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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyWarrior ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Google memo

Google memo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-encyclopedic. No any perceived lasting effects in culture, politics, or google itself. A clean-cut case of political WP:RECENTISM. Multiple sources do exist, but that's all just a scandal around a nonnotable person's musings. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Google#Criticism_and_controversy or better yet Google#Corporate_affairs_and_culture. In fact, that second one is EXACTLY where this belongs. It's gotten enough attention in reliable sources to be worthy of discussing somewhere, but it's nowhere near notable enough for a stand alone article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge Volunteer Marek is right. That is because Volunteer Marek is right. -- BowlAndSpoon ( talk) 23:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nominator and Volunteer Merek. There is coverage in RS, and this could turn out to be of lasting significance, but it's way too early to make that assumption. Grayfell ( talk) 00:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: this controversy is expanding more and more and I think before rushing to nominate this for deletion, we should leave it for at least a week to see how far it goes. In case it dies out qickly, merge and redirect to the appropriate section in Google. In case it has lasting consequences, I'd say it should stay. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 00:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now: It's still a developing story; it could be a flash in the pan, or it could have a lasting effect. For the time being we have a half-way decent article on the subject which doesn't scream "delete me", so I don't see the current need to merge or delete. ^Falling _Gravity 01:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and no merge. Article Google memo is long enough to be an independent article. If merged into another article (e.g., Google#Criticism_and_controversy or Google#Corporate_affairs_and_culture or Criticism of Google, etc.), then it will make the content about this memo disproportionately long in that article. -- Neo-Jay ( talk) 02:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep. This AfD is a waste of time. The topic had enough source coverage in its first three days (10+ articles across multiple reliable, secondary source publications with multiple perspectives of analysis) to be independently notable from the company. Perhaps a merge discussion would have been within reason, but there's no way to look at that sourcing and say that sources don't cover it. Recentism? It already has a legacy. Try:
  Wingfield, Nick (August 8, 2017). "The Culture Wars Have Come to Silicon Valley". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331.
  Wakabayashi, Daisuke (August 8, 2017). "Contentious Memo Strikes Nerve Inside Google and Out". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331.
    czar 04:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep due to significant coverage and discussion from nearly every major news source (NYT, Fortune, etc.). -- Anthony Ivanoff ( talk) 05:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Anthony Ivanoff - this story is culturally significant. We dont want to be accused of shutting down debate. Keith Johnston ( talk) 06:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the vast number of sources covering this story (check Google News) demonstrate's the memo's significance. It should not be merged to the Google article because there has been significant discussion and analysis, both pro and con, about the memo, both from Google officially and from reliable sources, such as a professor whose work was cited in the memo. With time, I believe more of this discussion can be mentioned in the article in a way that conforms to our guidelines and policies, but a subsection in the Google article would be necessarily very short in order to not give WP:UNDUE weight to one employee's criticisms of the company, and a memo the distribution of which is (at this point) a relatively minor event in the history of Google. The memo advances an argument that goes much, much bigger than just Google, and argues against strategies for increasing diversity that are mostly not unique to Google. Hence, if it were to be merged anywhere it would be more appropriate to merge it to Women in computing (but I am definitely not recommending that either!) than to Google.-- greenrd ( talk) 07:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Here's a fun fact. We don't even have a separate article for the Unabomber manifesto. And that one was a big deal since, you know, he threatened to blow shit up until it was published in a major newspaper. But somehow it's absolutely essential that we must have an article on this dinky little thing? Come on people, some perspective please. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The Unabomber manifesto is included under the article on the Unabomber, thus making it an integral part of the same subject. You couldn't tell the story of the Unabomber without the Manifesto. You can tell the story of Google without this memo - which is looking to be more of a Silicon Valley cultural discussion. It might not shake out that way, but it's way too big for a merge already.-- A1Qicks ( talk) 08:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - thoroughly discussed even in the central newspapers here in the Czech Republic (e.g. http://byznys.ihned.cz/c1-65839250-zeny-se-pro-praci-v-it-nehodi-napsal-zamestnanec-googlu-firma-ho-vyhodila) - it looks like a cause of worldwide importance.-- Ioannes Pragensis ( talk) 10:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Ample evidence of independent notability. Kleuske ( talk) 10:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep American topics about gender typically generate a lot of coverage in news sources. This is the case here. f e minist 12:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge per NOTNEWS and NOTCASESTUDY, which also means not magazine. The arguments above about 'significance' are silly from an encyclopedic treatment standpoint, and the arguments that it is all about something else or broader, are plainly against keeping a standalone article. We do not keep or do magazine articles about some 'cause celeb' among some chattering class of the day. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC) And now, below too on news argument, which is reason to delete. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC) The arguments below are more of the same: 1) people do routinely get fired for writing things, especially at work; 2) there is nothing new about any of these arguments in society, they have been made over-and-over sometimes halfway decently sometimes not; 3) sure Google is large across the world, so its internal issue du jour is covered across the world, with all kinds of people weighing in, that's what routine is - and again the arguments are this thing is about somethings larger, which means it is not stand-alone. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 17:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep A significant news story covered by a great variety of legit sources and will continue to receive coverage as the fallout continues. siarach ( talk) 13:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge Sounds like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FART, coverage by RS does not make it notable. Also the chances of WP:LASTING looks fairly slim with coverage falling off quickly, even at this point. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is an important topic, a developing current event. Datagod ( talk) 14:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge This is not a noteworthy event for a standalone article. The arguments above that dramatically insist on the manifesto's importance appear to be from people who are disgruntled that the guy got fired. Wikipedia should not be in the habit of making martyr articles for every edgy contrarian that gets fired from his job. 172.56.7.160 ( talk) 15:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Important development in censorship in the United States. Zigzig20s ( talk) 15:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• I think it would have been better to wait and see how this developing story develops before bringing it to Afd but as we're faced with what is basically a binary choice here, I'd say keep. The Google memo and the company's reaction and the broader debate over both memo and corporate reaction is proving to be notable. And a well-balanced, neutral article will summarize how there has been a backlash both against sentiments in the memo and the company's (over?)reaction to same. It's frankly laying bare a social divide in a number of ways, with a greater notability than any of the participants I'm sure intended. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep a notable controversy within the topic of Women in STEM fields. Although WP:109PAPERS says "Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers", the controversy has generated enough coverage to warrant an article distinct from the article Women in STEM fields. Google is a major international corporation, so its response to the controversy is notable because it sets the bar for other organizations. I think citing WP:NOTNEWS as a reason for deletion is wrong. WP:NOTNEWS is for routing news stories, and this story is not routine. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 15:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now – incident seems to have a reasonable chance of acquiring long-term notability. Smyth ( talk) 16:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge - should not stand alone as its own article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT; not even sure it will be noteworthy enough in the longer run to have more than a brief mention in a parent article. Minor 4th 16:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The story is receiving heavy media attention, the scope of which goes well beyond Google. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and no merge and rename to something more specific. This has become a lightning rod for a broader discussion about both (1) gender discrimination (against both males and females) and (2) free speech (specifically, do employees have the right to express views different from others, even internally). The number of citations of this is growing rapidly, and it's likely that this will continue to be cited for many years to come (making it very Encyclopedia-worthy). It also needs to be its own article (not merged), because there are multiple issues here, making it inappropriate to move into one place. I can imagine it being cited in Women in computing, or Google, or Censorship in the United States, and probably other places as well. The Unabomber manifesto was clearly tied to the Unabomber, so merging made sense there, but merging does *not* make sense in this case. I *do* think that this should be renamed to the unambiguous title "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber", since that is its title. Google produces a massive number of memos, so the current title is absurdly ambiguous to the point of being incorrect. Dwheeler ( talk) 17:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The mainstream media is flooding with articles about this story. Anywhere on the internet the headlines are dominated by this story, wikipedia has had pages for lot less important and lot less popular topics. I see no reason to delete.
• Keep. The author might not be notable, but the public reaction and Google's reaction certainly are notable. Algr ( talk) 18:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This topic has received wide media coverage and discussion across country. It's more significant than everyday news. Demondmd ( talk) 18:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I think this might be a candidate for a SNOW close. Jdcomix ( talk) 18:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• This is probably going to be notable enough to keep as its own page (but it suffers from all the difficulties in accurately assessing notability that come up whenever editors create a page "ripped from the headlines"). But in any case, it needs to be moved to a better pagename. There must be vast numbers of memos at Google, and this particular one is not the primary example, so it should have a more precise pagename. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Well, it is the only famous Google memo, so I see no problem in leaving that as the title. Plus we need to keep it as simple as possible. Renaming it "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" or anything else would probably make it more difficult for readers to find. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 19:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I realize that this isn't really the right venue to discuss page moves, but there are other options than that, and readers searching for the page can always benefit from redirects. Offhand, "Google gender memo" seems to me to be a better option. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge as suggested above or delete. And please let this run a little longer before closing this discussion. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is still an important development and topic under discussion, a matter that will most likely end up in courts. Please keep - too early to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.46.232.65 ( talk) 20:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS; also, previous experience on Wikipedia has amply demonstrated that an article on an event such as this cannot help but become an ideological "culture war" battleground. If kept, I fully expect it to be under GG sanctions within a month. 69.159.83.14 ( talk) 21:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Received enough coverage for a standalone article. HampsteadLord ( talk) 22:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep Well covered in secondary sources. Arkon ( talk) 23:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Snow Close and Rename these AfDs on "controversial" news stories almost never end in deletion, and this one won't either. There's no point in merging this article; a rename is called for but that should be discussed on Talk:Google memo, not here. It's WP:UNDUE to merge this to Google because people will continue to add excessive amounts of detail. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

CREATE NEW PAGE ABOUT James Damore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.92.19 ( talk) 00:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Not only is this a huge news story, it is likely to have a lasting effect on how Google is known to the public. Roger ( talk) 02:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep clearly meets GNG. Ample sourcing. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- will have lasting impact, especially in the context of dispute with the Labor Department over its pay practices. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep It has lasting effects in public and in Google (one of the biggest companies world wide). Furthermore it has a huge impact on discussion world wide in various newspapers.-- Rævhuld ( talk) 06:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and no merge. Article Google memo is important enough to be kept. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krubaks ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename to James Damore memo, since Google has disassociated itself from Damore. - Mardus / talk 10:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep needed for NPOV as Google article is pro Google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwarsleia ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. In other similar cases, WP:TOOSOON might have applied, but the limitation of the "withstand-the-test-of-time" principle is that, should e.g. a nuclear war start today, I'd expect an article on it started legitimately within seconds, and definitely not after waiting for a while to see whether lasting notability is achieved or not. Here, a bomb (of sorts) has been dropped too, it's not difficult to see that it looks likely to have major global repercussions in society, and possibly also in science. If that (fairly reasonable) prediction of future notability fails to materialize, we'll fix it. GregorB ( talk) 14:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep. Big repercussions. Rename the article to the publication's name, "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" with perhaps redirects from names like James Damore memo and Google memo. -- Nanite ( talk) 18:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. as part of culture wars, including in Wikipedia itself. (The wiki struggles are mentioned here btw.) Rename to "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber memo" Zezen ( talk) 19:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - incident with significant diversity hiring and freedom of speech implications, with major international coverage. Rami R 19:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• merge to google article per V Marek The RECENTISM is not what we do here. In a couple of years people will not even remember this stupid thing happened. "Likely to have major global repercussions" is the worst kind of CRYSTALBALL-gazing short-sighted "let me make some shit up to make this sound Really Important" bullshit imagineable (see On Bullshit). We are not part of the blogosphere. Jytdog ( talk) 19:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep clearly notable, and with major implications. This is a massive waste of time. CJK09 ( talk) 19:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Google#Corporate affairs and culture. Yes, lotsa coverage, but any news story related to America's zeitgeisty cultural and ideological divisions will get that. There's a distinct lack of substance here, nonetheless. We have the memo, itself probably not a milestone in the history of political thought, and a lot of reactions that amount to mutual accusations of sexism and intolerance. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Google is the place to cover this for now, briefly, and if it develops further a spin-off can be considered.  Sandstein  19:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It is an important topical subject relevant to the general public. Wadaad ( talk) 20:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete it, delete any remarks on Wikipedia about any of scientific references from his (if I am not assuming his so-called gender), delete any remarks on Wikipedia about any of the scientists involved with the papers he mentions. We need to delete all the truths that hurt feelings. - Yours truly, Ministry of Truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.219.252 ( talk) 20:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename it "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" and create redirects to it from "anti-diversity memo", "James Damore" and "Google memo". It is a cultural lightning rod and shouldn't be merged at present.Doug4 20:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug4 ( talk • contribs)
• Keep. Topic important enough and discussed across the world. Deserves WP treatment. This discussion is a waste of time. Superp ( talk) 20:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This has all the hallmarks of a full fledged cultural event. The memo - full content and arguments, the extreme media reaction which includes unusual levels of incriminations, sites getting DDoS attacks for posting on the subject, major internal turmoil inside Google. Resulting lawsuits (labour protection board is now suing Google), and the still raging arguments pro and con. This is not a localized news scandal, nor is it a subplot within Google various travails. Jazi Zilber ( talk) 20:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Close early to avoid wasting even more time on this. CJK09 ( talk) 23:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Obviously a big and widely-discussed enough topic to merit its own article. Burying it in the middle of a broader Google article doesn't do it justice. Binarybits ( talk) 00:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Acres of coverage and significant enough for its own article – no need to merge. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 00:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This has massive amounts of coverage in every form of media, numerous heated responses by critics and supporters, and could lead to widespread policy changes or a lawsuit. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The paragraph on this that has been added to Google's main article already takes up more than half of the section it's in. And it contains a deficit of details, not a surplus. Writing a Google memo article, which will understandably evoke strong reactions of many types, is an exercise in writing neutrally. I think it will be good for Wikipedia to let that play out. Connor Behan ( talk) 17:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This issue is receiving huge amounts of attention no matter where you look (news media, academic articles and discussion, social media, etc) as well as generating calls for Federal action against Google. It is likely to have a lasting watershed effect, not only concerning Google itself but also the larger issues that the memo deals with. The memo has practically singlehandedly opened up a national or international debate on these issues by moving discussion into the open. The article currently cites plenty of material to justify a separate article, and is surprisingly balanced despite the heated controversy (and despite the POV tag which it doesn't currently deserve). I can't help but think that the person who nominated it for deletion, and the early supporters of same, wrote their opinions before this issue exploded into the largescale phenomenon that it now is, which is probably why more recent votes have been overwhelmingly "keep". GBRV ( talk) 17:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Note: the article has been renamed to Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. CJK09 ( talk) 17:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GNG-- DynaGirl ( talk) 17:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:WEIGHT. WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Besides, it's too long and complicated to fit into the main article. The summary in Google Criticism and controversy doesn't even do the issue justice as a summary. -- Nbauman ( talk) 19:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GNG but rename -- RaphaelQS ( talk) 20:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, because this thing has gotten much bigger and more important in the last few days. Dogman15 ( talk) 22:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Easily notable enough. ShadessKB ( talk) 22:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Definitely keep (at least for now), this is another prime example of the anti-PC movement which has been around and active for decades. AwesomeSaucer9 ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 01:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

List of rescinded Formula One wins

List of rescinded Formula One wins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure trivia T v x1 22:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Unsourced listicle from an editor who persistently makes low quality/pointless articles. JamesG5 ( talk) 01:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Easily summed up in another F1 article as rare aberrations. XerxesFalcon has also made zero edits to talk pages, either user or WP:, which is incredibly concerning; it may be time to ask for an article creation ban and/or force them to use a talk page. Nate • ( chatter) 04:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree as per much of the above. Unsourced trivia. Eagleash ( talk) 11:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Kazakhstan in popular culture

Kazakhstan in popular culture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject isn't notable. There's the one odious instance from Borat: content which was deemed unworthy of being included in the article about Kazakhstan. A merge back to that article wouldn't make sense. Bearian de-PROD'd with the belief that the nomination was in bad faith, so I'm looking for consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete seems like an entirely reasonable subject for an article, but two items simply isn't enough to make it worthwhile. Am prepared to change my vote if it is shown the article can be expanded. Artw ( talk) 22:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There's a place for "X in popular culture" articles, but it only really makes sense to have them when the level of information is too much for the main "X" article or wherever else it may be. The Borat-related issues are covered elsewhere, and the brief mention of the other film doesn't make the list worthwhile. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not enough verifiable information to flush out an article. At this point article fails WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia ( talk) 04:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete - I agree with Artw, although I see how others might argue otherwise. I removed the proposed deletion tag, and asked Chris troutman to put this here so that there would be a chance to debate it and to see if someone could rescue it. Bearian ( talk) 14:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ Bearian: Per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, I am not nominating articles for deletion just to prompt WP:RESCUE to jump in and fix stuff, although someone accused me of same. I'd prefer our volunteer editors work at their own pace. You accused me of PROD'ding this under IDONTLIKEIT, which is also an unfair charge. If you didn't think the subject was notable, then why de-PROD? A "chance to debate it"? That only leads to more bureaucracy, which is often a bad thing. I don't want to be your stalking horse and I'm embarrassed we had to waste the time of other editors to determine something I knew without their input. I don't want to cause any hard feelings but this is just foolish. At least that guy arguing NN schools in Korea were notable per SCHOOLOUTCOMES actually believed what he was saying before he was proved wrong. You didn't even believe your own argument. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Actually, you and the others persuaded me to change my mind. Have a good day. Bearian ( talk) 19:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

P.S. For the record, I am right 95 % of the time, yet I'm not afraid to admit I might be wrong. Bearian ( talk) 15:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete this isn't a stand-alone article and is unlikely to ever become one. This can't be merged to Kazakhstan or redirected to Borat. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Peter Taylor (ice hockey)

Peter Taylor (ice hockey) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship, the others are just for promotion relegation. This is not the same Peter Taylor that was deleted in 2008. Yosemiter ( talk) 21:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails NHOCKEY and can't seem to find anything meeting GNG. I should point out I verified this is a different person than in the original deletion discussion. I went back and checked the deleted edits to make sure. - DJSasso ( talk) 13:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Matthew Price (ice hockey)

Matthew Price (ice hockey) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship, the others are just for promotion relegation. Yosemiter ( talk) 21:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails NHOCKEY LibStar ( talk) 03:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by author request, right here. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Robert Gangi

Robert Gangi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive or sourced claim of notability is being an as yet non-winning candidate in a party primary in a mayoral election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL in and of itself -- he would have to win the general election and become the actual mayor to claim notability on an NPOL basis -- but the article is not sourced well enough to demonstrate his candidacy as appreciably more notable than the norm for aspiring municipal politicians: of the six sources present here, four are just run of the mill campaign coverage no different from what any candidate for any political office could always expect to receive -- and of the two sources that actually predate his candidacy, he's the bylined author of one of them and not its subject, while the other one completely fails to even mention his name at all and is here only to source a completely tangential fact about the demographics of the neighbourhood he lives in. None of this is enough to get him a Wikipedia article just for competing in an election primary. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination, which says it better than I could. Simply being in the primary for a notable position is not enough to be notable by Wikipedia standards. The sourcing that exists does not meet the general guideline found in WP:N either. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete concur with nom Cllgbksr ( talk) 21:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Concur. Every time I think I'm looking at the right guidelines page, there are more. Mehmuffin ( talk) 21:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Oshtoran syndrome

Oshtoran syndrome (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing enough evidence of its existence. There are two journal article looking papers. They are not pubmed indexed. One is mostly blurred out https://issuu.com/oshtoran.syndrome/docs/oshtoran Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete All references to it are self references of dubious nature. Compare the link Doc James posted to this abstract. The link he posted took the article, blurred out some parts, and replaced the "conclusion" section with something about Oshtoran. This reference has a clear header, but then is just lorem ipsum after that. only ( talk) 20:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete No reliable sources. Graham Beards ( talk) 20:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nom. There's also concern at WP:Med that this article may be a hoax. The editor Only brought it to our attention. Whatever the case, the article is likely being used to promote this topic, which is not supported by the sources it needs. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete per nominators rationale-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom, clearly not notable, and likely either a hoax or a "condition" not widely accepted at all in the medical community outside of one group of scientists. No academic sources I could find on Google Scholar (just patents). Everymorning (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as lacking reliable supportive evidence. — soupvector ( talk) 00:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as original research, which we do not publish, despite all the urban legends. Bearian ( talk) 19:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 ( talk) 22:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Rublix (website)

Rublix (website) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

no substantial references for notability except an advertorial, presenting the company as if nobody had heard of the technology before DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Nothing in the way of sources whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Contrary to the article, I do not think this is a popular cryptocurrency. Ifnord ( talk) 19:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Çisel Ann Otts

Çisel Ann Otts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship, the others are just for promotion relegation. Yosemiter ( talk) 20:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Question: Are there any women's leagues listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment per WP:NHOCKEY? Don't think she can play for a men's team. Hmlarson ( talk) 03:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC) This appears to be more than routine. Did you check Turkish results? ref. Hmlarson ( talk) 03:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Hmlarson: Unfortunately no, but that is entirely because of the coverage given to women's leagues is insufficient to guarantee that they would meet GNG. One of those situations where there is media bias in coverage and we cannot not control that. However, women can still meet if they have played in the Olympics (and Turkey is far away from qualifying at that level). Routine just means any coverage that simply mentions the subject or is just a stats page, and that is all there is for this subject (as far as I can tell, if there are better Turkish sources which I may not have found due to my not speaking the language using my copy-n-paste searches for the subject then I would reconsider). Yosemiter ( talk) 03:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hmmm... things are changing in that area. CBS Sports, New York Times Good to know, thanks. Hmlarson ( talk) 03:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 14:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. To expand on Yosemiter's comments to Hmlarson, the coverage extended to women's hockey is frankly pathetic. I live in a hockey-mad state with massive media and sports coverage, and when the local team won the inaugural women's pro league championship, it received no coverage in local media; I only found out about it from a blogpost on the Hockey News site. When establishing a league on NHOCKEY/LA, the question we ask ourselves isn't whether the league gets any media coverage. The question we need to satisfy is whether there's enough coverage so that every player who ever plays in that league can reliably meet the GNG. That is a very high standard to meet, and I very much doubt that any women's sport league in the world (professional OR amateur) could meet it save the WNBA. Ravenswing 17:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yeah, I'd agree media coverage is a problem but thanks to the Internet, that appears to be changing quite a bit and at a much more rapid pace. Sports Illustrated ref 1, Sports Illustrated ref 2. Funny enough, as a woman, I never had any interest in a Sports Illustrated subscription until just a few years ago. Who would've thought including coverage of women in sports could improve their revenue w/ new subscribers? Hmlarson ( talk) 18:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Am I reading WP:NHOCKEY wrong? Isn't she playing in the highest level of (woman's) hockey in Turkey? Ifnord ( talk) 19:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Ifnord: Nowhere in NHOCKEY does it say highest level in a country, as that would be absurd (it would be saying that an NHL player is just as notable as a club player in Egypt). In the very first line of NHOCKEY, there it explains that and has a link to the list of leagues that qualify for any of the criteria ( this one) that normally meet the GNG. As always, even if a player were to meet a SNG, if they cannot meet WP:V, then they are not notable anyways. Yosemiter ( talk) 20:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Yosemiter:Your hypothetical NHL player is obviously more notable than a hypothetical player in the top league in Egypt. But, IMHO, a player on Egypt's top league should be notable enough for inclusion. Ifnord ( talk) 20:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Ifnord: WP:PROVEIT per WP:GNG. That list I linked is where the leagues for where GNG has already been verified. Yosemiter ( talk) 20:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources presented are not enough to show notability Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Jana Kivell

Jana Kivell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Despite decent volume of sources, none of them are more than mentions and stats. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in the any IIHF World Championships, in the top-level (the one that actually plays for The World Championship) or otherwise. Inline hockey has no known sport-specific criteria and must stand or fail by GNG. Yosemiter ( talk) 20:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: A superficial glance of the type all too common at AfD might provoke "OMG! Look at all the sources!!" responses. Yet not a single listed source discusses the subject as more than namedrops or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. As the nom correctly states, the subject fails NHOCKEY, and there are no notability criteria in place for inline hockey. Ravenswing 21:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per nom and Captain Raju. Fails NHOCKEY and SIGCOV. Would appear to pass NINLINEHOCKEY if it were ever to exist. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{( Talk Contribs)} 04:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Actually does meet NSPORTS as they played in the highest level of the world championships of inline hockey. - DJSasso ( talk) 10:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: ... except that there are no criteria pertaining to inline hockey, nor does NSPORTS have general criteria covering sports not otherwise mentioned, except to reiterate the GNG. Playing in the inline hockey championships confers no more presumptive notability than the bandy or the team handball championships do. Ravenswing 14:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• If you want to get technical, the ice hockey criteria have been used for inline hockey for years in Afd discussions but that wasn't really what I was getting at. It is standard practice that competing at the highest level of the world championships in a sport or the olympics meets NSPORTS (even bandy and handball). If 18abruce is right that its still in 2 weeks then fine delete it. But in two weeks they will be eligible for an article. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I think you would need to cite an example, AFD's such as this, this, or this indicate that it is questionable whether the individual championships are notable (never mind trying to find details or coverage on the events). It seems questionable that the individual events in the upcoming roller games would be notable, never mind teams (and their members) that do not even have to qualify to participate. 18abruce ( talk) 16:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

To be fair those Afd's were part of a hundred or so spammed Afd's thrown up in a couple day stretch by a single user and a lot of them didn't get the eyes on them they needed and have already been restored as the other world championship ones had been kept. Teams having to qualify or not are irrelevant, as the players have to make the teams. That being said, it is probably irrelevant, there are enough deletes on here that I won't waste my time going through the hundreds of afd's I have been in to find the ones where we kept players because they were on a world championship team. - DJSasso ( talk) 18:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• ??? Umm this athlete has not yet competed in the inline hockey championships anyway, should be available on youtube in two weeks. And typically in FIRS, the highest level is also the lowest level, hooray for participation. 18abruce ( talk) 20:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Delete per nom. Clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. The subject is mentioned only in passing with no in-depth coverage found. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 17:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Would not even pass NINLINE if it existed, there is nothing in this article that bears up to any notability standard. 18abruce ( talk) 20:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep based on WP:GNG. References for notability include 4 mentions in the Waikato Times, 2 mentions in the Fitness Journal, and 1 mention in Otago Daily Times. -- LauraHale ( talk) 14:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: One of the Waikato Times sources doesn't mention the subject at all. Two of them only drop her name in a photo caption of a team picture. One of them briefly mentions her in the sort of routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. The Fitness Journal cites are both photo captions on a montage page of athletes. The sum of her coverage in the Otago Times piece is "The New Zealanders did not have the same firepower but scored important goals through Gore’s Beth Scott and Jana Kivell to level the score." It can only be concluded that you either didn't bother to look at the cites you claim pass notability muster, or you should refresh your recollection of the GNG, which holds that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (emphasis in the original) Ravenswing 18:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:GNG NealeFamily ( talk) 03:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Sean Oultram

Sean Oultram (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship, the others are just for promotion relegation. Yosemiter ( talk) 20:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. SPA comments in this discussion are discounted, as new users are unlikely to have a sense of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Also salted, due to past re-creation. bd2412 T 13:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Fastcoin

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

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

Bitcoin competitor that doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:N: the sourcing that exists is actually about another cryptocurrency that is similar to it, and some of that is in non-reliable sources. This has been deleted twice per WP:G11, and the original author last time was a company account. I don't feel the text at this time meets the G11 standards, but I do think it is likely promotional and that the coverage this article presents is more than the actual subject has ever received, making exclusion per WP:NOTPROMO also relevant. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Both promotional and non notable --the references are mre aqnnouncents. The format of this article with its inapppropriate See Also section seems very familiar DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

This article is about another cryptocurrency in the world. Like most of the hundreds of other that are on wikipedia. This is not meant to be promotional at all. Every single cryptocurrency article on Wikipedia could be construed as 1. competitor to Bitcoin. 2. reading them all seem to be promotional. According to your reasoning every cryptocurrency article other than Bitcoin should be nominated for deletion from Wikipedia. Trowdad ( talk) 20:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

See also section has been removed. Trowdad ( talk) 20:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete no claim of notability; not in the top100 on CoinMarketCap. Power~enwiki ( talk) 00:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Why does it matter that it's not in the top 100!? It is a legitmate crypto with a ton of potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:101:7372:A0E3:C89F:BA7A:88F3 ( talk) 01:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

How is the ranking on coinmarketcap a criteria for notability ? Since when ? Because I can make a list of coins that have an Wikipedia article and are not in he top 100 on coinmarketcap: BlackCoin (Rank 118), Mastercoin (Rank 126), CryptoNote (Rank 128), Burstcoin (Rank 143), Gridcoin (Rank 151), Feathercoin (Rank 171), Primecoin (Rank 196), Auroracoin (Rank 229) And those coins have a worse ranking than Fastcoin on coinmarketcap, and still have a Wikipedia article: SixEleven (Rank 495), Titcoin (Rank 591) I see no difference between Fastcoin and all those coins in terms of notability. And this list is probably incomplete. Sir Iglou ( talk) 06:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Classic WP:OTHERSTUFF, not persuasive to keep this. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Several of those could be nominated for deletion as well. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite ( talk) 05:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. If anyone wants to retarget the article to a better title, that can be done outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Netlist Inc.

Netlist Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

1st AfD was without any actual policy-founding and the last AfD in January showed no clear consensus, of which shouldn't affect us any differently, since the history speaks for itself in not having actually changed at all, signs enough to show serious improvements couldn't happen in order to show the need of deletion no longer relevant. Take the previously offered analysis:

• "Netlist Inc. will sell $15 million in common stock, the Irvine-based storage equipment maker said today. It plans to use proceeds to accelerate....It plans to get funding...."

[Specific finances and numbers]....Step forward Sammy in white knight guise, with a gift of $8m cash from Samsung Electronics and a $15m investment in Netlist from Samsung Venture Investment Corporation. That $23m will come in very handy indeed. Netlist and Samsung intend to sample NVDIMM product to select customers in 2016"

• "Flash DIMM technology developer Netlist has signed a five-year joint development deal with global memory leader Samsung to produce non-volatile DIMMs, giving it a lifeline"
• "Irvine's Netlist is trying to carve out a niche in this battleground by creating specialized memory packages for the likes of Dell and IBM and their high-end corporate computers....Now here are their profits"
• "Netlist Inc. said it has raised about $15.4 million from a common stock offering of 4 million shares priced at $3.85 each....Here are the financials and what they make...."
• "Netlist, a publicly traded company based in Irvine, California that was founded in 2000 and that you have probably never heard of, will probably make a big splash at the SC09 supercomputing trade show next week....Here is what the company's business involves....Here are the company's services and what it offers"

The Orange County Register is simply that, a localized and local-focused business column for everyday business activities, it's not independent since it's simply a local business journal, journals of which are blatantly known for republishing anything for companies. Any one of us here can easily claim sources exist, but the sources clearly existing there all have the company's conveniently placed stamp and that enough is to show how skillfully crafted they are at it. Next, one of the "Keep" voters, a now-banned user with past connections to paid editing, is enough to jeopardize the last AfD's integrity. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):

  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

  Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.

  1. Morgan, Timothy Prickett. "Netlist goes virtual and dense with server memory". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.

     The article notes:

     Netlist, a publicly traded company based in Irvine, California that was founded in 2000 and that you have probably never heard of, will probably make a big splash at the SC09 supercomputing trade show next week. Netlist, which makes memory modules on an OEM basis for various companies, said Wednesday that in December it will roll out a virtualized, dense memory DDR3 module that will be able to trick servers into having more main memory than they are supposed to.

     ...

     Netlist got its start in 2000 doing custom printed circuit board design, and a "netlist," according to Paul Duran, director of business development at the company, is akin to a bill of materials for all of the connectivity on a PCB. A few years back, when dense rack and blade servers started going volume, Netlist became a specialist in making very low profile memory on an OEM basis for blade server makers. (The company does not disclose who its customers are, but they're probably the usual suspects.) The company also developed a memory packaging technology called Planar-X, which allows for two PCBs loaded with memory chips to be packaged together relatively inexpensively to share a single memory slot. This technique is cheaper and more reliable, according to Duran, than some of the dual-die packaging techniques memory module makers use to make dense memory cards out of low density and cheaper memory chips.

  2. Morgan, Timothy Prickett (2010-03-23). "Netlist's HyperCloud memory gets Wall Street's blessing". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.

     The article notes:

     Right about now, server memory module maker Netlist is probably wishing that it hadn't already gone public. But if the enthusiasm in a new public offering by investors on Wall Street last Friday is any indication, Netlist may be onto something with its new HyperCloud DDR3 super-dense main memory for servers.

     ...

     Netlist is not particularly large or profitable at this point in its history, but it has what sounds like a good idea, and so the company hired Needham & Company to put together a public offering of three million of its shares to raise some cash to put HyperCloud memory into production and market it.

     ...

     Netlist has a market capitalization of $79.2m at time of writing. The real wonder is not why Netlist - which has a knack for choppy revenues and losses, as many startups do - was able to get money out of Wall Street. It is why one of the big server makers - Intel, or Advanced Micro Devices, all of which have a huge stake in server virtualization and will have to make up some revenue declines and margins if server virtualization eventually causes footprints to contract - hasn't snapped up Netlist already.

  3. "Netlist raises $15.4M in common stock offering". Associated Press. 2010-03-19. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.

     The article notes:

     Netlist Inc. said it has raised about $15.4 million from a common stock offering of 4 million shares priced at $3.85 each.

     After commissions and other expenses, the offering will leave Netlist with $14.12 million in proceeds. The company will use that money for operations, including marketing, research and development, working capital and other general corporate purposes.

     ...

     Netlist makes memory subsystems for servers and high-performance computers and communications equipment.

  4. Lansner, Jonathan (2006-09-10). "Three IPOs from O.C. seek niches". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.

     The article notes:

     Irvine's Netlist is trying to carve out a niche in this battleground by creating specialized memory packages for the likes of Dell and IBM and their high-end corporate computers.

     Since opening in 2000, Netlist has lost a total of $20 million cracking into the computing world after initially focusing on the telecommunications industry. Memory's high end is a crowded place, too. Netlist competes with, among others, O.C. shops SimpleTech and Viking.

     Netlist's gambit may be paying off, as the company is at least profitable in its most recent six-month period. And sales are up 80 percent.

  5. Stewart, Colin (2007-06-01). "Netlist of Irvine faces stockholder lawsuitsas shares drop". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.

     The article notes:

     Shareholders who bought Netlist's first public shares for $7 each in December are taking the company to court as the shares drop to nearly $3.

     The suits accuse the Irvine-based maker of computer memory equipment and its officers of violating federal securities laws by not revealing its vulnerability to a declining computer-memory market at the time of its initial public offering.

     ...

     In its IPO, 146-employee Netlist raised $39.5 million, net after $4.2 million in underwriting expenses, by selling 6.25 million shares at $7 each. The stock closed Thursday at $3.17.

  6. Casacchia, Chris (2016-09-07). "Netlist in $15M Offering". Orange County Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.

     The article notes:

     Netlist Inc. will sell $15 million in common stock, the Irvine-based storage equipment maker said today.a It plans to use proceeds to accelerate its patent monetization strategy, commercialize its HybriDIMM product line, and for general corporate purposes.

     ...

     The Business Journal in February reported that Netlist would receive $23 million from South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. and have access to thousands of patents from the world’s largest electronics company as part of a joint venture to co-develop a product combining Netlist’s HyperVault offering with Samsung’s DRAM and NAND memory technology.

  7. Mellor, Chris (2015-11-19). "Samsung tosses lifeline to Netlist NVDIMMs". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.

     The article notes:

     Flash DIMM technology developer Netlist has signed a five-year joint development deal with global memory leader Samsung to produce non-volatile DIMMs, giving it a lifeline from years of litigation hell against Diablo Technologies over memory channel storage IP.

     The basic concept is to put flash chips on DDR3 and 4 memory DIMMS, thus giving the flash memory channel access, which has lower latency than PCIe flash cards. Netlist and Diablo Technologies worked together on this and then separated, Diablo licensing the resulting Memory Channel Storage to SMART Storage.

     ...

     Business results for Netlist have been poor. Revenues for its third 2015 quarter were a slim $1.6m, compared to $4.8m a year go. There was a $5.4m net loss; it was $4.1m a year ago. Ho hum, you think, this company is really struggling.

     Step forward Sammy in white knight guise, with a gift of $8m cash from Samsung Electronics and a $15m investment in Netlist from Samsung Venture Investment Corporation. That $23m will come in very handy indeed. Netlist and Samsung intend to sample NVDIMM product to select customers in 2016.

  8. Netlist is a publicly traded corporation. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations: "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

     https://www.zacks.com/stock/research/NLST/brokerage-reports ^WebCite lists several analyst reports about Netlist.

  9. Morningstar, Inc. also has an analyst report under a paywall at http://www.morningstar.com/stocks/XNAS/NLST/quote.html.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Netlist to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 02:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netlist Inc. (2nd nomination) participants: DGG ( talk · contribs), SwisterTwister ( talk · contribs), W Nowicki ( talk · contribs), Alansohn ( talk · contribs), Greenrd ( talk · contribs), Timtempleton ( talk · contribs), and K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs). Cunard ( talk) 02:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - In addition to Cunard's sources, there are a couple of patent infringement lawsuits that got the company coverage as well, one still going on. (I apologize that in the interest of time I'm not as elegant as Cunard with filling out the refs and excerpts - you'll have to settle for bare links). Versus Inphi [ [1]] [ [2]], and versus SK Hynix, the second-largest memory chip maker in the world and one that this article says Netlist has a good chance of winning. [ [3]] Same argument I made last time - it's not WP:CRYSTAL because the trial has already gotten good media coverage. The ruling comes on Oct. 10th of this year. Also, I noticed you stated that the last vote was suspect and should be revisited because an editor was banned for COI. I think you're talking about 1WIki8, who is actually banned for apparently losing his cool and strangely demanding a self-ban after this previous (2nd) AfD where he complained of being hounded by another editor, who may very well appear again shortly to do the same to me, Cunard and any other keep votes. This was the thread where he was banned:[ [4]] Are we talking about the same editor? It would be a shame for the voting process if editors came here and read your nomination and assumed that anyone's defense of this article was for COI reasons, and that they were banned for it. Also, it's easy to look at Cunard's and my easily Googled coverage and ask whatever happened to WP:BEFORE, but I'm also concerned that you may be mixing up the largest paper in Orange County, California ( The Orange County Register) with the county's largest business journal, the Orange County Business Journal. The Register is not just simply a local business journal. Here's a link to their site: [ [5]]. Both publications have very high editorial standards and have been used as sources quite often on Wikipedia for California businesses. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- the above are roughly the same sources as presented at AfD #2 and are still unconvincing for notability. The only thing the company has going for it is being WP:LISTED but at $8M of revenue it's so insignificant as to not register on the tech radar. The sources presented is very unconvincing, with The Register being known for pretty much publishing anything a tech company tells it, and The Orange County Register being routine local coverage. The article's content belongs on the company web site, not in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I think you meant to say the OC Business Journal will publish anything. I read it often and have used it for several articles. Can you provide some substantiating evidence to support the claim that they are an not a reliable source? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I meant https://www.theregister.co.uk/. This has been my experience with it -- a lot of redressed press releases, interviews with tech companies, etc. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry - my mistake. I don't use the Register that much. Does seem to have a different tone than the OCBJ. I almost wonder whether a scoring system showing reliability could work. Right now there are two options - reliable or blacklisted. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• keep somewhat to my surprise, I'm saying keep -- on the basis of Cunard's refs 1 & 2 above, which offer a real analysis of the company's technical importance.(it's easier to make this argument in this subject area, because many of us have some understanding of what is currently and what was previously important); yes this amounts to a subject bias for computer technology, butWP has had that bias since day 1, and it was one of the things that initially made us important--even when our coverage of general topics was pathetic, in this field we were authoritative. But Cunard, you would make a stronger case if you didn't try to use refs like Mornigstore for notability, & recognized while public companies may always have reliable financial data tat permits WP:V, it doesn't mean they have anything more substantial. If you defend only the more defensible,you & I & everyone will be able to reach consensus more frequently. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep – Squeaks by WP:CORPDEPTH. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename as a publicly traded company on a major stock exchange that received substantial coverage from the Associated Press, it meets our inclusion criteria. Most of the sourcing above does not actually establish notability, but some of it does, and the argument that this company was listed on the NASDAQ in the mid-2000s is a strong one for notability even by the higher standards for corporate notability that I have advocated for in project space contributions. I echo DGG's !vote here, and I would also suggest moving this page to get rid of the Inc. Such corporate abbreviations almost always serve no purpose in Wikipedia articles. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Mitchell Villani

Mitchell Villani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship, the others are just for promotion relegation. Yosemiter ( talk) 19:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar ( talk) 06:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Connor has not received the significant third-party coverage necessary to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for inclusion or the notability guidelines for hockey players. Consensus is to delete. Malinaccier ( talk) 21:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Jack Connor (ice hockey)

Jack Connor (ice hockey) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship, the others are just for promotion relegation. Yosemiter ( talk) 19:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  19:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  19:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  19:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per nom. Truth be told, even if he played in the top pool at the worlds, he still wouldn't qualify; junior-level international play is not considered notable. No evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 19:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per nom. User:Smartyllama needs to realize there is no reason to burden AFD by deprodding obvious failures of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per nom. He hasn't played in the top level of hockey in Australia, therefore I agree with Yosemiter. Ifnord ( talk) 20:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Ifnord: Actually, he has played in the top level league in Australia, but that has no inherent notability per NHOCKEY. Therefore, he must stand or fall on GNG, and he falls. Please, if you are going to use NHOCKEY as pass/fail, at least read it and understand it. Yosemiter ( talk) 20:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Karl El-Mir

Karl El-Mir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia ( talk) 22:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Even though he has an international cap, it's not one for the top pool of the IIHF tournament. So that and his Junior-A and NCAA hockey experience aren't enough for NHOCKEY. There's also not enough depth and breadth of coverage to meet WP:GNG. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets GNG never mind the rather dubious Lebanese team of Canadians. Article creation from an editor who already knows full well that these articles are not going to pass but keeps trying anyway. 18abruce ( talk) 20:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:TOOSOON. His nationality was Canadian, not Lebanese. He represents the Lebanese national ice hockey team which Lebanon made up of players from Canada and the Lebanese national ball hockey team. Does he have a Lebanese passport? AaronWikia ( talk) 22:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Fails WP:NHOCKEY, but passes WP:GNG. AaronWikia ( talk) 22:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: What sources do you claim satisfy the GNG? There are certainly none in the article. Ravenswing 01:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and there are no sources I can find that verify he can meet WP:GNG either. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, and WP:GNG is not passed by referencing the notability claim to primary sources or blogs. Bearcat ( talk) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Jerry I. Jacobson

Jerry I. Jacobson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable "inventor" lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. The former dentist invented questionable medical device that fails to provide support for claims. reddogsix ( talk) 17:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete article is full of WP:FRINGE claims and has no secondary sources. Power~enwiki ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Simran jeet singh

Simran jeet singh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Don't believe subject is notable, most references given in article are by the article subject, so are not independent. There are also copyright concerns, as some of the article may have been copied and pasted, CopyVios report says 59.5% confidence. This is also possibly an autobiography, and has been deleted before (see logs and here).  Seagull123   Φ  16:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete meets WP:G12 (copyvio) and WP:G11 (autobiography) criteria for speedy deletion. Most sources are written by the subject, not independent so neither WP:BIO or WP:GNG are met as there is not enough in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 17:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Production No 7

Production No 7 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON for this as yet untitled film, no significant coverage except one article Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Too soon. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Production No 6

Production No 6 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON for this as yet untitled feature film, lacking significant coverage apart from one article. Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC) Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Too soon. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy Delete under WP:G5. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 10:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

JOHN MARK BARTOLOME

JOHN MARK BARTOLOME (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't believe this person is notable enough for an article, the references given are not good enough (in my opinion), as two are blogs, and one is to a genealogical website with an image that doesn't exist. This also may be an autobiography, as the subject's Instagram name (given in infobox) is the same as author's username - so concerns of conflicts of interest and self-promotion (especially number 4 on link).  Seagull123   Φ  16:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Seems like WP:COI and WP:SOAP. A blog maintained by JM Bartolome was linked instead of the actual source on Starstruck. The actual source made no mention of him. WP:GNG fails, can't find anything other than the blog and fb. ArcticDragonfly ( talk) 19:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Blatant self-promotion. See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnMark0909. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 19:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete G5 block by JohnMark0909 38.96.9.224 ( talk) 22:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

DWAD

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

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

No claim of notability, no evidence of notability through reliable sources that can be verified. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete B101 socks keep inserting DWAD as a affiliate of Mareco Broadcasting Network Bertrand's favorite targets -- 209.249.5.130 ( talk) 22:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, possibly speedy per WP:G5. Power~enwiki ( talk) 00:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Likely if DWAD was already affiliated by Mareco Broadcasting Network an LTA target of Bertrand101 I request G5 by Bertrand101 in violation of a block or ban -- 209.249.5.130 ( talk) 03:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. While the sources here certainly provide nominal verification that this exists, they fail to adequately verify one of the core notability criteria for radio stations: that it actually originates any portion of its own programming, rather than existing merely as a pure rebroadcaster of another radio service. We have a tremendous problem with articles about radio stations in the Philippines not properly complying with WP:NMEDIA's notability and sourcing requirements — it's not being able to verify that the thing exists that gets it an article, it's being able to reliably source that it meets the notability criteria. Bearcat ( talk) 18:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Thomas Layng

Thomas Layng (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does this meet WP:GNG. There is another cleric of the same name but the notability of this particular one seems to rest entirely on his headmastership of Abingdon School - his other clerical and educational roles were relatively minor, and I really can't find much that discusses him. Sitush ( talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep. Headmaster of notable private schools. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC). reply

• No, headmaster of one school. And notability is not inherited. - Sitush ( talk) 03:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• BTW, I did consider suggesting a redirect to Abingdon School but there are two issues with that. Firstly, it isn't the only thing with which he was associated and thus could be misleading; secondly, we don't usually redirect non-notables where the only useful source is connected to the target subject matter (ie: a sort of WP:SPS). I was surprised to discover that his death seems not to have been reported in either The Times or The Guardian, although there are the usual lists of clerical appointments, which are effectively passing mentions. - Sitush ( talk) 07:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 09:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. If he'd lived a century earlier, he'd might have made it into the DNB. As it is, he gets coverage in the memoirs of some of his former pupils, but the Google Books snippets aren't enough to tell whether it's significant. I don't think this is ever going to pass WP:GNG and be expandable. Like most teachers, I think the late Rev'd Mr Layng's memorial will be in the lives of his pupils, not the pages of Wikipedia. Matt's talk 10:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete not a bishop or equivalent (our typical indicator of meeting GNG for Christian clerics). Failing that, the sources don't indicate on their own that he was notable. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Backlinks have already been addressed. A Train ^talk 08:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Dr. M. Abdus Sobhan

Dr. M. Abdus Sobhan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not satisfy academic notability or biographical notability as written.

Reads like a resume.

This article was moved to draft space as inadequately sourced, but was then moved back to mainspace by the author. Draftifying is not a valid option because it has been considered. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• It also duplicates M Abdus Sobhan. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

They are about the same person yet have very different info and sources. Strange that the new one has nothing about being vice chancellor of Rajshahi University. ArcticDragonfly ( talk) 16:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes I think the new one may conflate his role at Rajshahi with that of Prime University, which does still claim he's their vice-chancellor. The whole thing's a mess. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per WP:COPYPASTE. It is a CV. Copyvio got 84% confidence when analyzing his CV in the sources. ArcticDragonfly ( talk) 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Meets WP:G12 (copyvio) ArcticDragonfly ( talk) 17:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

ArcticDragonfly, lists of facts are not copyrightable unless they are selectively or creatively compiled. I don't see enough creative content in the page for there to be any copyright concern; do you? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete and redirect to M Abdus Sobhan, a much better article on (I think) the same subject that appears to establish notability for him. It appears from the page history that this was already tried but that Anthony Appleyard undid the move at the request of Justlettersandnumbers in order to let the AfD run its course. (AA and J, please correct me if I have misinterpreted.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete and do not redirect. This is indeed a mess, and mostly my fault. I did not see the existing article at M Abdus Sobhan, so moved this (then) unreferenced BLP to draft instead of immediately nominating it as A10 as I should have done. I believe it is still eligible under that criterion, and that this could be speedily closed. Quite separately, I asked for the move of this page to M. Abdus Sobhan to be undone because we don't move pages during an AfD. This title is not a plausible redirect, so should be deleted; M Abdus Sobhan should be moved to M. Abdus Sobhan; and we should all get on with something else. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 07:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Page Dr. M. Abdus Sobhan has incoming links from ordinary articles. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 08:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Fixed those three. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Too many problems.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 03:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Nominator intends to take to WP:RFD ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Waifu

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

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

Masquerading as article (if this should be RFD, please notify me) groig ( talk) 14:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• I've never seen a page like this at Afd. The only content on the page is Template:Wiktionary redirect. So yes I think it should go to Rfd. Will you be taking it there? If so, I would close this discussion. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, i would be willing to take this to RfD. groig ( talk) 16:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Adena Jacobs

Adena Jacobs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

NN individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 14:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep I've added a couple of references, by no means exhaustive. Don't know how nominator could have googled her and thought the results trivial. For example, she's been profiled in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Saturday Paper, which alone is more than enough for WP:GNG. I'd argue she passes WP:CREATIVE too based on her works although they aren't really referenced in the article (but are reviewed all over the place in independent, credible Australian sources). Boneymau ( talk) 22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Seems to be more than sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Not sure what WP:BEFORE was done. (Is the second speedy on the article appropriate while this AfD is running? ) Aoziwe ( talk) 05:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The Sydney Morning Herald article is both in-depth and non-trivial. I recommend that the nominator try to do a better job with WP:BEFORE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Low participation but the two arguments are sound, and this is an article with zero sources from a known-problematic editor. WP:REFUND applies if someone wishes to re-create with better sources that would trump the WP:TOOSOON concerns. A Train ^talk 08:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Meri Dewrani Meri Jithani

Meri Dewrani Meri Jithani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. I googled all three exact titles and found nothing other than other wikis which had the same text as this. Not even the Urdu title had anything. No edits in five months, likely due to the reason why it was even created. ArcticDragonfly ( talk) 13:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ArcticDragonfly ( talk) 14:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete - not notable, too soon. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Ko Ko Bop Challenge

Ko Ko Bop Challenge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Merge with article for the song. Essentially it's just another viral trend, and there is nothing that can't be covered in the song's article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. The Ko Ko Bop Challenge deserves an individual page because: 1. It is an viral trend that is spreading internationally (e.g. Philippines, Argentinia, Mexico, Bolivia) and not only South Korea where the band mainly promotes. 2. An individual page for "Ko Ko Bop" does not exist - only one for the album "The War" with containes informations such as commercial performances, charts and sales. Merging those pages would not be suitable. 3. Other dance challenges / memes such as the Harlem Shake etc. also have individual pages even though they were "just another viral trend". 2003:EB:9BD7:9325:20B7:F3F3:2D26:D558 ( talk) 14:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Ko Ko Bop does exist. WP:OtherStuffExists yes there is a page for Harlem Shake, but there can't be an article for every viral trend. No reason this can't just be included in the song's article. Being marginally popular on the internet is not notable ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't see the problem in this being a main page for the challenge. Sure you could mention it shortly on the page for the song, but you should also forward people to this article as it has more detailed informations (which are being added daily). Many people are interested in this new trend (not only K-Pop fans) and even though it is not as big as other challenges (so far) it still is a viral trend in the making. Lisa01011 ( talk) 16:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The Use of Quotations within Your Dissertations

The Use of Quotations within Your Dissertations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Essay, which is a blatant WP:NOT violation. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 11:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

It is not an essay any longer. Bfpage ( talk) 12:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Rename to what is written now in the first sentence a- it is still undergoing improvement. Bfpage ( talk) 11:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Bfpage: But it's an essay, it would have to be rewritten, with the title changed, to be able to be kept. It would have to be something different than it is. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 11:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

This article is being edited to address those issues. Allow time for it to get fixed. Bfpage ( talk) 11:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The subject is inherently unsuitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOTHOWTO. No amount of improvement can change that. Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The how-to language has been removed. Bfpage ( talk) 12:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The article ends with an advertisement and Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. So far all of this editor's contributions have ended with advertising PhD Dissertation.co.uk. Bakilas ( talk) 11:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The advertisement has been removed. Bfpage ( talk) 12:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Non-encyclopaedic WP:NOTHOWTO content. AllyD ( talk) 11:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete- agree with last comment. This reads less like an encyclopaedia article than an extract from a "how-to" manual, that would be more suitable for an undergraduate handbook than an encyclopaedia. Vorbee ( talk) 15:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Mangoe ( talk) 16:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment The article appears to have been written for the purpose of spamming/linking to a site that offers dissertation services/help. I applaud Bfpage's efforts to improve the article. At the same time it seems there is quite a bit of overlap with existing articles. See Thesis#Style and Style guide for example. If we get into the full contents of the style guide, it would seem to enter "how to" territory. —  LinguistAtLarge •  Talk  21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Others have cited NOTHOWTO, and that's the bottom line here. Besides which, different style guides apply at different institutions, so promoting this particular one (or its parent site) seems pointless to say the least. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. In addition, we are not a web host to post personal opinions and suggestions, with a side order of spam. Bearian ( talk) 19:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete – It is possible to write about the topic of dissertation style guides in an encyclopedic way (see, e.g., Thesis#Style, as noted above), but that is not what this page is doing. Furthermore, since the care and feeding of quotations is only one of the many points which a style guide typically addresses, even if we had an article called " Dissertation style guide", quotation would at most merit a section of it. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete all. Essentially, nobody made any argument towards keeping any of these whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Club Anthems Vol. 1

Club Anthems Vol. 1 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages, helpfully arrayed on Template:Ultra Records compilations:

Club Anthems Vol. 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Club Anthems Vol. 3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Out.Anthems (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Out.Anthems 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Out.Anthems 3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Out Anthems 4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Chilled 01 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Chilled 02 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Chilled 03 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Chilled 04 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Chilled 05 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Chilled 06 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 01 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 02 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 03 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 04 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 05 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 06 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 07 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 08 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 09 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 10 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 11 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 12 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 13 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 14 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 15 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Dance 16 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra Electro (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra Electro 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra Electro 3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Mix (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

UltraMix 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Trance:1 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Trance:2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Trance:3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Trance:4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Trance:5 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Trance 06 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ultra.Trance 08 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

None of these identically constructed, bare-bones articles (on compilation records from a label called Ultra Records) offers any assertion, let alone evidence, of meeting WP:NALBUM. Redirect all to their respective series. — swpb ^T 21:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Wikipedia has minimal standards, such as those at WP:GNG or at WP:NALBUM. The content in these articles includes no attempt to meet Wikipedia's standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Ultra Music or delete as clearly these unsourced articles are not meeting WP:NALBUM. But question for User:swpb -- if your desired outcome is a redirect, why bring all these to AFD? These articles are pretty cold, having been created in 2010 and left largely untouched since. I don't think it'd be controversial to just redirect them (or probably even WP:PROD them. A Train ^talk 17:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Because there are so many, because people here may argue (as Blue Rasberry did) for going further than redirecting, and because an AfD closure will set an explicit precedent to use if any are recreated, or any others in the set are created later. — swpb ^T 18:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Right, fair enough. :) A Train ^talk 18:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment redirecting them seems better than deleting as it would be easier to keep a track of if they are abused again and in case someone will look for look for them that they are easily found. Ivory Cowboy. -- The Ivory Cowboy 🤠 ( talk) 02:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As per WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. -- The Ivory Cowboy 🤠 ( talk) 05:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Indeffed as confirmed sock of Donald Trung. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete no prejudice to redirects being created. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply