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 Pinger, keeping history for copyright purposes. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 08:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Pinger (company)

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

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

Exact same as the lead section of this old version of Pinger and is about the exact same topic as Pinger. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 00:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 00:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 00:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: reason redundant; duplicate of /info/en/?search=Pinger, and I've copied the content of Pinger (company) to Pinger as the name is better already. Larryplo ( talk) 0:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pinger. I would have cut short this discussion by speedily deleting it under speedy deletion criterion A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic) but since Larryplo has merged content from Pinger (company) to Pinger, the history of Pinger (company) cannot be deleted, as it is needed for copyright attribution. @ BrandonXLF: For an article like this, which just duplicates content of another article, it is better to nominate it for speedy deletion under CSD G10 than to start a deletion discussion, to avoid taking up editors' time in the discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 20:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok, I'll add the tag. I didn't even know that A series speedy deletion existed. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 20:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Oh, I'll add the redirect as it technically applies for the speedy deletion. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 00:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete or Redirect as per above. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to X.Org Server per JavierCantero. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

XFree86 Acceleration Architecture

XFree86 Acceleration Architecture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A minor feature of XFree86; the only sources are the XFree86 documentation. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to XFree86 As a possible search term. Govvy ( talk) 23:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 00:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete or redirect and I created it - David Gerard ( talk) 05:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to XFree86 to maintain links. Doesn't seem to have enough coverage to warrant standing alone. EclipseDude ( talk) 09:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge Believe a merge to a new section labelled Extensions in XFree86 with a sentence or two might, as a fallback redirect. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge I added a couple of sources to the article. There is some coverage out there, but so far, not enough to support a standalone article on the topic. The refs in the article are enough verification to support a selective merge, per Djm-leighpark, into XFree86. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 20:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge not to XFree86 but to X.Org Server. "XAA" is the way to refer to the old acceleration architecture (inherited from XFree86), as opposed to the (then) new EXA. By the way, EXA should also be merged to X.Org Server, as SNA (computer graphics) and UMA Acceleration Architecture as well. -- JavierCantero ( talk) 07:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Grant Shapps. Tone 09:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

OpenBrix

OpenBrix (  | 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 company is not notable and fails WP:CORP criteria. What is sourced and reported on is a controversy involving a British MP. This content is substantially duplicated in the article on Grant Shapps, the MP. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 22:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 02:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect to Grant Shapps - the substantial coverage is the FT article, and that's really about Shapps - David Gerard ( talk) 14:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge per David Gerard. Λυδ α cιτγ 07:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge whatever is required, if any, then Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most references are in relation to David Gerard. While others have called for a Redirect, it is already mentioned in the article on David Gerard and there really is nothing noteworthy about the company that merits a redirect. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 19:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply

@ HighKing: I think you wrote David Gerard and meant Grant Shapps. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 19:17, 19 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Quantitative parasitology

Quantitative parasitology (  | 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 not a biostatistician, but it seems to me that this article has been taken over by Ezmindegy ( talk · contribs) and turned into a not-so-subtle advertisement for a particular software. The topic itself might merit an article, but at this point I don't see much in this article other than description of features of that QP software. bender235 ( talk) 22:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 00:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I am not sure I agree with this characterization. If you stripped out the 'Available Software' section you would have a rather generic description of some of the approaches to this that is similar to what was there long before the software was added. Take out the screenshot images (which could relate to any computer program doing anything, and so aren't really contributing anything) and you wouldn't see any marketing at all. Likewise, you can't really say it was 'Taken over' by Ezmindegy, when they are the one who created it to begin with, looking largely the same (except for the short 'Available Software' section). Anyhow, it looks to me like the promotional aspects are easily enough fixed. I have other concerns though. The lack of in-line citations makes it impossible to determine whether this represents a broad review of a relatively uniform the concept or is simply an essay that is basically just one way of doing something, with some references that mention the term thrown on the end. A statement like "This quantitative feature of parasitism makes the application of many traditional statistical methods inappropriate by violating assumptions about the underlying data distribution, requiring the use of more advanced computationally-intensive methods" demands a reference, or it may just be this editor's own opinion. The overall formatting and focus seems to be an issue, particularly in the 'Comparing parasite burdens' section that approaches being a statistical word soup, relying on redlinked statistical jargon, and the conclusion expressed as "we conclude" suggests either that it was copied from somewhere or is written in the wrong voice. Finally, I have to wonder if it is truly notable. Is quantitation of parasites really a notable thing unto itself, or are parasites just another notable thing that can be counted. I guess my take-home is that it clearly has a lot of problems, but I am ambivalent about the need for the nuclear option. Agricolae ( talk) 05:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete per WP:G12. Agricolae ( talk) 00:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Sections two and three aredirectly copied from this for the most part. I'm not sure how that works with WP:COPYVIO since I'm not seeing a copyright outright though. I'd have a tendency to suggest WP:TNT with that in mind. I have to agree with Agricolae otherwise though in that I'm not really entirely sure what to do with it. It's a common cross categorization ( WP:NOTDIR comes to mind), but it doesn't really seem distinct either from quantitative research, just that it's for parasites. Things truly specific to parasites would seem like too technical of formulae used for models, sampling methods, etc. for an encyclopedia. Someone might be able to write up population dynamics of parasites article someday that would have significant overlap and would be notable, but this is a rare case where I'd say TNT the thing and let someone take up the population dynamics stuff in a new article. Either way, we don't seem to be losing anything by delete right now. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 06:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  This link is to version 3.0, which dates to 2010, while it has been on our page since 2008. However, I managed to turn up version 1.0, from 2001 ( starting page 12) and there is clearly significant textual similarity - I suspect our version is a WP:COPYVIO of version 2.0, which I could probably turn up but the quarry isn't worth the chase. Clearly this is simply taking the documentation for a software package and presenting it as if it was independent information, which removes my ambivalence. Agricolae ( talk) 00:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete or radically stubbify. Good points are made above. I personally feel that the application/software issue is a bit of a deal-breaker here. This reads like the help file for one analysis program. Take all the "this function can be used for that purpose" stuff away, and omit the general statements that apply to all of population estimation, and we are left with about one sentence on how parasites are countable and come in clustered distributions - a slightly special case of density estimation in an open population. This might be worth an article as noted above, but this isn't it. There needs to be a solid summary of the underlying subject before details about choice of indices of skewness are warranted. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:21, 14 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Howard Barish

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

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

One of the producers on an Emmy award-winning documentary, but not an Emmy winner himself. Can find nothing about the claimed Oscar nom. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 21:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep - Oscar nominated at the 89th Academy Awards, for Best Documentary (Feature) for 13th. See HERE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep He's won an Emmy, and won a BAFTA. Ok, granted, it's for the same documentary. That said, there appears to be substantial press about him from which to add further citations to the article (which already has a fair number). (there's another Howard Barish at GamingToday, which I deslected from the search) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:37, 16 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement

NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem notable in the least, potentially just a plug to sell their certifications/exams? Seems innocuous enough or like an actual governmental institute, but it's a private entity. JesseRafe ( talk) 22:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I couldn't find anything to show notability - just routine coverage and passing mentions.-- Mojo Hand ( talk) 21:03, 19 September 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Cyber Centurion

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

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

While there may be substantial coverage in the Gibraltar Chronicle, there is no coverage outside that newspaper except passing mentions, "mission statements", and explanations of the competition rules. In order to satisfy notability, a subject has to gain coverage in multiple, intelectually independent publications, so the coverage in the Gibraltar Chronicle is not enough. wumbolo ^^^ 22:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Given that the competition is still growing, it would be best to leave this page on Wikipedia. Having a place like this would greatly benefit the competition. While there may be a lack of coverage in newspapers, there is more coverage on the web, with various articles mentioning CyberCenturion. For example, Northrup Grumman has a news post on the winners of the 2018 competition: https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/releases-20180312-6679646. automation.com has a news article covering the start of the 2017-2018 competition: https://www.automation.com/automation-news/industry/northrop-grumman-announces-launch-of-2017-2018-cybercenturion-competition. Info Security magazine also has an article covering the 2018 finals: https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news-features/institution-engineering-technology/. Even the Government of Gibraltar has created a press release for CyberCenturion: https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/sites/default/files/press/2018/Press%20Releases/126-2018.pdf. Hopefully I've proved my point - just take a look on Google (or any search engine of your choice) and you'll find that it's covered in more places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowsay256 ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep improved - now there's a lot of sources, a lot of which are NOTNEWS / primarynews, but on balance this is sourced with plenty of RS and if continued will build more sources. Was WP:BEFORE done? Widefox; talk 13:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  @ Widefox: the next time you question whether "WP:BEFORE was done" on an AfD of mine, I am opening a thread against you at ANI. wumbolo ^^^ 17:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply

There's sources here and in the article now that aren't in the nom, so the nom is misleading, not from the trivial misspelling of "intellectually", but by being factually incorrect. The nom's assertion there is no coverage outside that newspaper except ... is not as definitely stated evidence of absence but absence of evidence - see Argument from ignorance ..there may have been an insufficient investigation.., a logical fallacy. A quick search finds even more [1] The Telegraph [2] [3] [4] (non-independent) [5] + others. Widefox; talk 17:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply

A lack of proper BEFORE is already at WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo by User:Govvy with multiple editors mentioning BEFORE there and at all these AfDs. Are you going to take everyone to ANI? If I feel you haven't done BEFORE, I will say - see WP:OWN. Widefox; talk 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply

And then I remember you accusing me of wikilawyering. wumbolo ^^^ 14:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I note there's no answer. Widefox; talk 18:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

People. Can we please stop the biting. The identification a source in Gibraltar not in the article indicates some sort of search ... beyond that a claim there were no other WP:RS is dubious as it is rarely to know with 100% certainty there are no such other sources that exist. I will attempt to consolidate some unused references on the article talk page. While the Telegraph article below might be considered a press release the Info Security magazine is looks solid and I assume the nominator believes at least one of the articles from the Gibraltar media is solid. I believe it is important to stop the bickering at AfD's. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 19:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I've added some cites, confirmed the Telegraph url above is saved to Wayback and put the RAF url there. Overall we now have identified a good spread of independent sources so we're way beyond the rock, even a passing mention from Canada though probably not enough from that one for a notability count. Big significant difference can be not assigning to the relevant Computing Wikiproject(s) so I guess we are gratefeul to the relisters here. Thanks to Wumbolo for at least AfDing this one and not PRODing it or it would probably have been a goner, that said once spotted it was always going to be a keep in my opinion. Have no clue what the NCSC or this year's contestants makes of this AfD though! 12:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Good work, it's been improved and demonstrates passing GNG. The topic of tech participation, awareness, outreach, education for kids and the The National Museum of Computing seems to align with the WP:PURPOSE here. After all, that's what we're here for isn't it, the readers. I'm sure we can all agree that there doesn't appear to be an abundance of independent sources yet. Widefox; talk 23:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request admins only closure. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Dumb Bunny Productions

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

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

Close connection writer, promotional, and cannot find any reliable sources. It is a WP:MILL writing team and fails WP:GNG AmericanAir88^{( talk)} 02:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Note: The creator of the article "Filmmaker2010" has only edited this article and has a name with similar concepts to the article. AmericanAir88^{( talk)} 02:28, 30 August 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 01:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Cal Simmons

Cal Simmons (  | 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 unable to find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources. The Forbes article is by a "contributor" (i.e. anyone can write something) and everything else I can find in Google are directory entries. The Washington Post articles are about other things and quote/mention him as being the leader of a local chapter of an organization and having attended a conference. His book was reviewed by librarians but I don't think that is enough to sustain notability for a biography. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 19:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 19:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 19:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails the GNG at this point in time, not enough indepth independent coverage. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Cal Simmons is recognized travel expert in North America and deserves a Wikipedia inclusion. Mantosa ( talk) 06:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

— Mantosa ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Generic PR biography, no evidence of intellectual independence in the sources. Guy ( Help!) 18:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Cal Simmons meets GNG; has reputable source in both the travel industry and Tiger21. Roundrobinguy67 ( talk) 13:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

— Roundrobinguy67 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The Forbes article is an interview with someone who twice mentions Cal. This is not enough to gain notability. Jeff5102 ( talk) 12:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Travel agent turned board member turned angel investor - none of which garnered SIGCOV. He could plausibly be notable (e.g. if he were press driven or we could be possibly missing archive stories from the 70s/80s/90s (actually a bit tricky for online searches) - but this has not been established. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete as PROMO. Forbes "article" is not a reported Forbes news article, it is a a blog post by one of the magazine's large stable of unpaid, post-at-will writers. The rest of the sources are equally poor. News archive searches turn up a couple of articles about angel investing where he is briefly quoted, but no SIGCOV, and none of the Category:Travel websites he created appear to have been notable. I guess there have been a lot of TripAdvisor wannabes, but note that the founders of TripAdvisor don't seem to have WP articles. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:20, 20 September 2018 (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)} 13:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Kingston

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

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

Does not meet GNG or NCREATIVE. Not for nothing, as an apparent autobiography, also PROMO and likely UPE. Only one secondary source, without much detail; none of the awards are notable John from Idegon ( talk) 20:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Article updated to reflect that Jonathan Kingston has works represented in the permanent collection of the National Geographic Fine Art Gallery meeting notability argument for NCREATIVE. Further edits in progress. ( MrJK) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJK ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

"Further edits in progress" If article is not complete maybe it should be turned into draft article Freetheangels ( talk) 08:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

KEEP I will say that the article itself could use some work and can be written better. But notability goes without question due to fact that the subject work has been in National Geographic, New York Times and is on permanent exhibition at National Geographic Fine Art Galleries. Not to mention his awards Freetheangels ( talk) 07:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

KEEP Agree that this needs edits to achieve NPOV and remove uncited details. Also agree with Freetheangels, though, that it meets notability guidelines. PDN annual photo awards are prestigious in the field. Charolastra charolo ( talk) 00:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: The "National Geographic Fine Art Gallery" isn't a museum or display area, as the writer above tries to imply, it's a chain of stores selling photo prints from National Geographic (with locations in resort areas like Ft. Lauderdale, La Jolla, and Las Vegas). So being in the "permanent collection " -- whatever the hell that is supposed to mean -- is meaningless in regards to WP:CREATIVE. -- Calton | Talk 05:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oh, and it turns out that the "National Geographic Fine Art Gallery" isn't a part of National Geographic magazine, it's a private business licensing the name -- and apparently ripping off photographers. -- Calton | Talk 05:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nothing much to work on. (If the PDN photo awards were indeed prestigious, as claimed above, there'd be press coverage of them. Compare Prix Pictet etc.) -- Hoary ( talk) 02:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. While I have enjoyed going to the Nat'l Geo gallery in D.C., it is not a major art museum for which having art in its collections by itself would be evidence this is a notable artist. He seems to fail per our policy for artists and is run of the mill. If somebody can locate independent sources, I'd be willing to change my mind. Bearian ( talk) 17:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• COMMENT Can someone who has credits with the New York Times, National Geographic (amongst others) really be considered "run of the mill"? Notable yes. But article reads like a Résumé, providing a chronological outline of key moments of his career/life and outlining achievements and awards but fails to tie anything together or develop anything in depth explaining its significance. Freetheangels ( talk) 06:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Promotional, I opened the refs they are primary, passing mentions or his pictures. There is only one webpage out of 12 refs that offers independent coverage and is substantial, however it is in the local press. Szzuk ( talk) 08:30, 23 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Ajahn Sundara

Ajahn Sundara (  | 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 indication of notability. There are a few books that mention her, but those that cover her in some detail don't seem quite independent to me, for example this which is a first-person narrative. Google News came up empty. Huon ( talk) 19:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Too bad, seems an interesting woman. There is passing mention in a reliable source here, but it isn't sufficient. Could be more reliable sources about her later. Maybe USERFY the article.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep User:vellino As the person who drew Huon's attention to this article, I *beg* you NOT to delete it. The reason I brought it to his attention was that I was trying to understand in what way my proposed article for another monastic in this tradition was not acceptable (it had been rejected twice).

Monastics in the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition have very few ordained nuns and deleting one of the only two such nuns who already have an entry in the Wikipedia (the other is /info/en/?search=Ajahn_Candasiri) is, in my opinion, an excessively zealous application of the Wikipedia rules. There is nothing controversial about this entry, neither I nor anyone else (that I am aware of) is objecting to its existence. You might put a warning (as I have seen done on many other articles) that it doesn't meet the guidelines or is insufficiently referenced. The fact that this entry has been around for over 12 years and done no harm justifies it for being "grandfathered" in some way.

Wikipedians who guard the integrity of entries in the Wikipedia should consider context. The context of many (noteworthy) monastics is that they (mostly) practice an oral tradition. They don't write much (generally) and are rarely referenced in what the Wikipedia considers standard ways (in print, in the news etc.). Noteworthiness, among monastics is often simply that they have been (and continue to be) ordained after long periods of time. Ajahn Sundara, Ajahn Candasiri, Ajahn Sucitto, Ajahn Sumedho and so on are among the (very rare) elderly western monastics in an important tradition. They deserve to stay... and I deserve not to be re-born as an ant for having drawn your attention to this article :-) [is humour allowed?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellino ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Also part of the context in this case is the question of Bikkhuni ordinations in Thailand /info/en/?search=Bhikkhuni#Thailand

Un-necessarily delegitimizing Ajahn Sundara by deleting her entry simply because it hasn't been maintained up to current standards would not have beneficial consequences for the public at large and infinitesimally small beneficial consequences (if any) for the Wikipedia. Does consequentialist ethics have any baring on this question? I think it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellino ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep has been instrumental in founding and leading religious communities. Meets notability guidelines. MurielMary ( talk) 12:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep The subject meets the requirements for notability, backed up by independent references of sufficient quality to meet WP:GNG. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Ahunt, which independent references? I don't see a single reliable third-party source in the article. A speaker biography for a talk she gave, an interview, and her monastic community all aren't independent. Huon ( talk) 22:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have updated this entry with a reference to her interview in France Culture, to an event announcement at the British Museum and with more references to her publications, including a book chapter which chronicles the history of Thai Forest Tradition to the West, a book chapter in Enquiring Mind in which she (and other important Women in Buddhism) is interviewed as well as her other publications. I also updated her photo and metadata in the Infobox. Hoping that all this does the trick to prevent my re-incarnation as an ant. :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellino ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Diaranké Fofana

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY has never played a pro match and WP:GNG Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete The coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and he doesn't play at a high enough level to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Papaursa ( talk) 18:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom and above users. 21.colinthompson ( talk) 17:49, 17 September 2018 (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. Whether this information can/should be merged to another list can be addressed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf ( talk) 15:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

List of largest empires

List of largest empires (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

List appears to effectively be a WP:SYNTH content fork of List of empires - criteria for selection are in violation of WP:LISTV#INC and the whole page is fraught with edit wars over what constitutes an empire as a result. Recent suggestions of changing the page to list of largest historical polities seem motivated by unwillingness to use RS definitions of an Empire. Strongly suggest deletion with the option of recreation if it's done with some resemblance of adherence to wikipedia policy. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Given that Wikipedia can do sortable tables, this seems entirely redundant. Guy ( Help!) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Housekeeping comment The original second nomination for this page had a typo in the title and as such wasn't extant. This is, in fact the sixth nomination for this article, notwithstanding the name. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for the assist on the move. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The problems with the page are WP:SURMOUNTABLE, and the assertion that there is an unwillingness to use RS definitions of an Empire is patently untrue; the page uses a definition by Rein Taagepera, namely any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign. ^[1] I noted this on the talk page right before this AfD was started, and amended the lead to make this clear right after (which resulted in an edit conflict with the AfD notice). TompaDompa ( talk) 18:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not clear to me why you have insisted on only using this one source for definitions. When I suggested you use the definition found on Empire as a basis your response was to propose changing the page to a list of polities, side-stepping the empire definition question entirely. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

While I can't speak for anyone else, I consider that to be a very practical and pragmatic definition. The reason I suggested renaming the list is that I don't think the word "empire" is important in and of itself, and in practice the list already is of polities. There would be little to no change in scope, and we wouldn't have to argue about the definition of "empire". TompaDompa ( talk) 18:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I have raised concerns over what I believe may be an attempt at WP: Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Also, that the table as it is, may as well be a Frankenstein, based on a fringe theory.-- Ppteles ( talk) 18:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I think I might find the argument that the problems with this page are surmountable more convincing if it hadn't been made 12 years ago in the previous delete discussions. In fact there have been five such discussion before this one, the last in 2010, and in each one of them "we can improve this article" was considered a winning argument - yet it never did improve. There are still the same OR issues that always existed with this page. FOARP ( talk) 12:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect to List of empires per what Guy said. The only new information in this list is the size of the empire, which could easily be added to (and would complement) the existing list. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 18:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• While, as nominator, I support deleting the article, I would not object to a merge and redirect solution as you described here. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to List of empires after substantially restructuring the tables. As it is, it is basically an article talking about Taagepera's work, with some other well-picked sources added to it, not to make too much of a damage. I have also raised concerns over what I believe may be an attempt at WP: Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. That the table as it is, may as well be a Frankenstein, based on a fringe theory. Ppteles ( talk) 18:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Pure content fork of List of empires, based on dubious methodology (what makes this guy the sole authority on such things?), and coupled with a bit of text that's cherry-picking questionable sources in the extreme (anyone want to invent a time machine and inform Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan or the Spanish Hapsburgs that "The very notion of a globally dominant power is a recent historical development"?). Unsalvageable and even if it were salvageable, no benefit in salvaging. ‑  Iridescent 18:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It's ridiculous to argue that this is a content fork when list of empires has nothing in its content about their size. If there are problems with defining what an empire is, the List of empires page will have exactly the same problem so merging won't solve it. All lists, either implicitly or explicitly, must have a criterion for inclusion, and this lists' criterion at least has the benefit of being referenced to a source. Sure, other sources may use different definitions but the one we have seems perfectly servicable for the purposes of constructing a list. It's certainly notable, gbooks has a huge number of hits for the phrase "largest empire". Likewise on scholar, and Taagepera directly addresses the subject of the article in this paper from Social Science Research. Spinning Spark 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

In fact, it seems Taagepera used rather obscure sources and material to perform his calculations, which in some cases one can demonstrate to be wrong. It is nothing but odd that he'd prefer to use an Atlas, when he had other sources available to him already in the 1970's, 80's and 90's. I don't understand how he uses an Atlas and then talks about systematized measurements. Ppteles ( talk) 22:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The article in this paper from Social Science Research you mentioned says on page 114, "Among the historical atlases used, it was found that the three-volume Grosser Historische Weltatlas edited by Engel (1953- 1970) was the most versatile and inclusive.". This German atlas contains images such as this one. This article is solely based on a man who measured maps using those images. Ppteles ( talk) 22:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

If Taagepera is a poor source, that is a fixable problem, but I'm not buying that for the moment. Your criticisms of him look like your own OR to me. Both the paper I linked and the source in the article seem to be reasonably heavily cited by other scholars, and that's the mark of reliability. If he's unreliable, let's see the evidence by way of scholarly criticism of him. In any event, this does not amount to a case for deletion. And merging won't fix poor sourcing. Spinning Spark 22:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by "Your criticisms of him look like your own OR to me."? I agree, but I think it could be merged with List of Largest empires. Ppteles ( talk) 22:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

OR means original research ...and the article patently isn't based entirely on Taagepera. Several other sources are used. Spinning Spark 23:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not doing original research, what I am doing is demonstrating that Taagepera is a bad source. On the table you notice that very little sources are in fact used, and when used, seem to me like some kind of Frankenstein. Taagepera is clearly the main source, especially for the figures. Ppteles ( talk) 23:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry a previous edition showed two wrong images, I messed up for which I apologize, this is the image from the source he considers 'the most versatile and inclusive'. Another example here.Did he really use such images to make such calculations? If so, this is clearly unreliable. Ppteles ( talk) 23:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Broaden to include all polities. A list, like any other wikipedia article, needs to adhere to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines. Many lists fail the test of notability. Specifically such articles are just collections of related items with no evidence that the collection itself meets the General notability guideline. That is not the case for this article. There are two peer reviewed journal articles that specifically analyze the sizes of empires across time, and two journal article that analyzes the sizes of polities across time. These journal articles have been cited by others. So a list of empires (or polities) and their area and date does meet the notability criteria. One issue some have raised is the inclusion criteria for polities that that were "empires". This article could adopt (through consensus) such an inclusion criteria. I personally think an even better approach is to broaden the scope of the article to include all polities. There are relatively few additional entries that would need to be made, basically a small handful of modern states. The thrust of the research in the four peer reviewed journal articles do not focus on the distinction between "empire" and "polities." Two of the four mention "empires" simply because in the time period researched, most large polities were empires. -- Work permit ( talk) 02:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment, uhm, sorry but why is Australia included? it is not a "sovereign political entity" (no matter what ozzie republicans may tell you:), does this reflect the (not very good) WP:OR of this list? also why is this needed to be separate from List of empires, where a couple of extra columns could be added? Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Per the source cited on the page "Counted independent when joining the UN". TompaDompa ( talk) 06:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

which shows the arbitrariness of using that source. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Another example of arbitrariness is the use of some kind of arbitrary, unmentioned, 'consensual threshold' for empires to be included on the list. This threshold was decided by the editors, with nothing more than an 'opinion' and considerations on the degree of 'messiness'. Clear OR. Ppteles ( talk) 11:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge to List of empires by the simple expedient of adding a "largest extent" column. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge to list of empires as suggested above, with the caveat that that page needs a lot of work as well. Specifically, the terms for inclusion in the list need to be specified clearly - they aren't. At the moment it appears to be a list of every polity that was ever called an empire but this is not explicit. FOARP ( talk) 12:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment This is off-topic but I just want to reiterate that there are good criteria for inclusion on the basis of a reliably sourced definition of an empire at the Empire page. I would suggest this would be a good place to start. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Additional comment - if this is to be kept, it should be renamed to List of empires by largest extent or something similar. "Largest empires" is a subjective definition (what condition makes an empire "large"?) unless all nations meeting the definition of an empire are included, in which case it's a redundant list to List of empires. I much prefer merging as stated above. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 13:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

For the record, this is an artefact of the list having previously listed empires by population and economy as well (I removed both due to sourcing issues as part of a major cleanup effort in 2016). TompaDompa ( talk) 15:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I imagine those demographics would be difficult to source reliably and consistently. Nevertheless, if sourcing weren't a concern, those are more statistics that could be included as sortable items in the central list. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Additional additional comment A change like proposed on talk to List of largest polities would not resolve the key problems with this article which have to do with systemic WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTV#INC - changing which arbitrary criteria define the list would not make the list less arbitrary. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is not when to propose a deletion nomination.

1. If the article is poorly sourced, poorly worded, misleading, or otherwise problematic, then be bold and fix it yourself.
2. If the article can very easily be condensed to a subsection of another article, and you can justifiably argue that having this article makes it difficult for readers to find information that they would have an easier time finding on another article, then merge it.
3. It was argued that this is a content fork of List of Empires, but it's very obvious that it isn't one.
4. This page provides information that "List of empires" page does not contain any information on (such as geographic size), so merging it would add unnecessary clutter. This page should (if it is not already) be linked as a "See also" or "Main article" link and remain a standalone article.
5. There's reasons to delete articles, and so far not one of them was substantially cited. This proposal should be speedily closed; not only does it not add anything that the other five unsuccessful nominations didn't have, it doesn't have any merits of its own. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Oh, cut out the wikilawyering. Merge is a common outcome of deletion discussions; if anything, a merge deriving from such a discussion is likely to be more well-founded and -discussed than one following a merge discussion, due to more participants. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 11:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not wikilawyering to point out that their rationale for deleting the article didn't include any of the reasons to delete an article. That's just common sense. Yes, merging is a common outcome (though it should've been proposed as one), but per the reasons already described I don't support a merge into List of Empires. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Brendon, you've pointed to the number of times this has been proposed for deletion in the past. Doesn't that cut both ways? Especially when exactly the same things have been complained about every time and the reason for keeping each time was essentially "don't worry, we'll fix it", but then nothing was fixed because actually this page appears beyond saving? The entire basis of the list is OR. The proposed merge saves what's useful about this page whilst disposing of the OR problem. FOARP ( talk) 15:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

As I mention below, that would be a fair point if I stated nothing more than the number of times this was proposed; this proposal does not add anything of merit to make it stand out from the other unsuccessful nominations. So no, the assumption that the number of proposals resulting in a consensus to keep somehow serves as evidence for why it should be deleted/merged is entirely unsubstantiated. You note that every time the reason to keep is "don't worry, we'll fix it" but then nothing happens. That is not the burden of those that make the argument that an article being in poor shape is not a reason to scrap everything. If you find an article to have so many issues that it might as well be removed, your immediate response should be to attempt to fix any one of them, and only trigger WP:TNT when you've truly exhausted all other options. Furthermore, the article's poor shape isn't even the root of this proposal, as not a single problem with the article was cited, other than "it's a content fork" (which isn't even true). In my opinion, the biggest problem with the article is the inherent subjectivity of what states constitute an empire and therefore which states should be included. Do we consider the US an empire? Do we consider Canada to be an empire? Do we consider India to be an empire? Because there's no truly objective standard, the consensus seems to be an all inclusive list of the largest states in history. For that reason, this article should be renamed to "List of largest states." Because of that, merging it into "List of empires" is a terrible idea, as the ambiguity about what to include and exclude is the core of the problem, and the main reason why the inclusion of certain states appears to be original research based on subjective standards. Merging only amplifies the problem, and deletion is clearly off the table as there's not even the appearance of a rationale to delete. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Faulty premise, as the article is not a content fork. The List of empires contains no information on the area controlled by these empires, or any real comparison between them. Dimadick ( talk) 06:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• adding a couple of columns with that info (area covered, year or biggest extent and so on) would fix that. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• That would be for an editorial discussion on article talk pages, not a deletion discussion where the point is irrelevant. Spinning Spark 09:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Though I'm sure Coolabahapple is saying this with the intention of supporting a merge, with regard to deletion this effectively says "Though it isn't a content fork, it potentially could become a content fork if we changed it to be a content fork" which makes that point null. On the topic of merging, I'm against a merge because it would be better to discuss renaming (with a redirect) the page to "List of largest states" (instead of needing to endlessly arguing about whether or not countries like the US constitute and empire because of the large size and population and imperialist policies or if we should only include monarchies or if Canada counts for being bigger than the US by land or if they don't count for being smaller in population or if India counts for being a large country with a large population but not actually having an imperial system). In my opinion, the very inclusion of the name "empir "~in the title of this article adds too much subjectivity, but merging it into "List of Empires" would only worsen that. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨

• Brendon, if we're going to go full-on Wikilawyer here, the rules require you to assume good faith. This means not assuming that Coolabahapple is proposing to create a content fork just for the hell of it, but instead making a useful, good-faith observation that this material is easily covered on List of empires and hence we should merge. FOARP ( talk) 15:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• (In response to both of your replies including the one that noted the number of deletion proposals) That would be a fair point if I stated nothing more than the number of times this was proposed; this proposal does not add anything of merit to make it stand out from the other unsuccessful nominations. Furthermore, I didn't even imply that Coolabahapple is proposing to create a content fork. I noted that this nomination's rationale is that this page is supposedly a content fork, so I'm not swayed by a point that you could turn it into one if you wanted to (which would be an argument for deletion). However, I also very explicitly - and more than once - noted that he most likely proposed a merge, which is why the bulk of my reply was on why I am against a merge. With all due respect, every point you raised in that reply was substantially responded to in the very post it was replying to. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The list-article's sortable table focusing on sizes of the biggest empires is great, and it is not information that is covered in the List of empires article, and it would not be easy/appropriate to merge the size info to the other. Note the other has multiple tables which seem good as they are, focusing on other matters; it would not be feasible to expand them all to cover size for all of them (perhaps reliable size estimates are not available for all) and to merge all of them into one table to make it sortable by size. Suppose the size info were amazingly merged, then it would immediately be appropriate for editors there to split out the size information to a separate list-article as a matter of decent editing. The fact that this is the 6th AFD about this topic suggests that consensus for Wikipedia covering this topic has already been established. -- Doncram ( talk) 16:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I understand the idea of including polities but per WP:COMMONNAME more people will be searching for empires. I see no policy-based reason to warrant deletion. StraussInTheHouse ( talk) 20:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

This is a clear content fork of List of empires which operates with no regard for policies surrounding WP:OR - and it has been nominated for this over the years several times with promises to fix that never amount to anything. More OR, more WP:SYNTH, more arbitrary criteria and arbitrary definitions. It's frankly a mess. Why is this blemish worth saving? Simonm223 ( talk) 15:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

You repeatedly claim this is a content fork but most people in this discussion are not agreeing with you. That's because you are failing to identify what content has actually been forked. Spinning Spark 15:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

It redlinked because I made a capitalization mistake. That has been corrected. It's a secondary empire list forked off to A) add an extra metric and B) add arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

And frankly the consensus appears to be merge and redirect to List of empires which, although I prefer deletion, I've already said would satisfy me almost as much. It's the keep !votes who seem to have failed to convince the majority here. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect to List of empires. This list is useful and includes information on size not available in the list of empires, and appears to be well-sourced so I understand why people would consider it to be a good idea to keep it for the time being. I don't really take part in much discussion over here on Wikipedia, and I'm not too experienced with tables at all, but could we merge the list into the list of empires, adding information about size to an additional column? We would need to improve the list of empires too. Ntmamgtw ( talk) 09:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, adding another column to the list of empires is very easy to do. It's also obvious: we should probably add that column anyway regardless of the outcome here, it's relevant information to that list. It's just a bit tedious because of the way that table markup works (you can't just copy and paste it, you have to edit each cell individually) but hard it is not. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 12:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge to List of empires. Adding the additional column (for size) to the table there seems like a no-brainer. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't think size is a no-brainer, I think it probably kind of controversial. There aren't generally agreed upon sizes for many/most I would think. Merging would introduce controversy, issues of sourcing, possible negative tagging, into the List of empires article, which is not needed there. I think it is good as a separate arena within which sizists can gladiate. -- Doncram ( talk) 00:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

You argued, above, to keep. But, you say there's sourcing problems. If the sourcing is not good enough to merge, then how could it be good enough to keep? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I frankly don't believe the area measures. Unlike some of the exact dates of start and end of some empires, these are not factual characteristics known by the emperors or anyone else. I wonder which of those point estimates should be plus or minus 100 percent, or plus or minus 5 percent, or which have lop-sided likelihood ranges (e.g. the actual size could be 50% lower or 200% higher)? Is the size supposed to be the very maximum size of a given empire, which might be extremely temporary, or should it be some kind of average or "usual" size for the empire during its main period of duration (whatever definition is used for each empire should be explained in another column). Also I would not believe population guesses, or guesses of the financial wealth or value or GDP, or guesses on the numbers of soldiers of the empires, but why not add columns for those size measures too? I think it is fine to have a basic list-article on empires, and a separate one on controversial estimates about them, with a proper academic-type introduction on the difficulty of coming to any estimates. And probably there should be additional columns of estimates about confidence intervals on the size measures. And columns linking to sourcing and/or classifying the types of sourcing, so that a reader can see which estimates might be more or less comparable. An encyclopedic article about sizes should tackle the measurement/estimate issues head-on, while that is not part of a basic encyclopedic article about empires. -- Doncram ( talk) 01:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Basically: People, you cannot think the sizes are factual facts. But there can exist plenty of sourcing, academic debating on estimates, which justifies an article on size estimates. Like there is endless controversy in estimates of casualties in battles and wars, which does not belong in a simple list-article of battles. -- Doncram ( talk) 01:41, 22 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Cinematic soul

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

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

Not a widely used term, doesn't rise to the level of notability required. Binksternet ( talk) 17:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: Some, including me, may want to find out about cinematic soul. I was quite curious about the phrase. It was used by many artists, not only the Temptations. -- Mozart834428196 ( talk) 18:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - reliable sources namecheck Cinematic Soul to The Temptations, Isaac Hayes, Curtis Mayfield and David Bowie - what more d'ya want? Go and stick " Papa Was A Rolling Stone" on and chill..... ( and the AfD played on...) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Ritchie333. James500 ( talk) 02:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Deadline24

Deadline24 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I am not convinced by the sources that have been provided since the last AfD. A couple of interviews and very little coverage. (note: this revision contains all the refs this article ever had) wumbolo ^^^ 22:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Having looked at it the last time around, on the 27th, it looked as it was becoming more and more popular. In 2012, it had 169 teams competing. This year, is is internationally based, and grow substantially since then. Unfortunately there is not a lot in the way of info or refs. scope_creep ( talk) 11:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment Is it possible to create a Future Processing and redirect Deadline24 there instead? Accesscrawl ( talk) 15:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep . Hmmm, I am not sure why I withdrawn the nom, the sources added (see [6], removed since) were not great. That said, while the article is effectively unreferenced now, I see some coverage in Polish media. [7] is a regional edition in a mainstream and very respectable Polish daily; think like a regional insert to New York Times or USA Today. Another good coverage was for 2013 in [8] pl:Chip (polski magazyn), that's Polish equivalent of PC World or such. Leaning keep (other sources I see are more like press release, or I can't open them). Still, this is not terrible, as far as coverage goes for this kind of events, and I think it may pass WP:GNG. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep per sources by Piotrus. It needs cleanup, but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Widefox; talk 12:16, 22 September 2018 (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)} 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Why Not Productions

Why Not Productions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

May not meet notability criteria for production films. Also, this article relies on a sole primary source. A Google search brought up no secondary sources about the production company. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 23:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 23:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 23:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 23:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Agree with lack of notability: I did some searches in Newspapers.com, Google Books and Internet Archive Collections and found nothing substantial; several mentions in the Internet Archive, but they were mainly image credits and mentions in film or event advertisements. There might be a substantial body of work in French, but I'm not detecting that at this time. The French article has only two citations, while the Breton article has three; all share the single citation found in the English article. I'll look at bringing these citations into the English article, and if I need to change my opinion here, I will. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Remains marginally notable based on reliable sources: I've added citations from the French and Breton articles. I am on the fence as to whether the potential is there for the emergence of sufficient reliable sources for notability to be achieved. This is a public company, and many, if not most, public companies have sufficient reliable source coverage to support an article. I'm thinking that the article should be given the benefit of the doubt at this point; allow it to survive and after a year, perhaps two, return and if article state has not progressed, suggest re-proposal for deletion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me)

  Ceyockey, actually the article had been around since 2015 and hasn't been heavily changed since its creation -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 04:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep L'Express and Telerama are sufficient secondary sources for a company behind major, significant films (Dheepan, I, Daniel Blake, A Prophet, Loveless- all Cannes Film Festival award-winners) Ribbet32 ( talk) 14:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • comment I'd rhetorically point out that notability of the pictures produced by the company does not make the company itself notable (for WP inclusion standards). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep as there is just about enough coverage in reliable sources to barely pass WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please post links to references that meet WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH please. I cannot find any. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Since notability is not inherited, no indications of notability for this company. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Very weak keep. After doing an analysis of each of the sources, I believe this is a borderline case. If I have the reliability of one of the sources wrong, I would be happy to have someone correct me:

1. Looks like their personal profile on a website. Don't think it's anything reliable, though I could be wrong.
2. This one seems reliable, but I'm not sure it's enough to be significant coverage. But it's more than a trivial mention. I'm kind of on the fence as to whether this one could help establish the article's notability.
3. This one's probably the best source of all. It seems like Telerama.fr is a reliable source, and there is definitely significant coverage here.
4. I'm not seeing that this one mentions anything about Why Not Productions. Therefore, it doesn't help establish notability at all.
5. Just trivial coverage. The only mention of Why Not Productions is "The indie label will produce and co-finance the film with Why Not Productions," with nothing else.

Overall, I've come to a similar conclusion as Ceyockey. It's borderline on meeting WP:GNG, but I think in cases like these, it's better to give the benefit of the doubt and keep the article.-- SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:02, 21 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

SUNY SAIL Institute

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

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

Promotional article for non-notable think tank. Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Some of its top management have been interviewed by publications like syracuse.com (questionable reliability) but the SUNY SAIL Institute itself just gets a mere mention. Previously nominated for PROD but was blocked by primary editor. Doesn't seem like a common search term, so no need for redirect to State University of New York. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Well the thing is that SUNY is an entity of the government of the State of New York. Hence, it is highly important that important about the initiatives about the SAIL Institute is available to the public especially to the residents of the State of New York. Keep in mind the SUNY SAIL Institute is NOT a non for profit or a business by any means. It is a department of a state entity. And for that reason it is very unfavorable that you are recommending deletion of this page. If you wat to do some research go the Wikipedia page of the Rockefeller A. Nelson Institute of Government - they are also part of SUNY, and they are also a think tank. There's a reason that we should make sure they are going out of their way to make sure that they are transparent in their efforts. Again, the SUNY SAIL Institute is NOT a business or a not for profit, in fact it is a state entity funded by the government of the State of New York. I hope you do some more research into this matter and realize that this is not an "Advertisement" but an effort for a state entity to be more transparent to its constituency. Also please reach out to me if you have any more questions. Hope you will revert the deletion recommendation on the SUNY SAIL Institute page. -basicupdater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicupdater ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm not seeing any indication that this meets WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Regardless of profit or non-profit status, notability guidelines must be met. Basicupdater, as the original author of the page, I'm curious as to why you said "we" in your comment above. Do you have a conflict of interest? Jmertel23 ( talk) 14:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Long way from meeting WP:NCORP. Nothing in article or online that meets WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 19:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• delete academic spam. not ambiguous. Jytdog ( talk) 01:22, 17 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Prime Plaza Hotels and Resorts

Prime Plaza Hotels and Resorts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing but a list of resorts. No references and no reporting of independent coverage. Purely promotional because no independent information. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• There are 5 references from newspaper in the article. Its an Indonesian hotel chain which is spreading very fast since its inauguration in 2003. If this is promotional, then what about other hotel chain those are already in Wikipedia Reza ( talk)?
• Comment - First, see Other Stuff Exists. Maybe they should also be deleted. Second, maybe the coverage was more substantial. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Since you added the references after the AFD, which is encouraged, you have six more days to establish notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Further improvement- Sorry I don't have time to establish notability, I am not working as PR for that company, rather trying to enlist few things in wikipedia as part of hobby Reza ( talk)! I suggest to tag the article for further improvement, not for deletion.

• Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they all appear to rely or are based on company press releases or quotations/interviews with connected companies or people. References fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 13:07, 17 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Jack Shay

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

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

Essentially unreferenced BLP (there is only one citation, which is just a link to the main page of an organization mentioned in the article - nothing about the subject is included). All I could find via Google is a link to his Facebook page. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Jmertel23 ( talk) 17:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I literally cannot find a single source, reliable or unreliable, about this subject, apart from Wikipedia mirrors and his own social media – and even then, he seems to have stopped posting on his Facebook page and Twitter account in March 2012. No indication at all where his albums may be obtained from – they're not on the usual suspects like Amazon, iTunes and Spotify, and if they were ever only available directly from the artist's own website, that's not the case now either, as the two websites that I have found for Mr. Shay are both dead. Article created by a SPA in 2011 who hasn't been seen since on Wikipedia. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Don't think it is going to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Capitals00 ( talk) 17:21, 14 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Tribo das Danadas

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

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

Fails WP:NSONGS , artists' article doesn'the even exist . Kpg jhp jm 01:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Even if there are no articles for the artists in the English Wikipedia, the articles in the Portuguese Wikipedia about the artists may have enough details to demonstrate notability. See pt:MC_Zaac and pt:Jerry Smith. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: fails WP:NSONG. My Portuguese isn't good, but even following Eastmain's suggestion above, I can't find any significant coverage of the song – the best I have come up with is a passing mention at the end of this article [9]. There's no archive of the Brasil Hot 100 Airplay chart, unfortunately, so it's impossible to check whether it charted, but it doesn't appear to have been a major hit, if at all. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:35, 14 September 2018 (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. The AfD template was placed on the draft page, located at Draft:Kaneez Surka, and also on the main namespace page. Per the wording of the nomination, it appears that the nominator attempted to nominate the draft to be considered for deletion, which is discussed at WP:MFD, rather than articles for deletion. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Kaneez Surka

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

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

There is an exisisting article, this draft is a duplicate Mind Sweepr12 ( talk) 16:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT#2. Nominator apparently is using the AfD process to try to replace an existing article with an undeleted draft version. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Kaneez Surka Bakazaka ( talk) 16:49, 13 September 2018 (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. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. You can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to help prevent vandalism to the article. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Chase Finlay

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

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

This page should be deleted because of the excessive amount of vandalism that has been taking place Mpfaia ( talk) 15:47, 13 September 2018 (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/2018 September 13. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 13 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

BIX Malaysia

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

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

Does not meet notability requirements. only one source article also draft moved by creator itself. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I believe the subject is notable and meets WP:GNG and found this source, this source and this source. An article with this title was speedily deleted on or about 6 July 2018, for G11 I think, but this article seems satisfactory in that respect. The present version needs attention and I will add the sources I have found. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sources found by Cwmhiraeth, also these [10] [11] [12] should satisfy WP:GNG. I should imagine such sharia-compliant financial set up is significant in a Muslim-majority country. Hzh ( talk) 12:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep Sufficient coverage found by Cwmhiraeth and Hzh. I'd feel more comfortable if it wasn't all coverage of the launch, which all seem to be almost the same article, even if from different sources, but then it's been open less than a year, so we can only expect so much. -- GRuban ( talk) 16:02, 4 September 2018 (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. Withdrawn. MacLife article is a significant review. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Guitar Pro

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

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

This is a tricky one. This article has a bunch of mentions in reliable sources, but not too much. There is some routine coverage in reliable sources, and some of it is promotional. But there isn't enough significant coverage e.g. in the form of reviews. There are a couple of reviews of the software in PCMag, but there isn't anything outside of that publication, and we need more than one publication to demonstrate notability. There is an article/review in Engadget, but it was written by a community contributor so we can't rely on it to prove notability. wumbolo ^^^ 15:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment Other sources: Half page review of the Mac version in MacLife magazine (March 2007; p. 78); One page review (well, rather less "ca. 0.33 redaktionelle Seite" in German c't magazine (19/2017, p. 64); available online behind paywal: [13] Pavlor ( talk) 09:08, 14 September 2018 (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. fails NCORP, blatant promo by paid editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Cypher Learning

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

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

Lack of notability. Almost all the refs are self-published; the claim to have won several awards is an unsubstantiated claim made by the ceo in an interview. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk) 14:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:19, 13 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Nostradameus

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I don't see what have changed since the last AfD in terms of notability. Per WP:MUSIC. BabbaQ ( talk) 15:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep The band has six releases on AFM, which passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles ( talk) 15:46, 13 September 2018 (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. Tone 09:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Thinsulate

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

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

This subject fails GNG. The article does not cite a single reliable third-party source that establishes notability. Extensive searches online have failed to find anything that would show notability. Given how obscure this product is and how long it has been on the market it is highly doubtful any such sources will appear in the future. Lovelylinda1980 ( talk) 14:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have no idea why this article focuses near exclusively on its use in vehicle upholstery; the main use of this is in winter gear like hats, gloves, snowsuits and jackets. This needs a WP:RESCUE. Nate • ( chatter) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is one of the larger insulated clothing brands. I am surprised the article is so limited, as sources are available. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 15:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep – this is one of 3M's most popular product lines, and there are plenty of sources available about this. The article needs to be expanded to cover its impact on the clothing industry. Brad v 16:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As others have already noted, this is a prominent 3M product now used in a wide assortment of products. A lengthy article about the initial development of the product and its markets can be found in the March 16, 1997 Star Tribune, available via HighBeam Research here: [14]. The story of how future 3M chair L.D. DeSimone tried repeatedly to kill this product during its development (and how he later conceded his error) has become a popular case study in business literature, see for example [15] [16] [17]. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Search for it on Amazon UK and you'll find over 6000 products, mostly (if not exclusively) hats and gloves. It's admittedly old but it's certainly not obscure. -- Heron ( talk) 18:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG with HighBeam Research references cited in the article. —  Newslinger  talk 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. I'm not sure if Digital Trends is a reliable source, but the sources in the article, on which many keep votes seem to be based on, rely on press releases, mission statements and WP:CRYSTAL, or are otherwise passing mentions. The Law & Order "review" article from Highbeam is not nearly enough. The Telegraph article seems very narrowly focused, but perhaps I'm missing something. Other sources are either unreliable blogs, or are affiliated with the subject ("our product" etc.). wumbolo ^^^ 14:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. In the end Wikipedia's here to be able to give some sort of answer to what Thinsulate it without being bombarded with with ads. This articles does this with plausible referencing. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. This is one of the most notable tech fabrics in the world. Almost every glove worth its weight in keeping you warm has this logo on it. I live in the arctic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are many articles/other sources about this online. It's an extremely common product, and there are plenty of potential references to satisfy notability criteria. Natureium ( talk) 22:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Very common, very notable. Softlavender ( talk) 05:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep to quote [18] 3M's popular... what's next, Gore-Tex or nylon? Was WP:BEFORE even done? Widefox; talk 15:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  @ Widefox: I just went and checked the notability of Gore-Tex. While none of the sources in the article indicate notability, there actually do exist a couple of lengthy non-primary articles written about it. wumbolo ^^^ 16:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Please stop pinging me on AfDs. Here's a BBC source for Thinsulate [19]. Widefox; talk 16:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

That source literally fails WP:CORPDEPTH. wumbolo ^^^ 16:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The BBC source can be used with others - there's so many out there, and multiple in this AfD. I quote makes well-known brands including Scotch, Post-it, Scotchgard, Thinsulate and Scotch-Brite, so all notable and well-known. None of which has WP:SNOWs chance of being deleted. The User:Lovelylinda1980 nom is way off factually, and makes me question if WP:BEFORE was actually done and why several 3M products have been AfDed? Widefox; talk 12:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Major consumer product, the subject of numerous pieces of substantial coverage. Really poorly considered nomination. Carrite ( talk) 06:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

HERE is a 1979 piece on this 3M consumer product written by Christopher Nyerges for the Gannett News Service. Carrite ( talk) 06:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

THIS is a piece on Thinsulate written by Jean Steed for The Daily Oklahoman. Carrite ( talk) 07:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

ANOTHER reliable source, this by Herb Greenberg for the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain. Carrite ( talk) 07:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The article is written by Herb Greenberg, but it seems to entirely consist of quotes. wumbolo ^^^ 08:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep and suggest WP:SNOW close; over a dozen references have been added to the article since the nomination. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

SLAMbassadors UK

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

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

Mainly sourced to the organizer - Poetry Society. Little coverage of this youth award elsewhere. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not enough non-trivial independent sourcing. Citing ( talk) 14:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete The is subject fails basic notability. Lovelylinda1980 ( talk) 14:57, 13 September 2018 (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) 01:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Days of Our Wives

Days of Our Wives (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional. Doesn't pass GNG or NBOOK. Published bt Beau Selector which is a matchmaking service for Muslims (and is not in the book publishing business). Sparse coverage of the book - promotional pieces/interviews in a couple of local papers. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salam Jones. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete As the nominator said, this subject clearly fails GNG. Also, the article is promotional in nature and was created by a problem editor who has now been blocked indefinitely. Lovelylinda1980 ( talk) 15:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. Jmertel23 ( talk) 17:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I tried to see if I could find anything and I could locate was a lone magazine review. There's just not enough to show where this passes NBOOK. If the author's notability wasn't in question I'd say to redirect there, but the author's article is also up for AfD. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  I will note that the author seems connected to the publisher/matchmaker - or at least on their YouTube channel he appears as an interviewer - making this rather akin to being self published. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. It is mentioned on the author's article, but it looks like the author's article is also up for deletion. Auldhouse ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Salam Jones

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

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

Promotional. Doesn't pass GNG or NAUTHOR. Published a single book via Beau Selector which is a matchmaking service for Muslims (and is not in the book publishing business). Sparse coverage of the author - promotional pieces in a couple of local papers. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Days of Our Wives. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Jmertel23 ( talk) 17:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Shahena Ali

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

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

Promotional. Sources in the article are mainly deadlinks and/or self-authored profiles and some interviews. The two first sources are interviews with her father. The two half decent pieces are local ones - [20] [21] - which is far from meeting SIGCOV. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:PROMO. The page is overstuffed with sources, so I started with a Proquest news archive search. It brought up an article in the Essex Chronicle: CURRY AID: Meals by Chelmsford chef are sent to UN troops in Africa Ali had cooked meals at a local restaurant, hired a private airplane, and talked some reporter into coming out to the airport and write up a story showing her boarding the private jet ot personally deliver the meals to UN troops in the Congo. This shows that the woman SELF-PROMOTES with flair. The other 7 hits were all in the Daily Mail and the Sun, promoting some beauty product she was pushing. those papers do that. But if a contemporary, born-in-England: "English celebrity chef, television presenter, naturopath, nutritionist, businesswoman, and food and beauty writer" is for real, there will be WP:SIGCOV in a powerful news archive search. Many sources on this page ( I did not check them all,) are fake. To take just one: the BBC, yes the BBC has a service called BBC Academy: "This profile is part of the BAME Expert Voices database that brings together the array of talent who applied for and attended BBC Academy Expert Voices training days across the UK. The following information has been supplied by the expert". delete. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:26, 16 September 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 03:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Rukia Begum

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

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

Previously deleted. Promotional. Doesn't pass GNG. Many of the sources in the article are self authored. What's not - a paragraph at Paraa, a local news story on a two week visit to Pakistan as a student, and interviews to BBC Asian in 2013 - [22] [23] - are far from SIGCOV. Searching for more sources does not bring up much else. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Altaf ( talk) 17:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per promotional and not notable. ParticipantObserver ( talk) 20:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• This one is hopeless. Delete. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Mostly self-published material. Sources don't add enough to significant coverage. Capitals00 ( talk) 17:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Enamul Hoque

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

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

Previously speedy deleted. Promotional. Doesn't pass GNG. The article presently has 3 sources - BritBangla (2 paragraphs, does not seem this is a RS), a deadlink to Oitij-jo, and an interview given to The British Journal of Photography. In my BEFORE I did find plenty of other people with same name (a NY academic, a witness to a terror attack, a newspaper editor in Pakistan, a former Bangladeshi social welfare minister (who would pas NPOL), and others) - but fairly little in terms of high quality coverage of this individual. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete as proposed. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. I've looked around, and all I can find are personal profiles, interviews, or otherwise non-independent non-RS sources.-- SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:26, 21 September 2018 (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 for the article to be retained. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Dorico

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

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

There is only coverage before the scorewriter was released, and it seems routine to me. The coverage is not really third-party reviews, but unrelated content and the rest essentially press releases. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Music engraving programs don't get much coverage outside trade publications and users' forums. But Dorico, as a descendent of Sibelius, is noteworthy and has received coverage in more mainstream media, like Rheingold Publishing. I'm uneasy about this mass AfD/Prod ( Forte (notation program), Guitar Pro, Igor Engraver, Capella (notation program), Steinberg). -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 05:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Michael Bednarek. Brad v 23:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep weak sourcing but passes per Michael Bednarek. Attempted mass deletion disruption. Widefox; talk 22:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  Not true. Attempted mass keep disruption, since you persistently vote keep based on only one source. wumbolo ^^^ 08:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Wumbolo strike that bad faith assumption. User:Michael Bednarek there's discussion at WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo about the disruption. Widefox; talk 11:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Why? It's a perfectly logical assumption, since you haven't bothered to change your keep votes after I pointed out problems with them, and accused me of disrupting something. If you strike your bad faith assumptions, I will think about striking my evidence-based assumptions. wumbolo ^^^ 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply

That's WP:BATTLEGROUND. No need to strike, everyone else can see there's more than two RS meeting GNG, and it clearly isn't sincere. See WP:PRODUCT where even if this wasn't notable, it should be merged into the notable company (despite you attempting to delete that and ~40 other notable articles). Widefox; talk 11:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment nom uses WP:ROUTINE which is Wikipedia:Notability (events) for events / WP:NOTNEWS for persons and events only so does not apply here. Widefox; talk 11:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Michael Bednarek. James500 ( talk) 01:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Kirn and Vanacoro and even Wherry do it for me, and there'll likely be even better if offline magazines. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 05:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Sheraz Yousaf

Sheraz Yousaf (  | 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 close to passing WP:ENTERTAINER. Sources in article are a Youtube video by the subject, and a collection of mainly local papers announcements/adverts of performance gigs. BEFORE doesn't show much else in terms of sourcing. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I can't really find anything to show that he's notable enough for an article. As was said, the sourcing in the article cannot show notability. At most I can see that Yousaf is more known than a random comedian on the street, but not covered in enough depth to be considered a notable performer per Wikipedia's guidelines - which are fairly strict. Also of note is that this is one of several articles by the same editor with issues along these lines. Other articles have some serious issues with NPOV and while this page isn't as obviously promotional as the others, this could also be seen as an attempt to promote the comedian. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:52, 17 September 2018 (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) Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Steinberg

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

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

Not notable; company fails WP:NCORP. I could only find press releases, routine coverage and passing mentions e.g. in sources discussing Steinberg's software. wumbolo ^^^ 13:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE ( talk • contributions) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE ( talk • contributions) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE ( talk • contributions) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete I just quickly went through the sources cited and did some searching online. While trade publications have lots to say about Steinberg's products they have almost nothing to say about the company itself. The company itself just isn't notable. Lovelylinda1980 ( talk) 15:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Yamaha Corporation with a small merge of information. glassdoor.co.uk Has the company turnover down between "$10 to $25 million (USD) per year" that makes Steinberg relatively small in the industry. But since it's owned by Yamaha I think redirect would be the best option. Govvy ( talk) 16:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep because a redirect and merge to Yamaha would be impractical; that article cannot accommodate the notable list of Steinberg products. Those products are widely covered in trade publications and are an essential part of music software, both historical and present. This article is the best place to present this material. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 02:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep' because everyone who has been in the music/MIDI recording and editing software business or used the tools know very well that the company pioneered this business segment and is of historical notability, especially because of Steinberg Cubase. Nixdorf ( talk) 07:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Reply/Comment I really don't know the technical side of the music industry, I thought this was a small company, but if what you say is correct and they are innovators and pioneers, perhaps this should be kept. Govvy ( talk) 11:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  Even if it is correct, it's not a policy-based argument. wumbolo ^^^ 11:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  Ummm, Nixdorf and Michael Bednarek both went with keep, Wumbolo, instead of spouting policy, maybe you should ask them to update the article if they have the relevant sources at hand to cite. As I said above, I don't know this topic/industry. Govvy ( talk) 12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep – this is a prominent company in the music industry, and has created some very popular products and created several industry standard technologies. There are plenty of additional sources that can be found online and in industry magazines. Brad v 23:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep I added a source on the history of the company. [24] As the inventor of Audio Stream Input/Output (ASIO) and Virtual Studio Technology (VST) and creator of Cubase, this company has gotten coverage over the decades it has been around. A quick search yielded a history piece; going back to magazines like Keyboard and Electronic Musician throughout the years would no doubt yield more. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep major co over decades, sourcing OK (nom is wide from mark). Widefox; talk 15:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the !votes above. Could use improvement, but no reason to delete. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Michael Bednarek, Nixdorf, Bradv and Mark viking. Satisfies GNG. James500 ( talk) 02:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Michael Bednarek, Nixdorf, Bradv and Mark viking. Well Notable. Merge candidates have severe risk of WP:UNDUE. Yamaha obviously seems brand as significant and gives it some independence. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per above. My own search shows there is enough coverage to establish the notability. Sdmarathe ( talk) 03:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are more than enough references that discuss the company in detail meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic passes WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply