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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Vumero

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

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

Claims of significance are not supported by listed citations WP:CCOS. Cited sources for claims are materials produced by the organization itself, and I can find no outside reference to the claims online. PureRED | talk to me | 21:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete: I believe I was correct in declining A7, because there are multiple credible claims of significance (has received coverage for pioneering professional services education with world championships events, owns the largest Sports Analytics & Sports Technology Conference series in the world, awarded as one of the fastest growing startup companies in Australia) in the article. Said claims need not be supported by reliable sources to disqualify the article from A7 per WP:CCOS. There are few sources available, however, and they all appear to be primary sources or promotional. These appear to be secondary sources: [3] [4]. Companies and organisations are not my area of expertise and I don't know if the coverage given by these sources is " significant", but I am willing to re-assess my position if more reliable secondary sources are provided. Linguist ^un Eins ^uno 14:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

To clarify, I'm not stating that I disagree with the denial of CS7. I agree that I mis-tagged it based off the criteria listed. Just want to make it clear that I was the one who tagged it. PureRED | talk to me | 01:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: ITWire is sponsored. YBF does not appear to be independent (it's a coworking space for startups, etc, which has hosted the company). Launchvic does not demonstrate notability (it looks basically like a government f[o]unded angel investor), and the page does not mention the company or its founders. The rest of the sources are primary. I'd accept notability on an NPOINTS basis for their range of activities (doing things, attracting thousands of participants, ...), but I'm not finding indications of in-depth sustained coverage in independent RS for anything, and specifically not at AFR.com (ft, wsj...). ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~} 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Stephen Daisley (journalist)

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

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA, since banned as part of a sockpuppet investigation. Edwardx ( talk) 21:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete If the individual were notable, then coverage by multiple, reliable independent sources would exist, and the article wouldn't have to rely mainly on primary sources, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Sro23 ( talk) 21:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Seems to fail on WP:GNG and is largely promotional. Shaded0 ( talk) 18:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that we should not expect the same level of online sources for Albanian subjects as UK / US ones. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

2014–15 Albanian Second Division

2014–15 Albanian Second Division (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

2014–15 Albanian Third Division (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jolicnikola ( talk) 21:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 8. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep (but you can delete the third division) Linhart ( talk) 22:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Given that we have season articles all the way down to level 10 in England, it would seem to be systematic bias to delete the third/fourth tier ones for Albania. Number 5 7 09:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS; there is no substantial prose here and the league doesn't appear to be fully pro. Only the first two tiers of Albania are fully pro so this clearly fails NSEASONS. I can't see any evidence of a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone 17:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Spiderone: WP:NSEASONS is for club seasons, not league seasons, so is not relevant here. Professional status is not relevant to league season articles, hence why we have them on all the leagues listed by Linhart below. Number 5 7 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Please tell me how the article passes WP:GNG Spiderone 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't have access to Albanian sources, so I can't. Have you checked them to see what coverage this league gets? Number 5 7 21:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kategoria+e+Dyt%C3%AB%22 Linhart ( talk) 11:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Then delete all

National League (National, North, South)
Isthmian League (Premier, North, South) · 
Northern Premier League (Premier, North, South) · 
Southern League (Premier, Central, South & West)
Combined Counties League (Premier, One) · 
East Midlands Counties League (level 10 only) · 
Eastern Counties League (Premier, One) · 
Essex Senior League (level 9 only) · 
Hellenic League (Premier, One East, One West) · 
Midland League (Premier, One) · 
Northern Counties East League (Premier, One) · 
Northern League (One, Two) · 
North West Counties League (Premier, One) · 
Southern Combination League (Premier, One) · 
Southern Counties East League (Premier, One) · 
South West Peninsula League Premier Division (level 10 only) · 
Spartan South Midlands League (Premier, One) · 
United Counties League (Premier, One) · 
Wessex League (Premier, One) · 
Western League (Premier, One) · 
West Midlands (Regional) League (level 10 only)

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

I would not be opposed to season articles being deleted especially something as low as the 10th tier provided GNG is not met. This is however merely a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

This seems to be a case of quoting OTHERSTUFFEXISTS without the knowledge that it can be used just as much to argue for keeping articles as for deleting them. I'll refer back to the systematic bias point here. Number 5 7 21:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

It's also a valuable comparison, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". There were debates about lower regional leagues and apparently the consensus was to keep them. See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_68#Season_articles_for_Regional_Football_Leagues. And the Albanian second league is not even a regional league, it is a national league. The league itself is notable, the clubs in it are notable, so the season should be also. There are also enough sources (in albanian of course). Keping english, german etc. lower regional leagueas and deleting albanian second division would be just biased. I agree with Numer 57. I must also say that I personaly didn't expect such a proposal from Nikola. Linhart ( talk) 23:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - given that the first and second tiers are confirmed as fully professional and the third tier is a national level competition, I find it inconceivable that there is insufficient coverage of this competition in Albanian sources not to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 11:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per comments about systemic bias. The lack of notability articles at present does not mean that they do not exist. Egaoblai ( talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Clearly notable, and as others have mentioned, we have to be careful to avoid systemic bias. If nominator feels this kind of article is not inherently notable, he should establish consensus in the relevant places rather than selectively pick them off one by one. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep while the teams in these divisions may not be individually notable, the league as a whole is. Power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Nick Hemingway

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

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

The only source is his own website. A search turned up AllMusic (a very brief entry) and Discogs, neither of which is WP:RS, and Encylopaedia Metallum (another brief entry), which doesn't look particularly WP:RS either, and his LinkedIn profile - only. The article has more red links than Lenin's watchchain. FWIW, the article was created in 2007 by a WP:SPA. Narky Blert ( talk) 14:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. My own ten minutes of Googling has turned up nothing beyond the nominator's findings: just fleeting mentions on sites independent of the subject.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nom and A bit iffy. No reliable sources turning up in google, doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 05:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 05:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Patrice Bisiot

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

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx ( talk) 17:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. The article had me at "author, keynote speaker, CEO and an executive coach". The sources are typical WP:SPIP, with interviews, blogs and other promotional coverage. I'll request deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete : speedily deleted (G7—author requested) by Ronhjones 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC) czar 16:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Holly Pollock

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

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx ( talk) 11:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

@ TheDomain: What? J 947^{( c) ( m)} 03:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

If the article is not notable and gets deleted then I'm fine with that @ J947:. -- TheDomain ( talk) 05:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete being an executive producer of a TV show is not enough for notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete -- the article's creator is fine with the deletion: [5]. I'll request a G7; let's see if this takes. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Keep per WP:ARTN (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books ( talk) 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Naked (2017 film)

Naked (2017 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is over-reliant on unreliable affiliated sources and republished press releases. Without any WP:RS sources it possibly fails WP:GNG. A Guy into Books ( talk) 20:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Keep because the topic is notable, regardless of what is in the Wikipedia article. Aguyintobooks, see WP:ARTN. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 20:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The sources do establish notability. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Enough coverage around in reliable sources to establish notability. What sources the article uses has no bearing on notability. -- Michig ( talk) 07:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

IHealth

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

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

Not seeing sufficient external coverage. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Delete. Most of the sources are from internal sources by the company. I think if better sources can be found, then it may have a chance to stay. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 01:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Donald Trump and handshakes

Donald Trump and handshakes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Politically biased. Not in compliance with WP:NPOV  Eric Cable  !  Talk  18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Moreover it is embarassing for an encyclopedia trying to be taken seriosly to have such an embarassingly stupid article about literally nothing. 93.36.190.141 ( talk) 19:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Violates WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively [...] This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. [...] BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.". Words such as "awkward" and "bizarre" and expressions such as "yank[ed] the judge towards him as if he were a pet dog on a leash" do not reflect a conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and dispassionately written article. It should be noted that not everything published in a reliable source automatically lacks bias; WP:NEWSORG states this clearly: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. [...] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." -- William Case Morris ( talk) 19:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Is your BLP concern strictly the expressive language used by the authors of the cited sources? I ask because the BLP policy says,

  Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion is normally a last resort.

  I would disagree that "the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  It is "substantially of poor quality". The entire article revolves around the idea that Donald Trump's handshakes are "awkward", "bizarre", "appall" others, prompt "memorable eye-rolls", "appear to painfully twist" arms, etc. I do not believe that such an article can be considered as nothing more than poor quality, at the very least ( assuming good faith). -- William Case Morris ( talk) 20:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Thornton Chase

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree the article doesn't have appropriate sourcing right now, but I'm not clear which notability guideline you feel he doesn't meet? penultimate_supper ( talk) 23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

penultimate_supper, care to update your pov? Smkolins ( talk) 10:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. While it would be great to have more sources (and I can lay my hands on a few newspaper references aside from Baha'i background,) it should be minded that the distinguishing aspect of him is not just that he is the first Baha'i to survive that early period but that he served as a white officer of a unit of the United States Colored Troops. There are few comparable articles about people who served in such units but there are some - Walter Thorn, Edward Winslow Hinks, and William Gould (W.G.) Raymond, and few of them have more than a couple/few sources. So I put this in the let's build it and certainly not delete it. Smkolins ( talk) 01:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Being the first American Baha'i, he is referenced throughout Baha'i literature in more than just a trivial reference. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I also added some 30 newspaper references to him… Smkolins ( talk) 11:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

… well… a few more than that… and other sources… Smkolins ( talk) 18:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep sourcing from 1908 is still sourcing. Being the first American convert of any nation to any significant religious group obviously results in sourcing, and that is the case here. Yes: the sources that write about him are primarily Baha'i, but we don't exclude those from notability any less than we would exclude histories of early Mormon missionaries written by LDS historical scholars. We tend to consider figures that major religions themselves hold notable to be notable. I don't think we'd have any chance of deleting Kateri Tekakwitha or Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, and we should extend by similar merit the same assumption to the Baha'i. Before someone shouts WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please read that essay: it is a valid comparison to discuss how we handle religious figures within Wikipedia and the reasoning behind it. My argument is quite simple: they meet GNG and per NPOV we should treat the Baha'i and secular sourcing like we would for similar figures in other religious groups. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep A well sourced article about a notable subject. The article should never have been brought up for AfD in the first place.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 00:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• So - do we have consensus? How do we get this closed? Smkolins ( talk) 10:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Chase is notable and the improvements to the article do a great job of demonstrating that. penultimate_supper ( talk) 11:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

List of international appearances of Ali Ashfaq

List of international appearances of Ali Ashfaq (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

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

• I forgot to add that there's not a single source in this article either. RetiredDuke 17:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WP:NOTSTATS Ajf773 ( talk) 21:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Inter&anthro ( talk) 00:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence that these types of lists are notable Spiderone 10:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - whilst there may be grounds to suggest a list of his goals (as an all time top scorer for his country) could be notable, appearances in themselves are not inherently notable. Fenix down ( talk) 11:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

BeeHex

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

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

Non-notable company where all of the sourcing appears to be your standard press churn: the press about NASA is clearly self-promotion that it puts out in its press releases [6], and the rest of the sourcing all appear to tell similar stories that suggest lack of intellectual independence from the organization itself, which per recent changes at WP:CORPDEPTH and the guideline at WP:SPIP, don't count towards notability. Everything else is non-RS blogs, publications like TechCrunch, and your standard industry publications. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Agree with the above. Could use some salt as appears to be an ongoing issue here with COI. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability. Needs more independent sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Delete. thecompany is good at getting publicity. We shouldn't confuse that with reliable sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete coverage is WP:MILL jcc ( tea and biscuits) 17:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete This company looks like it is not notable. If better sources can be found then maybe it can stay, but right now it looks like weak promotion. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 01:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

List of top international association football goal scorers by country

List of top international association football goal scorers by country (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No coverage in WP:RS that this topic is notable. WP is not collection of stats per WP:NOTSTATS. Just a WP:LISTCRUFT. Greenbörg (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability, NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Who is the highest goal scorer for each country is notable as evidenced by their mention on each (mostly) of their individual country's football page, and the fact that every player that nears their county's record gets a chunk of coverage when they are about to pass their predecessor, as evidenced most recently by CR7, but also by many others, including Robbie Keane, Falcao, Messi, and even others who are still some way off, but likely to get there given their youth, eg Wood. This itself I don't believe is the question here, but rather should a combined list of them exist. I suggest it should. This is an article I frequently refer to for easy comparison of those that reach records, to compare for example how many more or less matches these record holders took to reach their tallies. There is nothing in NOTSTATS that suggests this list should not exist. It is not anExcessive listing of unexplained statistics, it is a concise list of explained records. There does not appear to be anything in WP:NOT relevant here, except WP:NOTPAPER which is not a delete argument. The LISTCRUFT argument does not wash with me as of the 12 bullet point Meanings, none apply except arguably #8, and I submit that also doesn't apply as there are many examples of sources that list the top international goal scorers. [7] [8] [9]. Maybe not so many broken out to show only top per country, but refining the information is not against policy. In fact, WP:NOTEVERYTHING suggests A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. This is a good example of summarising information from multiple articles into a concise format. Club Oranje ^T 12:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the notion of record goalscorers clearly attracts sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN. It seems to me relevant that we capture a listing of top goalscorers at the highest level of football, namely senior international. Fenix down ( talk) 11:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Fenix Down Spiderone 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Fenix Down. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above reasoning. Macosal ( talk) 08:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep the accomplishment of being a record international goalscorer for a national team is a much discussed and usually well covered statistic. Inter&anthro ( talk) 21:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Kevin Lawrence

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Not enough sources for WP:GNG GSF 323 ( talk) 22:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Did you discount local and specialist sources?  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete no coverage in reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Syed Wazarat Hussain Naqvi

Syed Wazarat Hussain Naqvi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL. No in-depth coverage found so he fails WP:GNG too. If his party is notable then we should have a article on that rather on him. Greenbörg (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Being founder and general secretary of a political party can get a person into Wikipedia if he can be shown to get over WP:GNG for the media coverage he got in that role — but it is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles him to have an article just because he exists. And the only source shown here at all nominally namechecks his existence in an article that isn't primarily about him otherwise, so it's not substantive enough to make him pass GNG all by itself. Bearcat ( talk) 15:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Asad Jafri

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

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

Spent time on searching in WP:RS but there is no coverage in WP:RS. No such impact on Urdu poetry, just a regular professional poet. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Apparently a SPA Samahota ( talk · contribs) has been editing and expanding this page. -- Saqib ( talk) 17:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Written like an advertisement. Gazal world ( talk) 17:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Joseph Lesniewski

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

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

Joseph Lesniewski was an enlisted man in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. He was a late arrival to the company, having first been assigned to the Office of Strategic Services for a planned mission to jump into Nazi-occupied Warsaw that was cancelled when the Russians took the area. Lesniewski served honorably during the European campaign but his rank ( Private First Class) does not make him notable under WP:SOLDIER and there are no decorations on record. After the war, Lesniewski went to work for the United States Post Office as a mail carrier, an occupation that garnered no significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). This person does not appear to meet WP:BIO, but as they may be searched for we should redirect to the most relevant article. Nick-D ( talk) 10:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, like the others in the past to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States); not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek ( talk) 00:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, like all the others to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). How many more of these are there? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Even the latter editors who voted "keep" were concerned about content (including one saying "remove 99%" of it) and possible crystal balls, which leads me to conclude the best thing is to delete this now, without prejudice to restoring at a later date when events change. If anyone wants the content userfied, leave a note on my talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Peace Treaty with North Korea

Peace Treaty with North Korea (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure WP:CRYSTAL. Already nominated per PROD and speedy, this article is merely a repeat of various speculations propounded because of WP:RECENT events. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Comment Please note that WP:RECENT is no longer valid, and explain the cases of WP:CRYSTAL as speculation it is necessary to know for the contributors of this article. To generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, Can we please extend this AfD discussion for another seven day as some of the contributors of this article were not able to express their opinion? Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL and other issues like WP:NOT#NEWS, recentism, and POV pushing topic in several languages WP:NOT. In any case, this is a WP:TNT. Widefox; talk 12:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Comment: WP:RECENT Please see my comment above, criticism for WP:TNT with two languages (English and Korean), from my understanding, if we need to find the trustworthy references (news, books or scholar), it would be necessary to see the well-grounded source with both English and Korean language because the geological location of the issue is Korean peninsula. For quick translation, the famous google translate can be used. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: see also deletion opinions at Talk:Peace Treaty with North Korea#Speedy deletion request (and above). Widefox; talk 12:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I am not aware of even any initial discussions about a peace treaty between US/UNC and North Korea. This article is entirely speculative. Korean Armistice Agreement#Subsequent events is a perfectly good place to record any initial moves that might lead toward a peace treaty. In fact this article will duplicate a lot of what is in Korean Armistice Agreement#Subsequent events, and I think it is better there until there are at least preliminary meetings about a peace treaty. Rwendland ( talk) 14:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Comment: A doubt about initial discussions about a peace treaty between US/UNC and North Korea-> Please see one of the latest example: the Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (Press Release Date: 5 Sept 2017) ^[1] Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Is an essay. Fails WP:BALL. As an interesting but relevant aside - see Talk:Second Korean War (which will also AFD soon / reduce to redirect) - which described the current events (before modifications - [10] as the second Korean war). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Comment: WP:CRYSTAL = WP:BALL - Please see my comment above ( On WP:DISCUSSAFD - explanation the cases is required rather than merely stating that it violates the policy. ) Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nom. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Comment: per nomination - Please see my comment above about WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTAL Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Thank you for the notice about the AfD - Peace treaty with North Korea - article and please understand that I have no objection whatever to the decision of ("WP:CONSENSUS"?) to Keep(or rename), merge(to other topic) or remove (to draft for improvement and Wikipedia:AFC process ), however I believe that this article has enough evidence below for the Wikipedia guideline, and I believe that it would be required to open the gate (enough time) of comments from the contributors of this article and North Korea Project participants who are interested in this topic.

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

• WP:NRVE There are significant independent coverage or recognition on this topic,

• WP:SUSTAINED This subject has a sustained coverage as an indicator of notability

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

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

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

Regarding the suggested issues, ,

• WP:CRYSTAL explains "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." so an article is nor precluded a prior - it seems to be there are reference sources appropriate for passing the WP:GNG

• Wikipedia:Recentism On this issue,

From my understanding about the comment of USER: Escape Orbit and the Wikipedia suggestions are, WP:10YT, consensus can change there is no deadline and consensus can change by WikiGnome and Wikipedians instead of getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 12:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename, per WP:GNG. I can see multiple independent sources, and the suggested issue with WP:CRYSTAL might be fixed by change of the name as per the talk page ' bad name 'comment by User:Kintetsubuffalo Wikilinlin ( talk) 02:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment. For the record, the topic itself is notable; the issue has been discussed since the 1950s and that has generated plenty of reliable sources. But this article is too essayish for me to consider advocating for keeping it. Should it be deleted, I hope the closer will consider it on the basis of the content of the article, not what the topic is. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Comment: I think that it could be appreciable to revise the subject(topic) appropriately based on the contents of the articles, because the substance of the whole contents contains, news, opinions and research results of the experts in the respective fields of North Korea nuclear and ICBM issues. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment, Strong Keep: I think there is sufficient evidence WP:NRVE of this topic and other current relevant topics in this encyclopaedia:

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

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

List of North Korean missile tests , 2017 North Korean missile tests , North Korean August 2017 missile launch over Japan , 2017 North Korea crisis, Korean conflict, North Korea and weapons of mass destruction,

Japan-Korea relations,

Foreign relations of North Korea,

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

• Delete. There is no realistic prospect of a peace treaty with North Korea as long as its provocative missile and nuclear tests continue and suggesting otherwise (as the article does in its very first sentence) points out this article as North Korean propaganda. Amyzex ( talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Comment: Is it North Korean propaganda? -> Please see reference - USA was considering Peace Treaty with North Korea for at least more than 23 years. ^[2] Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment (by OP). Additionally, the article violates WP:NOTOPINION. That is, every speculation about what might happen is pure opinion by more-or-less informed commentators. There can be no facts about something that not certain to occur. (Also note how the articles uses the term "Peace Treaty" as a proper noun – this illustrates that it is not encyclopedic.) As NOTOPINION recommends, the material should go into Wikinews. To do this properly, the article should be deleted or made into a redirect to Korean conflict. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• , Keep , Rename and Keep - There are some issues with this article, but it could be amended later on. A fair share of information for global community without bias. I think it would be one of the most important contributions in Wikipedia. Regarding this topic, I can understand why North Korea developed nuclear weapons and why it is of interest by several international parties. Before then, I thought North Korea is actually preparing for a nucleus and there are still so many others who believe that North Korea wants to ignite the fuse of a nuclear War. Because there are lots of news articles that are from outside of the current situation :example today North Korea news: It’s ‘Begging for War’ I believe that the Public generally did not have time and energy to see articles from the actual experts on the North Korean nuclear issue and international law because we can only see the news on Internet and TV. Peace Treaty with North Korea: it is nothing new, but it is popular topic on news, newspapers, books and scholastic writings. I don’t see the evidence of violation of WP:NOTOPINION, but the topic supported by the experts and journalists on this matter and it would pass the WP:SUSTAINED with several references. D8jang ( talk) 10:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete low-quality content about a vague topic. Korean War should discuss the historical issues; any new treaty that Donald Trump or Kim Jong Un might do in the future is entirely WP:CRYSTAL. Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Comment: Please refer to the several articles about diplomacy options of US via google search - few examples from TIME concerning opinions of 6 Experts and CNN - Jimmy Carter's Agreed Framework : ^[3] (I could add it more later on) Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 05:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

^{[4] [5]}

• * Comment: Thank you for Relisting discussions and guiding us about Wikipedia policy on content forks, Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 10:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment We already have Korean reunification which covers this topic. This BALLy essay is not needed. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There is, as far as I can tell from looking for sources, no peace treaty signed between anyone and North Korea. And the title itself takes an inherent point of view. A treaty, by definition, is between more than one party, but this title only mentions one party. Is it supposed to be about a peace treaty between North Korea and Papua New Guinea, or maybe Gabon, or who? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Please refer to the initial version of peace Treaty attached between U.S. and North Korea: Agreed Framework
  

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

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

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

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

• • Comment Please refer that I summarized the opinions and topics on articles yesterday.

With the issue of WP:CRYSTALBALL, the issue of WP:CRYSTALBALL raised last month August, because people (including myself) did not know whether there was already signed Initial Peace Treaty between U.S. and North Korea via Agreed Framework. However, it is now we know the fact and so the issue of WP:CRYSTALBALL can be cleared.

• Regarding the term about name of topic.
  

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

• Option 1 Between DPRK and South Korea - backed by China & U.S. because North and South would be the main states
• option 2 Between DPRK and U.S. because U.S. is practically related to this subject after 1950 Korean War
• Option 3 Between DPRK and U.N because U.N was the actual signed party of 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those three topics you mentioned belong in North Korea–United States relations.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 09:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Comment Thank you for your feedback, YES, It is quite related with North Korea–United States relations, however from my understanding, North Korea–United States relations is hard to cover all of this topic as the prevalent nuclear & ICBMs of North Korea are the global issue. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Goodtiming8871, the creator of the article, appears to be bludgeoning this discussion. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • ' Comment: Please understand that I am one of the people who is fear for the accidental nuclear war. As some experts said, North Korea would be the most potential place cause global war threatening the safety to all of us. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes, quite. I received a message on my talk page about this from the creator but still stand by my "delete" opinion. I also note that the message still didn't reply to my comment that a treaty needs more than one party. The article obviously refers to a non-existent treaty between North Korea and the United States, so why on Earth, unless the creator is under the impression that everything in Wikipedia is written from an American point of view, doesn't the title mention the United States? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• • ' Comment: Dear 86.17.222.157,

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

• Keep but remove 99% of content. The peace treaty itself is notable, but there are only few sentences about it (and one table). It seems the rest of the article is off topic, poorly organized essay/fork of the North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, plus some POV rants/points. All that junk needs to go. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• What peace treaty is notable? The only international agreement that is written about in the article is the Agreed Framework, about which we already have an article. There is no peace treaty. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• • • Hmmm, if they are the same then merge (if anything) and redirect. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a highly important and notable topic and there is plenty of literature discussing the history and prospects. That literature can be documented factually. The article needs work to neutralize, as most new content does, but this is not an argument for not having an article. -- JWB ( talk) 08:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • ** Comment - Regarding opinion from User:JWB and User:Piotrus, let me please add My two cents. To sum up my idea, I updated my first comment above Rename and Keep - Firstly, YES, this article required counterbalance, and I trust the power of millions of Wikipedia users who want to hammer this notable topic into the proper Wikipedia shape by freely editing the article- - Secondly, I was wondering if other articles on AfD can understand the Delete comment on this article, but I don't see that it is the objective with other few latter-day AfD articles with WP:CRYSTAL issues; Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, GW170817 - It seems like people believe that several reliable references could waive off the issue of WP:CRYSTAL. In my estimation, the choice of name is wrong, as there would be many people with a mindset: anti- North Korea(may be NOT South Korea) & hate Appeasements with DPRK, to minimize any negative impression with DPRK, I would like to suggest to change the name to something like: Peace Treaty for Korean War or End the Korean War and enables users to modify this article. D8jang ( talk) 03:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As it stands, it is an article on a thing that doesn't exist. bd2412 T 22:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete As I said on the article's talk page: the article is speculative, not encyclopedic. The subject of the article does not exist. Discussion of proposals for such a treaty would fit better as parts of articles on the Agreed Framework and the Six Party Talks. NPguy ( talk) 01:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per nom. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kierzek ( talk) 16:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Votes so far, to save folks the hassle of counting: Delete+Nom: 14, Keep: 5 + Keep but remove 99% of content: 1 Rwendland ( talk) 08:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Glass Sphere. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. There was an Agreed Framework between the USA and DPRK, but that has broken down, and there is no peace treaty in progress at this time. Any such peace treaty in the future is pure speculation. Natg 19 ( talk) 07:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Autodetection

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

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

I've declined a WP:PROD on this as deletion of a page that's survived unchallenged since 2003 is never going to be uncontroversial, but I agree that this no longer seems appropriate as a Wikipedia article. It could possibly become a redirect rather than be deleted outright if anyone can think of an appropriate target.  ‑  Iridescent 13:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Belongs in a dictionary. Too broad a topic, a bit like Detection.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 15:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above. Not every word gets an entry, and there is no specific encyclopedic topic here really. W Nowicki ( talk) 23:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Jason Brett Serle

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

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

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

The language used is neutral and not promotional and the facts mentioned are backed by valid references. I do not know how they 'trace back to him' as you say. He is by no means a mainstream figure and is only known in the alternative communities he deals with but I feel his work to be with merit. Fabulistical ( talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Apparent vanity page claiming notability by having a handful of written pieces published, self-produced films entered into film festivals, and self-released music. Links are to small or self-published sources. No significant independent, third party coverage found. Fails meeting notability criteria for WP:AUTHORS, WP:FILMMAKERS, and WP:MUSICIANS. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 15:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Hardly a 'vanity page' as the language is neutral. Only one of the written works cited are self-published and the music mentioned was published by a notable record company and features another notable artist. The mention of his self-produced work is merely complementary. He is an alternative filmmaker and so naturally his films are self-produced. They have been official selections at notable film festivals and are distributed both here and in the US by notable film distributors. Mind your Mind has also been included in the psychology syllabus in American Universities. I believe it does meet notability criteria when considering that we are dealing with a fringe or alternative personality rather than a mainstream one. Fabulistical ( talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Clearly fails WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Please give valid reasons. Fabulistical ( talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Failing WP:CREATIVE is a valid reason to delete. What criterion in that guideline, exactly, is clearly and unambiguously met by the subject? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete none of the refs support notability for wikipedia. - Roxy the dog. bark 20:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Please see my comment above. I believe it does meet notability criteria when considering that we are dealing with a fringe or alternative personality rather than a mainstream one. Fabulistical ( talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - even a fringe personality requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the sources are all fringe, that's just "in universe" coverage that doesn't confer notability. He may be notable in fringe circles, but this is an encyclopedia that is global in scope, and notability needs to be more than just from the fringes. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Arash Hosseini

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

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

Contested WP:PROD; restoring for deletion discussion. Other than his qualifications the only cited material is cited to the subject's own websites, and the tone is so promotional it almost qualifies as spam.  ‑  Iridescent 12:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
(adding) I've removed some of the more obvious promotion and padding. ‑  Iridescent 12:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails to demonstrate notability. Pahlevun ( talk) 15:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - sources are clearly not independent and fail in establishing the subject's notability. This is a promotional article on a run of the mill businessperson. RetiredDuke 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - or even speedy delete, because, while the article asserts a claim of significance, I don't see that it asserts any credible claim of significance as required to avoid WP:A7 deletion. I wouldn't object to moving the article to draft space for improvement and AFC submission if notability can be proven. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 00:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 08:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• speedy delete, because soureces and references are not enough for this article at all Leodikap ( talk) 15:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ Leodikap, just out of curiosity what speedy deletion criterion applies here? Even if an article contains no sources that's never been a CSD reason. ‑  Iridescent 15:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Tywanna Smith

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

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

Declined prod. I don't see any way the person meets WP:NSPORT, and the purpose of the article appears to be to promote her (non-notable) business. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

Aleksej Nikolić played in the EuroLeague which meets WP:NBASKETBALL (because of the news coverage the EuroLeague gets). Can you find some sources about her professional career from reliable sources to improve the article? -- Dammit_steve ( talk) 00:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Will do Jacobbailer ( talk) 14:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Jacobbailer - this person's article may meet other notability guidelines such as WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG, but needs additional references included to reflect that. Hmlarson ( talk) 05:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Hmlarson Dammit_steve I added close to 10 new sources-does that work? I can add more if that's not enough. Jacobbailer ( talk) 00:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The goal isn't to link every web page that mentions her: anybody with Google could do that. Read WP:N for what notability actually means - in-depth and more than local coverage. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 09:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete A classic case of WP:ROUTINE. The press coverage outside of college papers is almost all quick mentions, team sheet listings etc. We may wish that women's basketball got the same press coverage as men's football or politics, but it doesn't and therefore WP:GNG is not met. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 09:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Colapeninsula Her professional work post-basketball has press mentions of the type you are talking about, for example, a Huffington Post article was recently published I believe. I'll try to restructure for that as a smaller page. Jacobbailer ( talk) 13:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Hmlarson ( talk) 03:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Beamery

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete the sources are mostly passing mentions or affiliated sources or press releases. Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Domdeparis ( talk) 14:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- a directory-like / promo page on an unremarkable private company. Sources are usual WP:SPIP suspects -- interviews, launch publicity, etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I think the previous deletion mentioned in the nomination was a CSD G11 rather than an AfD? As to the article, it describes the feature proposition and the funding, but neither these nor inclusion in a "fastest-growing in sector" list provide evidence of attained encyclopaedic notabiility. Some of the references are items by firms involved in funding this venture, so also have to be considered as WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. (Note there is also a similar Draft:Beamery by the same author.) AllyD ( talk) 10:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Kozo the Hippo

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

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

Non-notable fictional character that does not appear in any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and is not mentioned in article of the studio that allegedly created it. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 02:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does appear non notable lacks WP:RS and fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Alecks Awklr

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

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

No demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx ( talk) 11:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete not even close to passing notability guidelines for music producers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. Legacypac ( talk) 15:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 16:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Wahooly

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

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

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

An article on a defunct social-network start-up company. The available coverage is typical notice of a start-up proposition, and then of its attempted rebrand and revised proposition the following year, and then closure the year after that (involving a merger into another start-up which has no article, so not a redirect target). The most detailed discussion that I am finding for either brand name is an article early in its lifespan in the Star-Tribune ( [11]  – via  HighBeam (subscription required) ) but that is effectively home-town start-up coverage and not, I think, sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB. AllyD ( talk) 07:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- insufficient sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. No long-term significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article fails to meet requirements for notability, references fail WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Nick Pino

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

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

Autobiography in which notability is not established. The only two sources included are not independent and do not provide any in-depth coverage. It fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 07:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:AUTOBIO, not enough coverage in third-party sources to meet WP:AUTHOR. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 14:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: these are the only third-party sources I could find: 1 and 2. They're both inadequate.

1. ...is just him and another commentator speculating about one video-game, he isn't the primary topic of the video.
2. ...is a compilation of reviews, one of which he features in, again, not the primary topic and no indication that he is well-known as a reliable reviewer.

Aside from the notability problem, we've got a verifiability issue. I've blanked the personal life section because it was completely unreferenced.

DrStrauss talk 11:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The sources are not independent and don't provide enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. As such, the article does not meet WP:AUTHOR. RetiredDuke 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Shane Krauser

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

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

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

• delete i thought about trying to dig and save this, but yet another promotional article, written by somebody who doesn't care enough to even format citations and just slaps in bareURLs.... Just kill this. Jytdog ( talk) 04:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- nn as an adjunct professor, talk show host or as a director of nn American Academy for Constitutional Education. An apparent vanity page and bio spam. No SIGCOV in secondary independent sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Rushika Fernandopulle

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

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx ( talk) 18:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Delete: You're missing the "significant coverage" part, which cannot solely consist of quotes from the subject, which must be about the subject, which can't be press releases or routine namedrops debarred by WP:ROUTINE. So let's examine the cites.

  [12] is about Renaissance Health, not about the subject.

  [13] is not only the same, it's plainly a press release.

  [14] is similar.

  [15] [16] [17] are about Iora Health, not the subject.

  [18] is a one-paragraph capsule description in a section with *hundreds* of the same, if not thousands.

  Lacking is any significant coverage of the subject, as the GNG requires. Ravenswing 08:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Many of the citations you call out are merely there to substantiate factual elements of the entry; I don't agree with your characterization of the citations from the Boston Globe, NY Times and Wired, and am not sure why you did not point out the New Yorker citation in which the person the entry is about is one of the primary subjects of the article. Zapfdingbats ( talk) 03:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

• Does this article from the Financial Times meet your standards? Rushika Fernandopulle, chief executive, Iora Health - At Work with the FT Or this interview with him in INC? Would adding these resolve the concerns you have? Thanks! Zapfdingbats ( talk) 01:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Can you explain how it fails and how it can be improved? The article has multiple secondary sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. As SIGCOV states, the subject DOES NOT need to be the main topic of the source. In some of the sources, however, the subject is the main topic. I don't see how you can say this fails BIO or SIGCOV, it seems to meet the criteria easily. Zapfdingbats ( talk) 00:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Indibloggies

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

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

Non-notable blog. Whole article is filled with outside linking. Not to mention the creator of this article is same who created this blog (as can be verified from his user page). Hindust@ni ^{क्या करें? बातें!} 14:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, it might be seen as a case of COI, I agree. I never really thought that I was doing any illegal thing by creating a page about a website I created (I could have used a different user id if that were not true, and back in 2006 I don't think these were seen in the same way as we do it today, in this era of fake news). The page has no false claims though, mentions only facts. I didn't make a penny out of the effort, in fact I incurred money to keep the website running. It was a great community effort where the awards came from the blogger fraternity, no money, only goodies. BTW, Indibloggies was not a blog, it was a community blog award website. It enjoyed its spate of popularity for 6-7 years and many of the winners went on to become notable authors. The site is now defunct, so you cannot find any newspaper resources anymore. However, it was such popular at a time that it was quoted in scholarly journals https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Indibloggies%22 and in news papers alike https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Indibloggies%22. IHMO, the page should be retained for historical reasons (many pages cross link to it), but I wont mind either if its deleted. I am not in blogging scene anymore like most of the other folks who quit as well. Old things are forgotten and probably Indibloggies should also be. But it was an important milestone in Indian blogging scene, there has been no blog award before it or like it. (BTW, just noticed that the page /info/en/?search=The_Weblog_Awards_(Bloggies), on which Indibloggies was parodied, is also nominated for deletion :), these are the new times) Debashish ( talk) 15:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debashish ( talk • contribs) reply

• Comment - I removed the inline external links. - Lopifalko ( talk) 17:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply