went on with his life, becoming successful in business but garnering no significant coverage. The character "Bull Randleman" had a point of view segment in the fourth episode of the miniseries. Randleman is listed in several Ambrose books as having provided an oral history to the Eisenhower Center and is mentioned in passing in a Brotherton book. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Current sourcing is almost all primary. Searches turned up virtually nothing. Certainly not enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Article creator contested PROD. This is a non-notable film that fails WP:N by not meeting either the GNG or NFILM. I could find no sourcing for it in reliable independent sources after completing a BEFORE check, which would not be expected for a film that debuted in the United States. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was Delete. There's consensus within the established group of editors who have participated here that the article should not exist on Wikipedia currently. This AfD has now had 12 days when we normally allocate 7, and no coherent arguments have been put forward which explain why this article should be kept or how it complies with our policies. I see no benefit in leaving this AfD to run for another 36 hours before formally closing it, given the disruption and particularly the unacceptable allegations being leveled against participants. Nick ( talk) 18:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable graphic designer with little in the way of actual coverage and who's article serves as little more than his resume. I can find nothing beyond passing mentions of this person as an individual. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. So Why 19:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non notable person. Proded article with reasoning "fails to meet WP:NAFL or WP:GNG. Twelve years since drafted, no more notable since then" prod was swiftly removed by creator of page, so now nominating for deletion. Flickerd ( talk) 13:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz talk 03:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable participation article. There is no GNG... Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America 1000 17:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
provided sources don't meet WP:NCORP, most are primary. There are some press releases out there but not the significant coverage we need. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 15:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America 1000 17:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I nominate this article for deletion because it is insignificant in Wikipedia. Mark Jhomel ( talk) 08:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Todd Bertuzzi. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Sportsfan 1234, Madg2011, and Bearian: This afd was had the incorrect name in the template for another page ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade Jenkins). The template has now been updated. Yosemiter ( talk) 19:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Lacks GNG. Only reference is a dead link. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Below dictionary standard. Unreferenced and uninformative. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Does not seem to be a notable subcaste. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 19:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Due to minimal discussion, if any established, non-COI editor objects, WP:SOFTDELETE applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The subject does not seem to be notable. He appeared as a fitness coach in a reality TV series, but the cast members of this show do not seem to be particularly notable. The bulk of the sources are self references or press release type articles in alumni newsletters. There does not seem to be broad coverage of the subject. Winning state charter school teacher of the year is not a significant prize. There are WP:AUTO concerns, but I don't think the subject is notable enough regardless of who wrote the article. only ( talk) 17:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with the assertion it's not noteworthy. Too Fat for 15 is the only reality weight loss show to be nominated for a Primetime Emmy, and the subject was the star of the show. How many other reality stars from cancelled shows have articles written about them? Additionally, per the NJ Dept. of Education, 35% of all public school students attend charter schools. As a result, the award is much bigger than some give it credit for. The subject also received awards and recognition from Michele Obama's Let's Move campaign and the President's Council on Physical Fitness. E! News also named him America's Most Knowledgeable Fitness Personality while on Too Fat for 15. Those accolades make the subject noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.94.134 ( talk) 01:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — 173.54.94.134 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Not a notable college NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a person whose only reliably sourced claim of notability is having been a non-winning candidate for federal and provincial office. As always, merely being a candidate in an election that the person didn't win is not a notability claim that passes WP:NPOL, and neither is being the first candidate of any particular ethnic background (and even then she isn't even the first in the province's history, but merely the first in the history of one particular party, which is even weaker as a notability claim). But there's no sourcing here to get her past WP:GNG for her work as a lawyer or community activist. All of which means that nothing here is a valid reason for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 23:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Catfish and the Bottlemen. North America 1000 18:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable. Already redirected but creator reverted. There is no reviews or charting info for this EP. Also, the EP features songs that would later be featured on their debut album. Jennica✿ / talk 08:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Bypassing the PROD process, as I feel a fuller discussion is merited here. The subject of this article is a recently-deceased meteorologist, whose claim to notability is that he was a fellow of what appears to be the sort of "peak body" for his profession and served as an office-holder thereof. That said, there's not an awful lot beyond that statement, which suggests that GNG may not be met. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOK/ WP:BOOKCRIT due to lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See related discussion about the story's protagonist in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Mikhailovich Lebedev. This article - as well as the articles about the protagonist and the book's author - cites various unreliable fringe sources as evidence that they were fooled by the premise of the story. Location ( talk) 03:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 06:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 10:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Only ref provided is to what looks like a blog. Could not identify multiple instances of non-trivial discussion in reliable independent verifiable published sources. Google search only seems to have obituaries. KDS4444 ( talk) 03:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
*Delete The article's only source is someone's blog and my own search didn't find significant independent coverage in reliable sources.
Papaursa (
talk)
02:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Article PRODded with reason "Only in-passing mentions of foundation in third-party sources listed, no in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. (Note that some references do not mention this foundation.)" Article dePRODded by article creator (SPA and likely COI editor; given that this was their first edit, I would not be surprised if this was a case of undisclosed paid editing) after addition of more in-passing mentions. Most of the references mention the Foundation just once ("funded by the Drake Foundation"), none of them give any other info beyond "UK based non-profit" in a few of them. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 09:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. No consensus for a redirect So Why 18:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:PROMO Classicwiki ( talk) (ping me please) 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I recommend a selective merge to Karen Pritzker, the only co-founder of the company with a Wikipedia article, per WP:PRESERVE. Jason33661 ( talk · contribs) worked hard writing this detailed article; some of the material can be preserved in Pritzker's article.
There is no prejudice against undoing the redirect if more sources that provide significant coverage about LaunchCapital are found.
The result was redirect to Bhadohi. So Why 18:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Small institute with a dozen professors. There is a bit of coverage here and there, but it's all either routine, passing mention, or local. Much of it is along the lines of "So-and-so from IICT, and now lets talk about something else entirely". Maybe there's better sources in non-English languages, but I'm in no place to find them if there are. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any indication whatsoever that the channel described in this article exists. While Fox Life does exist and does appear to have some kind of presence in the United Kingdom, that does not appear to be a separate British feed. The only other hit I could find online about a Fox Life UK and Ireland is on Wikia. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 07:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Merely publishing a magazine doesn't makes it notable. This magazine fails guidelines lay out by WP:MAGAZINE. Greenbörg (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Not even a 'minor newspaper'. Greenbörg (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
No significant evidence of notability. Hayman30 ( talk) 03:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. So Why 18:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Promotional stunt by a fan. Has serious issues of impartiality of tone and undue weight, peacocking. Fails GNG Umair Aj ( talk) 08:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Speedy keep Has reliable coverages by Times of India, Hindustan Times, India Today and News 18 passes WP:RS thus it passes basic WP:GNG. Further lots of Reliable coverages provides in-depth coverage about the song which makes it passes WP:NSONG. Further quotes are attributed to their respective authors. This cannot be promotional, it is very well sourced with reliable coverages. If this is promotional than every film which is going to be released in the year 2018 but has an article about it in the year 2017 is also promotional. Article is started according to notability policies and has reliable coverages by reputed news media of India Anoptimistix Let's Talk 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Anoptimistix ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Comment: The nominator of this XfD has not notified the author of the page before taking it to AfD. Further it is to be noted that they were blocked for
sockpuppeting,they may create multiple accounts for deceiving and to disrupt and influence this discussion.
Anoptimistix
Let's Talk
17:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Originally BLPPROD, sources were added but not really enough for a BLP article to stand. Clean up was done(by someone else) to remove unverified things, which was nearly the entire page. Claim to notability is being a retired judge of "Supreme Arbitration court of the Constituent Western Armenia". I originally thought this was a sub-national position in Armenia, but after further research it seems to be a position in the unrecognized state of Western Armenia. That was sourced back to the about us page of the reference that says he was a supreme court judge. [29]. The other source indicates he was a district court judge in Armenia, which isn't a international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office that WP:POLITICIAN needs in order to pass. WikiVirus C (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable company. The only claim of significance of this company is that it is "one of the TOP-10 digital agencies in Ukraine" according to the Ukrainian Advertising Coalition. But according to this source, the UAC only rates 22 digital agencies, so falling into the top 10 of such a small group is not really that notable. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Not notable actress and the article is highly promotional Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Unable to find WP:RS for this. Listed sources are unreliable/self-published. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Malunrenta ( talk) 14:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Previously deleted as CSD A7, but additional minor referencing added upon recreation, so I'm taking it to AfD. The sourcing is trivial mentions, and they award a non-notable scholarship to individuals at only two universities. The coverage in sources fails WP:ORGDEPTH, making it not meet our inclusion criteria of WP:N. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:USCJN - county court judge with no further indicia of notability. I found the original source, from which the original article content was closely paraphrased, and found no further information there to support general notability. bd2412 T 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Ineligible for PROD, has been PROD'd several times in the past (including twice by me because I have the apparent memory of a goldfish, mea culpa). Mr. Beres does not pass NJOURNALIST or the GNG. He is merely a man doing his job and while his job involves presenting the news, he has not been a subject of the news as an individual. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
BLPPROD was incorrectly removed as all of the sources in the article are unreliable sources connected to the subject or from other unreliable sources such as blogs. The case against inclusion is strong from a notability standpoint as well: the only source to be found about him on Google other than YouTube is Wikipedia because the bot indexed this after the BLPPROD was removed. Additionally, the content is promotional in tone, and appears to have been written by an SPA with the intent of promoting the subject, making it excluded by WP:NOTSPAM and failing the second prong of WP:N. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. A7 — Spaceman Spiff 09:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. WP:AUTO and likely WP:PROMO pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
No claim made for notability. No RS that discusses her, only trivial mention in articles about her father. Fails WP:NMUSIC LK ( talk) 06:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America 1000 18:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Undue amount focusing on weight, even if it is important to her story. Most likely fails WP:NMODEL. Classicwiki ( talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 22:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Not even a 'minor newspaper'. Greenbörg (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to English Schools Foundation. So Why 10:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Non notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. All sources are biographical, routine, and non-news related, and do not indicate the notability. alphalfalfa( talk) 01:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Added several additional sources, including some from national newspapers (South china morning post). Clearly meets notability guidelines, especially compared to other articles. I would also like to point out that none of the sources are mine, so therefore I am not sure what te list is talking about. I do not take ownership of Wikipedia articles Hyungjoo98 ( talk) 10:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC).
Keep - Key part of Hong Kong history in regard to those who attended as well as school itself, which is linked strongly with Hong Kong Park (one of the major parks in the SAR).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 ( talk • contribs)
Another comment - only English language references are included at the moment. Chinese language ones are much more numerous (due to HK being majority Chinese speaking). In addition, the suggestion to move to a local wiki is misguided, as Hong Kong is too large to be considered just "local interest". Passes WP:SIGCOV even with just English language sources. Hyungjoo98 ( talk) 04:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, You are absolutely correct that a plethora of sources does not indicate notability, and that "because lots of Hong Kong people went to it" is not argument (in fact, it can't be an argument, considering the small size of the school). However, this are not the issues that are discussed here. The issue is whether the sources indicate notability. I have stated earlier that there are national-level sources (South China Morning Post, Brand HK (HK Government newssite)), which mention Glenealy School, indicating its notability. In addition, these sources are not of simply local importance, making a move to a local Wiki inappropriate.
In regards to merging to page to the main ESF page, this would create an extremely large and cluttered page, as the ESF is a large organisation which oversees the operation of a very large number of schools. Hyungjoo98 ( talk) 14:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. No page on other projects. No link to verify his claim of winning the award. Pride of Performance is awarded to 'hundreds' annualy and is not a reason to keep this bio if this is verified. Greenbörg (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Puff piece about a non-notable technician. Full of peacock terms and contains references to paid-for awards. the only sources found were social media, blogs and passing mentions. fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMMAKER Domdeparis ( talk) 10:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Promotional bio. No signs of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The major argument in favor of keeping is that WP:NACADEMIC assumes that full professors are notable. Several people disagree with this.
My own reading of WP:NACADEMIC leads me to believe that this argument is a mis-reading of the Specific criteria notes for criteria 5, which says, The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or Distinguished Professor [...] can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level. That doesn't mean that full professors are notable. It means that named chair appointees must also be full professors. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Not in any way notable, does not meet criteria in WP:ACADEMIC Scrabble Scribble ( talk) 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Snowclone#The Mother of All X. Select verifiable entries can be merged from the history. So Why 09:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
(not a !vote) Not really a disambig page. It is an euphemism used by some to describe some battles, not really mane them. Similarly, Idiot (disambiguation) does not list Donald Trump, although not an uncommon reference.
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:WEB / WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Sources present in the article are WP:SPIP or passing mentions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. None of the keep !voters disputed the analysis that the reliable sources provided do not actually contain the subject. So Why 10:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
See Foreign relations of Azerbaijan/ESISC report. ESISC just a Baku's lobbyest, the report just a propaganda. There is no any response in the media, only the articles of ESISC itself. Divot ( talk) 21:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Colapeninsula The article is mainly based on report developed by an independent international think tank and portrays the findings of the report based on the investigation carried out and comprehensively described not only within the report itself, but also in articles in numerous foreign media. The aim - as it goes with each article in Wikipedia and the general mission of any encyclopedia, is to bring more clarity to the term cognac diplomacy which is being frequently used in connection to Armenia’s informal diplomacy, which was also acknowledged by Armenians themselves. Respective article is provided. Vugar Z ( talk) 09:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep: First of all concerns expressed in the comments did not exist before the user Divot made the edits. He changed the article entirely and provided biased view and only after this proposed it for deleting. The original version of the article reflected numerous links of news coverage
regarding the topic moreover the article didn’t only base on ESISC report. There is not any view of author in the article and every paragraph is noted with source and was written in neutral language. Therefore I’m undoing all changes made by Devot. Every editor is more than welcome to contribute to the article based on Wikipedia rules but not vandalizing the page as Divot did. @Divot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coneyislandqueentobe ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Венецианская комиссия благословила…
Заявлением о подкупе Венецианской комиссии займется полиция Армении
Полиция Армении начала следствие по заявлению о подкупе членов Венецианской комиссии -- Coneyislandqueentobe ( talk) 14:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep This article is developed in line to Wikipedia rules with respect to neutrality. ESISC is an international think tank established in Brussels. There are articles on media in Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia. These links existed in the text before edited by Divot. Divot’s thoughts are contradictory as he names the organization to be Baku lobbyist at the same time he amends the article so that it reflects pro-Armenian position as criticizing Azerbaijan. Another contradiction is that why there are numerous vandalism attempts and changes made to the article if the purpose is to have the article deleted. Kingedik ( talk) 13:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep: please note that the term of cognac diplomacy was existing before the report and below is several articles on media in Moldova and Armenia itself where this term is noted. In Article in Armenia Armenian author notes that cognac is considered as the element of national diplomacy.
See
Ashot Martirosyan's interview
Sona Sh (
talk)
19:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Coneyislandqueentobe links about "Cognac diplomacy" is full of fakes. F.e. "UK journalists managed to catch on to bribe Mark Pritchard, a member of the British parliament from Conservative Party, took who agreed to work as a consultant for the Armenian-Lebanese group SOUFAN". In the source we can see only "The parliamentarian who sits on the most APPGs is Mark Pritchard, the Tory MP for the Wrekin, a member of 41 including the country groups for Armenia, Bosnia and Bulgaria. He has also declared an interest as an consultant on the strategic security group Soufan, for which he is paid £2,074 a month.". Divot ( talk) 21:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep: I hold the view that, the page should be assessed in its original version, before the edits were made by those who proposed the page for deletion. Simply by referring to Wikipedia rules, one can reaffirm that the page is not eligible for any of the reasons for deletion: Article does not violate any copyright, does not amount to vandalism, is not placed for advertising based on irrelevant encyclopedic content, provides a number of reliable sources. Very importantly, the article meets the requirements of notability guidelines. A quick reminder that, according to these guidelines, “Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article”. And I’m quoting the guidelines again:“If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability”.Evidence of notability of this article comprises recognized publications, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources. Last but not least, I would like to remind that, prior to nominating a page for deletion alternatives to deletion - like improving the page should be considered. Wikipedia can be made a better resource of knowledge if users contribute by improving the articles, rather than trying to delete everything that contradicts their views or opinions. Gopalo ( talk) 09:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Although the edits I have made last time, are based on real information and real sources user Divot made vandalism by deleting them and violated Wikipedia rules. Therefore, I stop editing the article and call administrator to review the previous version of the article after which Divot made last changes and to make the decision basing on it. Sona Sh ( talk) 12:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The article «Коньячная дипломатия» (Cognac diplomacy) was deleted from russian Wiki as not notable subject - [45]. Divot ( talk) 11:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
References
The result was no consensus. So Why 09:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The subject of the article doesn't have enough third party coverage (yet) to warrant its own article. It's been deleted several times already for the same reason, including one revision created by myself. Since I think it's just WP:TOOSOON for his article, I believe it would be best to move it to a draft and WP:SALT it for its own good. Buffaboy talk 02:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable biography. McCarthy makes noise, but most of the citations refer to articles about other people in which she is just a sideline note. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 03:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet general notability guidelines or musical notability. No independent references in article, and no independent references found on Google search, which yields only the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Black triangle (UFO). So Why 18:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The TR-3 Black Manta is a supposed "black project" aircraft for the U.S. Military. There is little evidence to substantiate the claims in the article and most of the references that do exist are highly speculative. As a result, much of the content of the article is either original research or synthesis. Noha307 ( talk) 20:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 09:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Unsourced. Also, a search didn't find me any obviously independent coverage (fails WP:GNG). Hakken ( talk) 12:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 18:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Author who does not appear to be notable. One book only. Philafrenzy ( talk) 10:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Article is a corporate Spam. Press coverage combined into one wiki article. Writing is corporate brochure and reads like a work of online PR. Light2021 ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NACTOR. ReelNepal listing movies by this person is not sufficient for notability. First AfD was closed as no consensus per WP:NPASR for having minimal participation. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 03:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. So Why 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a notable band; only one release of theirs seemed to have charted, and even then, only in Melbourne. I also could not find enough significant coverage about this band; even the only YouTube video I could find admitted that the band "was not very commercially successful". Given the band's age, it's possible that some coverage might exist offline, and indeed, the same YouTube video hints that the band might have been somewhat influential in the Melbourne music scene of the 1970s. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable company. Lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was merge to Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Already deleted by Jinian ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) So Why 20:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Probable hoax. I can't find anything to support the existence of this band. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. So Why 20:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This casting director, executive producer and "digital strategist" fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 18:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources giving in-depth discussion of subject. (The IMDb website doesn't count because it contains user-generated information, and is therefore in conflict with WP:USERGENERATED.) Binksternet ( talk) 00:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Article to be moved to Pagal Nilavu (TV series) per MOS:CAPS. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable television program. Lack of GNG. Most sources are from Youtube. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable television program. All sources are primary (the awards won are by the channel that airs the show...) Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result was Rename. I'll move this to Background singer, over the existing redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Article which serves mainly as a list of people who did background vocals on songs without being officially listed as contributors. Many of the individual examples are referenced, albeit much more frequently to unreliable sources like fansites than to reliable source coverage in media, but what's lacking is sourcing to demonstrate that the concept of uncredited background singers is notable enough in its own right to warrant a separate article from the general concept of background singers. Yes, this happens, but there are no sources comprehensively analyzing its notability as a concept -- all this does is WP:SYNTH a bunch of discrete and otherwise unconnected examples, and thus it constitutes an act of original research to call this a notable thing. Bearcat ( talk) 20:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)