Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 September 11 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Memphis (2018 film)

Memphis (2018 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NFF the film has not begun principal photography and should not have its own article NathanielTheBold ( talk) 23:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Principle Photography is required to create an article. User should habe started a Draft article about the subject until it could have been moved into article namespace. Chase ( talk) 02:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Diana L. Fitzgerald

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

Despite a large number of references listed, does not appear to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Most of the references given are basically directory listings that do not contribute to notability (entries at Florida Far, California Far, Cornell University Law School, Fitzgerald & Isaacson LPP profile etc). There are a few references to news sources, but they all appear to contain 1-sentence mentions of the subject, ref no. 9 [1], ref no. 12 [2], ref no. 13 [3] (2 sentences here), ref no 15 [4]. I did GNews searching and found very little else. Does not seem to me to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nsk92 ( talk) 22:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete--not enough articles about her career to establish gng. I am open to being persuaded however -- JumpLike23 (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Does not meet wikipedia policy per above for signifigant coverage. Chase ( talk) 02:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While I agree that the sourcing is not the strongest, I feel that it meets the GNG. Granted, I would obviously feel this way having posted the article, though I do not disagree that it is lacking in certain respects. - @Rob talk 23:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Could you elaborate in which way you feel the article meets WP:GNG? GNG requires that the subject "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where "significant" means "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Which of the sources cited in the article in your opinion provide such coverage? Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 00:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I believe that the article fulfills the General Notability Guidelines because the article details her connection to several notable figures, and has been involved in a number of major companies and organizations, such as Zoo Miami and Fortune 500 companies. - @Rob talk 02:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Hmm, thank you, but no, that's not how WP:GNG works. Being connected to notable figures and organizations is not enough and does not make one notable, per the WP:NOTINHERITED principle. To satisfy WP:GNG one needs to show that Diana L. Fitzgerald herself has been the subject of specific and detailed coverage by independent reliable sources. I am not seeing anything of the sort in the article. Several directory-type listings, several refs to her own law firm, several one/two-word mentions in the news media, and the like. I do not see even a single independent source there that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" as WP:GNG requires. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Looks like it was just rewritten, I thought my version was stronger, but in any case, I do believe that the version I created met GNG. @Rob talk 00:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Fitzgerald is one of hundreds of business litigation lawyers. There is nothing even remotely special about her. When you have to cite that there was a comment sought from her on an article it just shows that she is not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and I have to chime along with John's message above; the article, I will note, is so noticeably bombarded with claims of other people and entities and then also sources consisting of laced PR, trivial coverage, etc. (The article is not even confidently navigable with such bombarding of sources alongside nearly every paragraph) None of this easily states the basics, of which would be best to start with, not overfocus with PR or other trivial and unacceptable information. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 18 September 2016 (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 List of Forgotten Realms deities. North America 1000 03:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Beshaba

Beshaba (  | 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 character fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 22:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jain University. Redirect history preserved for anyone interested in merging past contents ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Center for Management Studies - Jain University

Center for Management Studies - Jain University (  | 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:GNG. Both sources in the article are primary sources, and neither one establishes notability. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Suggest we merge redirect to main article Jain University (which isn't even properly linked here). I'm sympathetic to the idea that university level business schools are notable, but I'm just not seeing much in the way of independent coverage, at least in English. Maybe in Hindi? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Redirect to main article, as per Shawn's suggestion, although I should note how little content there actually is in this article at present. I found only one example of coverage in a reliable source [5]. There has not been enough reliable coverage identified to establish notability. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 21:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: Per above, Not enough content in this article to garner notablity. This could be covered just as well, if not better, in the article suggested above. Chase ( talk) 02:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: CMS Business school appears to cover the same subject, no? K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Oh yes, you're right. That article's official website link makes that clear. Creator User:Sainath nuvvula (of both articles and more) has recently been indef blocked by Timotheus Canens. There's no explanation as to why but I guess it's for spamming for JGI Group-related articles? Because of the spam block, I've changed to redirect, above. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I have also changed my vote, in light of this information. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 13:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Oh and as you'll see, I've also placed a speedy delete tag on CMS Business school as a duplicate article. Yes, they could all be redirects, but I've no particular interest in aiding the banned editor by creating a forest of such links. If anyone wants to remove the tag and redirect themselves, I've no objection, certainly. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Tommy Steele (country musician)

Tommy Steele (country musician) (  | 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 musician fails the general notability guideline as well as the musician-specific criteria at WP:BAND. I was unable to find any third-party coverage of this musician or his band. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Fails wikipedia policy per above. singles did not preform high enough on charts to establish the band on the basis of the guidelines. Chase ( talk) 02:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as none of this actually states, even basically, where there are any independent claims of significance and substantial notability; there's, as always, no automatic inherited notability from other people or entities. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 18 September 2016 (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. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 2011 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 2011 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: One reference if you can call it that, per above. Chase ( talk) 02:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
One referece is not enough reason to delete the article. Please see the Discussion at List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships. @ The Banner, please merge your deletion requests when requesting multiple of the same pages. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 08:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Can you point to the policy that clearly states that an article with only one reference should/must be deleted? Maybe you'd like to nominate these 2,000,000+ articles on that basis. Good luck! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I think that they call that policy WP:RS as it states that sources should be independent... The Banner  talk 18:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep don't see a reason why this is a listcruft!? All weightlifers have a page. I would say we need more of these kind of pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Lugnuts. This list is of notable individuals which helps navigation and meets WP:LISTN. - Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (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) Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 2010 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 2010 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 17 September 2016 (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) Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 1998 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 1998 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 17 September 2016 (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. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not a policy or even guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep don't see a reason why this is a listcruft!? All weightlifers have a page. Or do you have specific reasons? I would say we need more of these kind of pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, list of notable individuals that meets WP:LISTN. - Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2016 (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) Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 1999 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 1999 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 17 September 2016 (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) Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 2007 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 2007 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 17 September 2016 (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello The Banner, please explain yourself a bit. All weightlifters at the world championships are appear to be notable. It's with these pages easy to get the information from a specific country who are participating. The same kind of lists are for the UCI Road World Championships and the UCI Track Cycling World Championships at Category:Lists of cyclists like the List of elite cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships, List of junior cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships, List of under-23 cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships and List of entrants at the 2015 UCI Track Cycling World Championships. So you should also nominate these pages for AfD. And also List of cyclists at the 2012 Summer Olympics, List of cyclists at the 2012 Summer Paralympics and all the pages at Template:Competitors at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
All weightlifters at the world championships are notable According to who? The Banner  talk 19:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ The Banner: I thought it went to WP:NSPORTS, but see the discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 23. But however, that is another discussion. I changed the sentence. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 20:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
So there is no ruling that they are/appear to be automatically notable. That makes it a list because you can make a list (by slightly altering the source) The Banner  talk 20:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Like I said. This is another discussion. Even if they are not all notable a list of them is notable. However all weightlifters at the 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015 world championships does have a Wikipedia page. I'll illustrate it with a few examples that this is another discussion.
Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 20:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep To continue: If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 20:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Every article is judged on its own merits. The Banner  talk 21:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
What are the mertis!? Like I asked in my first sentence, give a good reason why you want to delete this page! Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 08:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Request Please make it a Template:Afd footer (multiple). And why not nominating: List of weightlifters at the 2001 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2005 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2009 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2013 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2014 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2015 World Weightlifting Championships. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ The Banner, please merge your deletion requests. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 08:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:55, 12 September 2016 (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 per WP:SNOW. I also note that the article was also a WP:COPYVIO as substantial portions were either closely paraphrased or word for word taken from this website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The World Trade Center Stories: 15th Anniversary Edition

The World Trade Center Stories: 15th Anniversary Edition (  | 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 article concerns a self-published book. The article is promotional and possibly written by an editor with a conflict of interest. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 17:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: WP:Complete bollocks. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 00:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as WP:CB. Blythwood ( talk) 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:WHATTHEWHAT?. I don't even know what this is. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is at least WP:Complete bollocks, and borders on WP:Patent nonsense. I'd be okay with it being Speedied under G1, although I admit it's a borderline case, since the sentences individually sort of make grammatical sense, even if together they make no coherent sense, nor are any of the words even vaguely related to the title of the article. Could also speedy per WP:SNOW? Fieari ( talk) 00:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Oregon Trail (video game)#Editions. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The Oregon Trail 5th Edition

The Oregon Trail 5th Edition (  | 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 sources found to pass WP:NVG. This article was previously deleted as a copyright violation, and is now just a completely unsourced stub. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to The Oregon Trail (video game)#Editions. I couldn't find anything, but the term is plausible for a search. -- Izno ( talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect seems best, but then won't we have confusion with lots of redirects? At that point we could have a redirect for the 3rd, 4th and 5th editions! So delete might be better. Blythwood ( talk) 00:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    Having multiple redirects is fine. -- Izno ( talk) 01:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    What's wrong with having multiple redirects to the same target? I don't see how that's confusing. Depending on the series article, the redirects could always been made to specific subsections relevant to the specific edition too. (ie something like a redirect target of [[Oregon Trail (video game series)#Fifth edition]]) Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I'd rather see resources invested into a The Oregon Trail (video game series) article that gives an overview of all Oregon, Amazon, Africa, Maya, etc. entries.-- Coin945 ( talk) 03:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirects are WP:CHEAP]. Fieari ( talk) 23:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Per above. It's a plausible search term, but it's not a notable enough series to have article on each individual edition. Smartyllama ( talk) 15:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - viable search term, but doesn't need its own article unless there's much more sources and content present. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 16 September 2016 (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 21:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Mouctar Diakhaby

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

Deleted and re-created. A player with a career total of one appearance, according tot he table. No reliable independent sources to establish anything other than that he exists. Guy ( Help!) 17:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • What's missing from the nomination statement is that between being deleted and recreated this player made his debut in a fully professional league. I don't like this "fully professional league" determination of notability, not least because it gives a free pass to players who have turned out in a match for any of 92 English teams but for none in, for example, Georgia, where players who have played hundreds of matches for Dynamo Tbilisi, one of the top teams in the former Soviet Union, are not considered notable because they play in a country too small to have every team in their top league being fully professional. Good luck to the nominator in taking on the wikilawyering WP:FOOTBALL regulars, some of whom accused me of vandalism and personal attacks just because I pointed out that defending the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline without using a bit of common sense is wikilawyering. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as has made his debut. Giant Snowman 15:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • ...and the predicted wikilawyering with no attempt to engage in rational discussion goes on. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep clearly meets WP:FOOTBALL - I fail to comprehend this nomination. Nfitz ( talk) 23:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. IP's sour grapes are misguided, there is no wikilawyering in citing an established notability guideline. The player is just starting his career and has passed the threshold, there are numerous instances of players going no further being determined non-notable, but given this player has already achieved multiple junior national team appearances it seems unlikely he would fall into this bucket. The IP would also do well to remember GNG trumps subject specific guidelines, so there is no need for any georgian players to go without an article if he can find sources. Fenix down ( talk) 12:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Well could I remind you that the "fully professional league" guideline has no clothes. Nobody outside of Wikipedia classifies leagues, teams and players internationally on this basis, so what basis is there for doing so on Wikipedia? FIFA and the various continental governing bodies have classifications of leagues, but none of them is based on this made-up "fully professional league" requirement. There is a growing backlash against Wikiprojects producing their own notability guidelines on the basis of the consensus of a handful of editors obsessed about a particular topic, so, if the football wikiproject wants to maintain credibility it should come up with a more realistic guideline before one is imposed by tha community at large. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily satisfies WP:NFOOTY per above. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - article does needs improvement, but so far does meet the WP:NFOOTY standards. Should not be deleted. I do not understand the IP editor's argument of wikilawyering, seems more like a grief about a past dispute more than everything else. That doesn't mean that I'm not open to re-discuses the Wikipedia notability policy, but this isn't the place to do it. Inter&anthro ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTY. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sabbir Khan. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Munna Michael

Munna Michael (  | 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 and unreferenced Rathfelder ( talk) 17:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect: I had created the article by adding content with reliable sources. Then I had redirected the article to the director's article saying that when the principal photography of the film would start, the last revision of the article would be undone to meet the criteria of WP:NFF. Now if some other user has added content with no sources, the loss should not go the creator. The nominator instead of nominating the redirect for deletion, should had first checked the revision history of the article and then should had reverted all the revisions to my second revision. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠ ☎️ ✍⋡ 05:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Sabbir Khan: doesn't qualify for a standalone piece now but definitely would in six months or so. Anup [Talk] 15:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Swami Abhedananda Bharathi

Swami Abhedananda Bharathi (  | 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 passing mention in a source can't be a reason to keep this non-notable biographical article.

Overall fails WP:GNG Marvellous Spider -Man 17:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete as it stands, if cut to the one third-party RS it would be a sentence or two. Surely someone this very noteworthy should have sourcing ... - David Gerard ( talk) 08:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Da'is. postdlf ( talk) 17:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Muslim callers

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

Notability FlorenceJoyner ( talk) 09:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ FlorenceJoyner: Question: What are your concerns about this article? KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 11:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: List of Da'is seems to have the same scope: a list of Muslims who proselytise. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 11:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If this is indeed the same thing as List of Da'is, then Merge and Redirect.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect because I'm not sure if there's any material that actually needs to be merged; the articles listed at "List of Muslim callers" already seem to be listed at "List of Da'is." MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Da'is which already appears to contain the same info. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - at least needs a rename as "Muslim callers" clearly is not a term that cleanly translates into English. Blythwood ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Ali Sheharyar

Ali Sheharyar (  | 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:GNG - NottNott| talk 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Whether the WP:PROD tag was removed by an "IP user" (are there really any users who manage to edit without using IP?) or by someone who prefers to use a pseudonym than to reveal their IP address is immaterial. Once anyone has removed a PROD tag you can't reinstate it. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have just removed three references from the article to apparently reliable sources that are actually about other people with vaguely similar names. None of the other sources, nor any that I can find online, come anywhere close to the significant coverage in independent reliable sources demanded by our notability guidelines. Given the subject matter I would expect any such sources, if they existed, to be available online. Please note that most sources found by a search for "Ali Haider" are about Ali Haider Gillani, not this guy. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable YouTube personality. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as another classic example of an article only consisting of the subject's own websites and sources, that has the bare signs there is nothing actually substantial at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 18 September 2016 (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 Nomination withdrawn" Based on the additions by Mike Searson, there appears to be enough coverage to get past GNG Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply

.223 Wylde

.223 Wylde (  | 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 significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The product exists and there is some coverage in non-reliable sources, but most coverage I'm seeing in RS's is mentions or more of a product review sort of piece. The sole source used in the current article doesn't even mention this configuration to accept both cartridges. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No multiple independent acceptable sources appear to be available - fails GNG, WP:ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH. And per nom, the only reference doesn't even mention this product. Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep...I've found the following references with a simple google book search. [6] [7] [8] I'm sure there are many more I just stopped looking after the three. I've also found too many to count mentions. Perhaps, it would be better to rename the article to "Wylde chamber" and then rewrite the article accordingly. As the current name ".223 Wylde" does make it sound like a wildcat .223 caliber cartridge.-- RAF910 ( talk) 15:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Despite your implication that a search wasn't done..... it's not mentions that the subject is missing, it's significant coverage. Your first two examples are barely more than a mention. The third is a book reference saying that the has tested 2 rifles in the caliber. These sources confirm it exists, which isn't in dispute. What is lacking, still, is significant coverage. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP 223 Wylde is a chamber dimension which splits the differences between both SAAMI and NATO ammo specifications allowing either 5.56 NATO or 223 Remington to be used in the rifle in question. More manufacturers are using this spec with their barrels than any other configuration on the civilian market so shooters can use either round. The incorrect non-SAAMI use of decimals preceding non-metric ammunition calibers may be why editors not familiar with firearms cannot find appropriate sourcing.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • That's great that it splits the difference. Some substantial coverage would be helpful. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah I'm sure the editors at Newsweek and The New York Times didn't exactly cover it to death. I'll see what I can come up with-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You're right, they probably didn't. Good thing for us that those aren't the only reliable sources around. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a notable chamber variant that allows for two widely used cartridges often for competition. Expand section on the chamber developer, Wylde, and copycat usage in other rifles that use similar technique to accomplishe the same objective (i.e. mini-14 ranch rifle that can chamber both rounds even though they are marked for one). -- DHeyward ( talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Are you going to do the expansion and add reliable third party sources? Or are you just going to driveby !vote and waste more time talking about editors than issues? Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Disregard, someone else took care of what you merely talked about doing. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closer Despite the very clear description on the first line, the nominator seems unable to distinguish a barrel marking/chamber design from an actual cartridge. It is not a cartridge or a caliber so there is a very good reason why a search for a cartridge yields nothing. Competence is required and this is a nuisance nomination. It's like nominating "adjustable wrench" for deletion because there are no sources to indicate any bolts that were specifically designed designed to fit it. Time would have been better spent searching for the "any" key we are always supposed to press. Or post a question instead of crusading against firearm knowledge in an encyclopedia. Google hits alone should have been a clue that is notable and independently manufactured as either complete barrels withe different profiles, materials and twist rates or rifles. This is not a controversial article or anything other than an article describing what this particular specification is. -- DHeyward ( talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closer: The nominator does understand the difference, he just put it in simpler terms for the non-pedantic layman. The nominator also understands what significant coverage is and how this article lacks it, as well as how the number of Google hits has nothing to do with notability. Perhaps if those leaving a "note to closer" spent times addressing those issues rather than using it to talk about an editor, there would be more firearms knowledge in this encyclopedia. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Rivka Kidron

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

Article Sources are:

  1. Online Etymology Dictionary: no support for existence.
  2. Abarim Publications: no support for existence.
  3. Oxford Archeological Guides: The Holy Land (sic): Not verifiable, but from the index, pages 198-9 are for Ashqelon, which is nowhere near the Kidron Valley.
  4. Ancient Burial Ground with 100 Tombs Found Near Biblical Bethlehem: No support for existence (of "Rivka").
  5. Eastern Sketches – notes of scenery, schools and tent life in Syria and Palestine: page 102 and surrounds have nothing to do with "Rivka".
  6. The Land and the Book: "Rivka" not found.
  7. Hirschfeld, Yizhar. Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence: Not verified.

At minimum, available sources (searches performed) do not meet GNG/GEOLAND. I suspect it's a hoax, given that Rivka Kidron is/was an advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu. If so, then its creator has gone to some trouble. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 15:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment(side issue), is this a concern, that article creator name, Learnthatcom, is the same as this website - learnthat.com? Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, interesting that the wadi known as Nahal Kidron (mentioned in lead of Kidron Valley) that runs over 30km from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, also runs around 3km south of Kedar, where the article says this community is situated, and yet it is not mentioned. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the article is pure nonsense. No single ref refers to this place, no equivalent Hebrew article, or for that matter, a single Hebrew reference. Poliocretes ( talk) 08:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: is this a potential hoax? Created by a SPA Special:Contributions/Learnthatcom with few other contributions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I didn't find any support for existence of this place in Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Petroleum Planetary

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

New magazine, no sources, no indication of any notability. Article creation too soon. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Unreferenced, no evidence of notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was unable to find any references whatsoever to establish notability. This would be a clear case for speedy deletion, if there were a CSD criterion that allowed it. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can find nothing to substantiate any of the claims in the article. The only things that seem to mention the magazine is the magazine's website, which is hosted via Blogspot. Being hosted by a blogging website doesn't mean that something can't be notable, but it's usually not a great sign. This also isn't necessarily a sign of non-notability, but I'm less likely to believe the claims of popularity in the article when you consider that the blog (which has been active since at least 2014) only has 11 posts as of right now. I'd take into consideration that there might be more articles on the printed magazine, but I don't really see any indication on this website that there is a printed magazine. By all accounts the site appears to be a blog or electronic magazine rather than a printed work, which runs contrary to what's published on Wikipedia. Typically most magazine websites tend to have some sort of information available on how to subscribe to the print versions. Now even all of that aside, there's really nothing out there at all about this magazine on the website, which goes against the article's claim of the magazine being one of the most popular magazines in Pakistan and the most well known one of its type. If these claims really were true, then this would be covered somewhere and I just don't see any of this coverage. I'm aware that the people who run the magazine are reading this, so my recommendations would be to work on improving the website and to be careful of claims. The above claims could be true, however the only people saying these things are you and most people tend to be skeptical when it comes to promotional claims. You also need to understand that magazines are not automatically notable because they exist ( WP:ITEXISTS) and in order to show notability you must show where people other than yourselves (or anything WP:PRIMARY) is discussing the magazine in independent and reliable sources ( WP:RS). This is extremely difficult to do for magazines, but especially niche magazines, as the mainstream sources typically don't cover this sort of thing and the academic sources (the ones more likely to cover these types of things) have so many things to cover that magazines and so little money and manpower (in comparison to mainstream news outlets) that they almost always fall by the wayside in favor of extremely major mainstream publications. I'd also like to caution you on your language. Wherever you go, you are representing yourself and your magazine. Things like this is unprofessional and makes both you and the magazine look bad, which can result in a loss of respect and reputation - things that any magazine, especially a fledgling one, need to survive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Clear attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a new magazine. Joe Roe ( talk) 11:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • SNOW Delete as I frankly consider this speedy material even considering the thin claims of "popular magazine", as that would not save this article by itself at all; there's no substance for actually establishing both notability and non-PR. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 18 September 2016 (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. No credible assertion of notability was made within the article and no sources which would demonstrate notability could be found after a careful online search. Nick ( talk) 14:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

William Mergler

William Mergler (  | 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 article is a utter mess. It's a long-winded, completely unsalvageable piece about a NN person. Delete. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2016 (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) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Comparison of graphics file formats

Comparison of graphics file formats (  | 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 mundane list article lacking a notable topic per GNG, and appears to be synthesis - fails WP:SAL, which says, "stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as WP:V, NOR, NPOV...".
Wikipedia is not a repository, and is not a catalog or a directory, and is also not a platform for promotion --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • My first instinct would be to move to List of image file formats (and trim the unreferenced cruft if needed be). Image file formats is, obviously, a notable topic, and the individual file formats are notable as a group (not just individually); if restricted to the formats created by software with their own WP page, the scope is not too large. I disagree with the nomination, and think the topic fully meets WP:SAL.
However, Image file formats is already a list-like article. There is quite a large overlap between the prose article and the list. I am not sure how the content would best be organized. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion but support tidying up. There's a good deal of information presented in this article that isn't (readily) available in Image file formats. It could clearly do with a bit of work (e.g. a vector/raster indicator in the first table as well as the second, perhaps as a highlight in the 1st column). But the tabular format is useful, especially for the second table which has less overlap with the prose article. Deletion seems like a step too far; as a minimum the "technical details" table could be merged into Image file formats, but really some better integration is needed, including reducing the list sections of that article. ChrisHodgesUK ( talk) 13:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'll second Tigraan's and ChrisHodgesUK's views. The content of this article is a suitable WP list, so moving it to List of image file formats would be a better title. Yes, it duplicates material in Image file formats, but that article focuses on major formats (e.g., Image file formats#Major graphics file formats) and then just lists minor formats ( Image file formats#Other raster formats). That article could cover the main formats and features (and the reasons behind them — leaving gritty details to individual format articles) and then point to this article's more inclusive list of formats. That would make IFF less list-like and push it toward a more general overview. Glrx ( talk) 16:13, 14 September 2016 (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) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

OS X Mavericks

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

Sources available from Google News are either trivial, promotional, announcement, or passing mention. Article references appear to be press releases or closely affiliated with the product. Fails ORGIND and GNG. This article reads like a manual, which Wikipedia is not WP:NOTMANUAL, and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Steve Quinn ( talk) 13:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep but improve - As if deletionism will solve everything, when a quick run through the usual mainstream news sources and citing them would do the trick. Blake Gripling ( talk) 15:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Then please post some mainstream independent reliable sources - I don't think there are any. I did due diligence and did a Google News search and a Google search. So please don't jump the gun on "deletionism".
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but improve - it's no less notable than any other Mac OS X/OS X/macOS release, so it should be fixed, not removed. Guy Harris ( talk) 18:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry to say this but WP:WHATABOUTX. There are other articles on Wikipedia that have not established notability, but that is not really part of this discussion. If this topic is not deemed notable, then that is how it goes. If it is deemed notable by the posting or addition of independent reliable sources, then that is also how it goes. Please, no one take any of this personally. Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but improve- Guy Harris hits this on the head, it is no less notable than any other apple software release and it should be fixed, and not removed. FULL Disclosure: I was the one who originally created this article in the first place, I rushed to create it during the keynote, basically as I was watching it on my iMac. It has come a long way from when I created it. Haseo9999 ( talk) 01:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lexa (The 100). Any interested editor who still wishes to retrieve material from the redirected article, may do so from its history, which is well preserved. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Lexa Pledge

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

Unnecessary page with a lead and a copied "pledge" with barely any background information. If this article should exist, it should be thoroughly expanded upon first. Deletion or redirection to draft namespace. Alex|The|Whovian ? 13:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Lexa (The 100), which I tagged the article with apparently in parallel to this nomination. The topic is primarily about, and discussed because of, the TV series character. Alternatively merge to The 100 (TV series).  Sandstein  13:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, merging works just as well. Half of the article is entirely a copied pledge that could just be kept to the tertiary sources. Alex|The|Whovian ? 13:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. Also note that "redirection to draft namespace" wouldn't work due to CSD R2 – it could be moved without redirect and then users would still see an auto-generated link to the draft page, but it's pointless, as I doubt this is ever going to be notable and long enough to warrant a separate article. nyuszika7h ( talk) 13:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:25, 12 September 2016 (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 Hexagon AB. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Erdas Imagine

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

Sources available from Google News are promotional; from Google Newspapers passing mention; article references appear to be closely affiliated with the product; other ASPRS references are inaccessible - unable to verify - therefore, these could be passing mentions or promotional. This product does not appear to be notable. Fails GNG, and ORGIND. Notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Steve Quinn ( talk) 13:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Hexagon AB which appears to be the entity who sells it now? Clearly this one product is not independently notable, but it is worth a mention of it, given the long history. The parent company article could stand some work to add more prose and remove the marketing, etc. anyway. Suspect sources might be in other languages than English. But would be more work of course than a quick death. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I agree with W Nowicki. Product with such long history deserves at least mention. Current sources have mostly ad-like quality, not sufficient for an article. Maybe there are some reviews in magazines specialized for this field of study, but this is certainly outside of my expertise. Pavlor ( talk) 18:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. A7, G11 by DGG ( non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 11:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Rayna Tours and Travels

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

De-prodded, quasi-promotional article about a travel company. Sounds like the average WP:MILL, and searches for sources, even just Rayna Tours without "and Travels", reveal little or nothing but trivial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. — Sam Sailor 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom, if cut to sources it would be a paragraph and not a convincing one - David Gerard ( talk) 14:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • 'Delete per WP:PROMO; this is a replica of a corporate web site. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:01, 11 September 2016 (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. Any interested editor may flag the article for improvement respectively. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

KKHP-LP

KKHP-LP (  | 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. Even WP:BCASTOUTCOMES says ". Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated." There is no such real notability demonstrated beyond having a license etc. WP is not a directory. Jytdog ( talk) 11:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) (Striking "low power" thing as inaccurate/modify. Jytdog ( talk) 00:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)) reply

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

KMEC-LP (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jytdog ( talk) 11:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES, LPFM stations ARE notable and this has been backed up by AfDs in the past. The "neighborhood" that KKHP serves has a population of about 20,000+. KKHP serves three seperate towns with a 60dBu coverage, 54dBu coverage is well into Chico and that's a population of about 87,000. I'd say that's a pretty big "neighborhood". KMEC-LP serves Ukiah, California, which holds a population of around 16,000 people. Again, another large "neighborhood".
You appear to have LPFMs and Part 15s confused. LPFMs are legal stations, licensed by the FCC, and can broadcast from 1 to 100 watts. Part 15s, are NOT legal stations (ie: pirate stations) and typically only broadcast about 1 milliwatt, that's 1/100th of an actual watt. Part 15s that only broadcast 1 milliwatt are sometimes left alone, but are subject to being shutdown by the FCC. Ones that broadcast waaay more than that 1 milliwatt are subject to fines and seizure of equipment. LPFMs are NOT the same as Canadian VF stations. Bearcat and I actually had a discussion on this. Canadian VF stations are the same as US Part 15s. That's why there is a push to remove those. They aren't notable per NMEDIA.
I have updated the KKHP and KMEC pages with clear sources from various sources. These are sufficient for all other pages and bring it well into GNG, V, and N. I would ask that Jytdog withdraw his AfDs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:18 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)
I struggle with the notion that somehow WP has become a directory of radio stations where there is no demonstration of meeting basic GNG via significant discussions in independent sources... Jytdog ( talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Struggle all you like, this is backed up by strong and consistant community consensus and policy. I could say the same about bugs or TV episodes, but those are backed up by consensus as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:20 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)
In both articles you added four references; three from the FCC showing the station exists and who owns it, and the the fourth from Nielsen. Here is what is actually at the link for KKHP: "No Summer 2016 data found for KKHP-FM.". And Here is what is actually at the link for KMEC-LP: "No Summer 2016 data found for KMEC-LP" In my view none of these sources helps much showing that the station is worthy of a WP article - sure they would be great if WP was a directory. But we aren't. There needs to be signficant discussion in independent sources to meet GNG. There ~appears~ to be some WikiProject creating a walled garden going on here. Jytdog ( talk) 20:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Dude, you've said several "my" and "I" statements. Your view or your opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is the community's view and the community's opinion...and in turn the community's consensus. That consensus is that radio stations are notable, be them AM, FM, HD, or LP. The entire consensus is covered in NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES. This is not a walled garden, this is a community of users who work on these articles, keep them updated backed by consistent strong consensus from the community. I'm sorry that you can't accept that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:17 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)
Don't know what you mean by "my" and "I" statements. Whatever - this seems to be upsetting to you and I am sorry for that. Let's just focus on the work - do these articles meet basic GNG or not? Jytdog ( talk) 21:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • LPs aren't the same thing as Part 15s or VFs; they're a class of station that does still have to have an FCC license, while the problem with Part 15s and VFs is that they're exempted from having to have a license. (And the reason there were so many VF stations to delete is that those stations did formerly have to have CRTC licenses as well, making them eligible for inclusion per NMEDIA by the same criteria as any other radio station — their change of status from licensed to license-exempt changed the notability equation after those articles already existed.) The determining factor, however, is not the presence of the words "low power" in the article — it's the existence or non-existence of an FCC/CRTC broadcasting license, regardless of the transmitter power that is or isn't involved. Yes, we ultimately do want improved sourcing beyond just the FCC documents, but the FCC documents are enough sourcing in and of themselves to cover the basic notability criterion. There are, for example, important technical details that a radio station's article needs to contain for which the FCC documents are the only possible source — newspaper coverage about a radio station is never, for example, going to get into the station's ERP or HAAT stats, so we have to turn to the FCC database for those. So no, the FCC documents aren't enough sourcing by themselves to get a radio station's article up to GA or FA status — but they are enough sourcing by themselves to cover off the basic includability issue. Keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat ( talk) 22:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and work at beefing up the articles. Both stations have a broadcast history, which is one of the criteria noted in NMEDIA, with KMEC-LP's running approximately 11 years at this point. And in my time here, I can't remember ever seeing an article that was nominated for deletion on a licensed, operating LPFM not survive the discussion. I'm travelling for work, so can't get into the heavy lifting, but finding an additional source that could flesh out KMEC-LP somewhat took seconds, and I've dropped a note for Neutralhomer with that information. Mlaffs ( talk) 02:12, 11 September 2016 (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. North America 1000 05:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

John O. Henes

John O. Henes (  | 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:BASIC. Little depth of coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO. He was locally a wealthy person, and donated 50 acres of land on which a park named after him is located. This doesn't seem to pass the ANYBIO criteria of "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". He appears to be a successful local businessman, but not notable by Wikipedia standards. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Withdrawn by nominator. Sufficient new information has been added to the article. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The article has been expanded to included Henes' inventing activity. Doremo ( talk) 12:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- the inventing activity adds to notability. Not sure by how much, but I believe the article adds value to the encyclopedia at this point. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and I nearly closed myself, there's enough for a historically-informative article; this is similar to an article I improved some time ago. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Wairakei Masters Tournament

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

Non-notable tournament. No sources which mention this tournament. No google hits which are not copies of this Wikipedia article gadfium 22:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 22:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. 22:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 09:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable amateur golf tournament. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing actually establishing notability or substance apart from it being apparently major; none of this even actually establishes why and how it could be its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Inger Ellen Nicolaisen

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

Was csd-A7 tagged, however there is just enough information in the article to warrant an afd here I think. Listing for community input on article's fate. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • delete as it stands, very skimpy on RSes (I can't tell if NFVB.no is a specialist source - even then I'd want more - or just promotional) - David Gerard ( talk) 08:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (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. Merge/redirect discussions can continue on the article talk page.  Sandstein  08:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Clickability

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

Was PRODded a second time, with "Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article's tone is advertorial in nature, so WP:PROMO applies." I concur. This article doesn't show any notability or usefulness as an article, and was substantially written by redlinked SPAs. It's been unfixed for years and shows no prospect of being fixable. David Gerard ( talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, plus the article seems to be using a lot non-notable awards that the company received as grounds for its notability. -- MorbidEntree - ( Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete See below; Original comment: confirming my PROD that the nominator cited. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete. The only immediately apparent reliable source for the article as it stands is Information Week, and that particular citation is a dead link. A Train talk 22:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC) [see updated comment below] reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the rewrite?  Sandstein  08:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm still unconvinced. The new article is definitely a big improvement but do the new references really provide depth of coverage? There's a lot of passing mentions. I grant that determining depth of coverage can be subjective and the article is clearly no longer the blight it used to be so I'll strike my delete !vote. But I'm not enthusiastic enough about the new sources to weigh in as a keep, either. A Train talk 13:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Here are three sources that are not passing mentions:
    1. McClure, Marji (2008-10-01). "Clickability Empowers Clients to Build Successful Sites". Information Today. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10 – via HighBeam Research.

      The article notes:

      Clickability, Inc. was founded in 1999 in San Francisco by four friends: John Girard, Jeff Freund, Sean Noonan, and Timur Yarnall. Girard, the company's CEO, serves on Clickability's senior management team along with Freund, the organization's CTO, and Noonan, Clickability's vice president of finance. Yarnell left to start his own company, Broadcast Interactive Media, LLC, which is now Clickability's largest reseller.

      ...

      Clickability's tools began appearing--and still appear--on hundreds of media websites, including CNN and The Wall Street Journal. But in 2000 and 2001, when internet advertising markets faced tough times, the Clickability team determined it was time to shift gears.

      ...

      The Clickability platform is an on-demand web content management system that enables nontechnical users to control content on their websites through its entire life cycle, from creation and management to publishing and delivery. It is offered in three editions (express, professional, and enterprise) depending on the size and needs of each customer, which can combine its web publishing, advertising, marketing, and hosting functions all on a single platform.

      The platform has four parts. The first, infrastructure as a service, involves Clickability serving as the host of the application as well as the content repository for its clients' content. The next is onboarding and support, which transitions customers to the platform. The third is the software-as-a-service (SaaS) component.

      Questia Online Library has a preview of the article here.
    2. Marshall, Matt (2008-02-06). "Fremont Mobile Services Gets Funding". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      Clickability: The San Francisco-based online content management company raised $8 million.

      Clickability offers an all-in-one package to help clients like the New York Times, CNN Interactive and others manage their Web sites.

      It's an online content management system that comes with analytics tools, its own content delivery network, data storage, e-mail newsletters, RSS feeds and other services, so large publishers can more efficiently manage their Web properties.

      The company started in 1999, raised $7.3 million in 2000, and has been profitable since 2004, according to VentureWire.

      Its latest round, for $8 million, was led by Shasta Ventures with previous investor Convergence Partners returning to the round.

    3. Galbraith, Patrick (2009). Developing Web Applications with Apache, MySQL, memcached, and Perl. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 6. ISBN  0470538325. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      Clickability is a company that provides SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) web content management platform products. Their services include content management, web site publishing and delivery, search, web analytics, and newsletter delivery. They use memcached as a layer-2 cache for application servers to store content objects as serialized Java objects. They now run multiple instances of memcached, which are reguarly cleared and versioned for cache consistency. They also use multicast messaging to cache objects across multiple memcached servers, as well as a messaging queue used for sending a clearing message to application servers. They originally did not use memcached, but were able to implement it into their architecture within a couple of days after deciding to take advantage of memcached's benefits. Because of memcached, particularly how it provides a caching layer to web applications to prevent excessive hits to the database, they now serve 400 million page-views a month!

    Cunard ( talk) 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on the sources presented. They are mostly PR like, including an interview with the founder (source #1) and the funding announcement (source #2). Source #3 is a passing mentioned, which does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and is insufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. Combined, these sources do not overcome WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The Information Today article is an in-depth article about the company. It contains quotes from the founder which is standard journalistic practice and does not exclude it from establishing notability.

    The second article is not merely a funding announcement. It provides "deep coverage" about the company's history (its founding, its clients, its past funding round).

    The third source provides "deep coverage" about the technology aspects of the company's software.

    From WP:CORPDEPTH:

    Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

    It is clear based on my rewrite that it is possible "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization", so the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH.

    Cunard ( talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Combined, these sources do not overcome WP:PROMO. – I am an editor with no conflict of interest with the subject. I rewrote the article. Please explain how the article still violates WP:PROMO so I can address Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations.

    Cunard ( talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article has been rewritten by a neutral editor with no connection to the subject (no PROMO). It's written in a neutral manner. The sources are in-depth according to CORPDEPTH. It meets GNG. -- Green C 14:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it still might be marginal, but does seem like it stood the test of time, and has a remarkable discipline to avoid buzzwords and acronyms. Benefit of the doubt. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as either the Keep votes themselves are acknowledging the concerns but are still choosing to say keep or they sinply ignore it altogether; like with the Delete vptes, everything here is essentially simply PR including the fact it simply comes with the usual and expected news about funding and financing which happens to all companies especially the ones that are seeking and hoping to establish capital and funding; any AfD that has closed as Delete with this basis has bee noticeable, and this is yet another case of it. The article itself even goes to specifications at what, where and why the product was being used; any such information can and would only be used to seek clients and investors, this is something else that has been established at AfD (this article itself even goes to focus about what happened to their employees (see first section, "cut employees from 40 to 15). Any attempts to actually classify this as "coverage and reviews" cannot be taken seriously if they themselves simply chopse to look the other way and not face the actual PR concerns. Even from the above, it's all still essentially business listings and profiles, see for example: Because of memcached, particularly how it provides a caching layer to web applications to prevent excessive hits to the database, they now serve 400 million page-views a month! No one would honestly say that's something convincing for both actual coverage and substance, if it simply inflates and puffs the company's own being. Going to the Keep votes again, they have made no attempt to mention or otherwise acknowledge these concerns, and they even go to the basis of "Oh well, at least someone with no COI at least changed the article, it at least takes care of something". I'll also note this was even deleted in 2008 as G11, another classic example of repeated advertising and the attempts that follow. At best, once deleted, this can be redirected to the Limelight Networks article given the acquisition. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • After reading the entire article, Im inclined to delete. It sounds this was posted just to get more people to use it. Pyrusca ( talk) 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I did not rewrite the article "just to get more people to use it". This is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Cunard ( talk) 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I believe the user meant the fact why the article was started to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Northamerica1000 ( talk · contribs), I oppose a merge of Clickability to Limelight Networks. A merge of the material would be undue weight because:
    1. Much of the Clickability article contains information about Clickability's history and products in the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2004 before it was sold to Limelight Networks in 2011 and
    2. Clickability is not a part of Limelight Networks anymore because Limelight Networks sold Clickability to Upland Software in December 2013.
    Cunard ( talk) 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
A reason for a merge is because the Limelight Networks article presently provides absolutely no context about what Clickability does. All it states is, "May 2011, the company acquired Clickability for $10 million. On December 23, 2013 Upland Software announced that they had acquired Clickability from Limelight." Why would we want to keep the merge target I suggested "dumbed down" for Wikipedia's readers, providing no context? Also, I would say merge to Upland Software, but no such article exists, so this is the most appropriate target. North America 1000 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I view "Redirect" as a cleaner outcome; the subject has been deemed to be not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Anything useful can be pulled from the article history. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
However, K.e.coffman, regarding my analysis above especially regarding the advert foundations that have happened here (including mentioned by the nominator), would you object to deletion first? SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 18 September 2016 (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) 21:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Iqbal Masood Nadvi

Iqbal Masood Nadvi (  | 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 just barely enough information in this article to suggest some notability; that being said, the article's got other issues and those have long been unaddressed, so here it is for community consideration on its fate. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No evidence of passing WP:Prof. Claims for WP:GNG should be explicated. Xxanthippe ( talk) 11:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I removed a large amount of promotional/unsourced content from the page before but I don't think this is worth saving. Couldn't find any reliable coverage. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 12:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Islamic Circle of North America. To be fair, WP:PROF does a poor job in this area because most of the criteria won't apply to Islamic scholars. However I can't find sufficient coverage to meet the GNG either. A redirect to ICNA and brief mention the he is the current president seems appropriate. Joe Roe ( talk) 14:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ Joe Roe: I actually though of that myself, but if you look at the ICNA page the president is given as Naeem Baig, not Iqbal Masood Nadvi, which lead my to wonder if he is no longer their president or if the ICNA page needs updating. TomStar81 ( Talk) 15:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ TomStar81: According to this their presidents serve for two years and Nadvi has been the president since January 2016. Joe Roe ( talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Only one mainspace article links to the page, the daily page views are very low, and there seems to be nothing worth saving on the page. I don't see a redirect as necessary in the circumstances. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 18:28, 11 September 2016 (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. There was a strong attempt to bring the article up to where it meets Wikipedia standards, but consensus was that it still doesn't. I will userfy this on request, if one of the parties wants to continue trying to improve it. MelanieN ( talk) 01:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Invest.com

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

Sources given lack in-depth coverage of the activities of the company. Not notable. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • comment from creator: trused Sources exist within the article.The company is registered under "Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission" as well as an in-depth third party article from a trusted sourced( http://citywire.co.uk/) I agree that improvements could be made to the article. But I do believe the page is notable. Ymd2004 ( talk) 00:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • [this was on an old version] Delete: I did a complete reference check. Almost all sources are bad: primary or user-generated, often just puffery. (We shouldn't have primary links to the fact they're allowed to operate in the EU, that's a basic presumption of financial service companies, which is why there isn't a third-party RS to this effect.) The article has literally one RS. Mostly this is puffery to inflate apparent notability. Even a couple of the unreliable sources fail verification. No evidence it passes WP:CORP - David Gerard ( talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 23:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I noticed this one recently, none of it comes close to substantiating actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- per TOOSOON. Coverage includes: "A new leading start-up robo adviser platform in the UK, invest.com, specialises in once hard-to-access alternative investments..." indicating that the company is not yet notable. I cannot find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with reasoning of David Gerard. Fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx ( talk) 11:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've removed non relevant text and have added references. The company coverage includes sources from: The Telegraph, CNBC, The Huffingon Post and This is Money. This indicates the company is notable Ymd2004 ( talk) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Tsipori, Tali (2016-05-25). "Online investment co invest.com raises $20m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      invest.com first made headlines in 2014 when it paid $5 million for its domain name.

      invest.com says it charges a 1.5% management fee and 15% of profit but as an opening offer until June 22 no management fee will be charged.

      ...

      By the end of 2017, invest.com plans to launch in other countries, including Germany, Italy, Russia, Asia, and the Middle East, as well as launching several new alternative investment products.

    2. "Invest.com Launches Hedge Fund for the People' With $20m in Backing". TheMarker. 2016-05-26. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      Three years after buying the domain name invest.com, Israeli tech investor Moshe Hogeg is launching a “hedge fund for the people” backed by $20 million in investment capital from his Singularteam venture capital fund and other, unnamed investors. Launched in Britain, the new site will offer investors seven alternative investment strategies, which it said are “similar to those employed by quant hedge funds.” Invest.com’s portfolio management service requires a minimum investment of 1,500 pounds ($8,500) for a customized portfolio, with the investor’s risk appetite determined by questions posed by a robo-adviser and trades conducted automatically.

    3. Dakers, Marion (2016-05-23). "Invest.com rejoins the fight for online traders". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      Invest.com, one of the world’s most expensive website names, is relaunching itself as an alternative investment and trading site two years after its $5m sale.

      An Israeli venture capital firm named Singulariteam took control of the domain name in 2014, and has since brought in additional backers including Renren, the Chinese social network, to invest a total of $20m in the new platform.

      Ophir Gertner, who ran iForex before moving to help launch Invest.com a year and a half ago, said the site was built to compete with a growing number of robo-advisers now offering lower-cost investment help.

      ...

      Invest.com is modelling itself on the “two and twenty” fee structure at hedge funds, charging customers a flat 1.5pc plus 15pc of their profits.

    4. Mizrahi, Avi (2014-11-27). "Exclusive: Over $5 Million Paid for Invest.com by Israeli VC to Enter the Forex Business". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.
    5. Avital, Yaneev (2016-05-26). "Moshe Hogeg's online investment platform Invest.com raises $20 million". he:Geektime. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      The new investment platform defines itself as a ‘hedge fund for the masses.’ Unlike traditional hedge funds that require a large sum of starting capital investment, however, Invest.com investors can start investing with an initial deposit of £500.

      Similar to hedge funds, the investment platform’s portfolio management is based on seven different investment strategies to try and achieve returns even in a down market. Among other aspects, one can invest in foreign currencies, futures, bonds, stocks, and more. The platform uses algo-trading, or automated trading using algorithms, that enables a quick response to market changes in a constant and dynamic way and based on the personal preferences of each investor. Another emphasis on Invest.com is on the liquidity of the investment, where the investor can withdraw their money at any time.

      If the investor wishes to manage their own investments, they can do so with an initial deposit as low as £500 and if they want to consult the portfolio management services of Invest.com, they can do so with an initial deposit of at least £1,500.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 01:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I do not consider paragraphs about the subject to be "passing mentions". Cunard ( talk) 01:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions needed on Cunard's sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wow, this is a mess. I think a little WP:TNT would do the article well. TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Still delete Not seeing the CORPDEPTH. TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Still delete on rewrite. It's not the puff piece it was, and you've done good work here, but still doesn't have the WP:CORPDEPTH, sorry - David Gerard ( talk) 00:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- the article is still advertorial sounding; I'm not changing my vote yet. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Which parts of the article are "still advertorial sounding"? Please let me know so I can fix it. Cunard ( talk) 00:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

This reads like a prospectus:

In 2016, Invest.com started an online investment platform it called a "hedge fund for the masses" because whereas hedge funds typically require a massive initial investment, Invest.com required only £500. [1] Clients' investments are liquid in that they can be withdrawn whenever customers wanted. Invest.com's platform allows customers to invest in foreign currencies, futures, bonds, and stocks. It uses algorithmic trading. [1]
Customers have the option of either managing their own investments or using Invest.com's managing services. For self-management, the starting investment required is £500. For active management from Invest.com, the starting investment required is £1,500. [1] Invest.com uses a robo-advisor to pose a series of questions to customers to determine customers' risk level and execute trades robotically. [2] It makes investments through the financial instrument contract for difference. It charges clients a flat fee of 1.5% and an additional 20% on all profits earned. [3]

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Avital2016-05-26 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Invest.com Launches Hedge Fund for the People' With $20m in Backing". TheMarker. 2016-05-26. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.
  3. ^ Dakers, Marion (2016-05-23). "Invest.com rejoins the fight for online traders". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

This is the bulk of the article. I'm sure this information can be found on the company's website and an encyclopedia article is not required. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

This is a description of the company's investment product. This is its core business so that is why it is "the bulk of the article".

The notability guidelines do not say that "this information can be found on the company's website" means "an encyclopedia article is not required". An encyclopedia article is still useful because it presents the information neutrally and sources the information to independent reliable sources, whereas the company's website presents the information non-neutrally.

Cunard ( talk) 01:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I do not find the sources to be particularly independent or in-depth For example, the second link appears to be a reprint of the press release (?) as the same headline appears in multiple websites: "Invest.com Launches Hedge Fund for the People’ With $20m in Backing" (sample link:

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/tech-roundup/1.721513) When I click on one of them, the byline is "Market staff" (i.e. not bylined by an individual journalist). K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

TheMarker article doesn't appear to be a press release. It says " TheMarker staff" where TheMarker "is a financial website in Israel, as well as the financial supplement of the daily national newspaper Haaretz". But even if the non-bylined source is disregarded, the articles in Globes, he:Geektime, and The Daily Telegraph should be sufficient to establish notability. Cunard ( talk) 02:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:N is a guideline while WP:NOT is a policy. The article is still promotional in nature / TOOSOON and should be deleted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I am an editor with no conflict of interest with the subject. I rewrote the article. Please explain how "The article is still promotional in nature" so I can address Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations. Cunard ( talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The section "Online investment platform" still reads like a prospectus, creating an impression that the article exists solely to promote a business and to get people to enroll in the company's financial services. The history section contains information about funding and trivial details such as where the company is registered. All of this information can be found on the company's website, and an encyclopedia entry is not needed.
WP:N is a guideline, which states that some subjects may meet the notability requirements but would still not warrant an article. I believe this is such a case. In any case, the WP:COPRDEPTH may not have been met, so it would disqualify the article as well. Hope this clarifies my concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I appreciate your explaining your concerns about the article. I don't think see anything actionable for me to work on improving the article. Information about the company's product, history, and funding is what the sources discussed and what I expect in an article about a company.

WP:N is a guideline, which states that some subjects may meet the notability requirements but would still not warrant an article. I believe this is such a case. – thank you for stating that you agree Invest.com meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline even if you don't think there should be an article.

In any case, the WP:CORPDEPTH may not have been met, so it would disqualify the article as well. – the Israeli and UK sources from Globes, he:Geektime, and The Daily Telegraph meet WP:CORPDEPTH.

Cunard ( talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Clarification: I did not state that the company meets the notability guideline; I believe this assertion comes from editor Cunard, and not myself, and I was explaining that even if there's a belief that the notability guideline is met, an article may not be warranted. I've stated above that the reason for deletion is WP:TOOSOON and that I did not find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. WP:PROMO is part of WP:NOT and supersedes the notability discussion anyway. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
How does the article violate WP:PROMO? Which section of WP:PROMO are you referring to? Here is one section:

Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid.

I believe Invest.com is "written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery" after I rewrote it. Do you disagree?

Cunard ( talk) 20:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

At this point this is coming across as attempting to filibuster the AFD process - David Gerard ( talk) 21:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article meets CORPDEPTH and doesn't violate PROMO. There is coverage in multiple reliable sources. It has been rewritten by a neutral editor with no COI. -- Green C 13:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Firstly some of the sources have been misrepresented. There is a difference between the domain Invest.com and the company which currently has control of Invest.com. Sources for one cannot be used for another and this article is about the latter. Secondly, per WP:SPIP, many of the sources are questionable. Geektime is essentially a blog which contains user submitted content. Finance Magnates is similar, anyone can register and submit content and there seems to be a feature to submit news about one's company. The Daily Telegraph references is more about the domain name. References 1 and 2 are essentially routine coverage - the kind where companies send press releases to the newspaper's financial section and it is redressed and reprinted. These cannot be used for WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. In today's world, publishing news about a startup's investment/funding is no big deal. Almost every startup can "create" such news and if we go by such a literal interpretation of GNG, wikipedia will become a directory of companies. But that precisely goes against WP:NOTDIR. To prevent this, we try to find out whether the the company is featured prominently in mainstream media (and not techblogs). Most notable companies will usually be profiled in mainstream media and these article will not be "5 line mentions in a redressed press release". This particular entity is nowhere close to being notable at this point and I advocate a delete. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • This nails the problem with the referencing on this article - David Gerard ( talk) 14:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Mars Hill Academy (Lexington, KY)

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

Delete: non-notable, non-high school. Quis separabit? 02:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Quis separabit? 02:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Article was created because two schools with the same name were battling over who the original article would refer to. TimothyJosephWood 10:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as creator, after looking into it a bit more, which I should have done to begin with. TimothyJosephWood 12:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Basically no coverage in reliable secondary sources as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 12:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as certainly not convincing for schools notability, simply a Christian school. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Dan Smith (tattoo artist)

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

Alleged to be a CSD article, but I'm skeptical here so I'm opting for an afd instead. Chief complaint is an apparent lack of notability. Article has bounced around somewhat since it came to be on Wikipedia, so its a mess in the history and log sections, however the talk page alleges two prior deletions for reasons unrelated to the GNG, and I did not find any previous afd on the matter (although it was a quick look and not a through scan), so I'm confident that G4 doesn't apply here. TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:52, 10 September 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm Not Your Girl

I'm Not Your Girl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced musical article concerning one song with questionable notability. Was previously deleted under CSD criteria, then recreated in its current form. Listing for community input on article's fate. TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It says "The song peaked at #21 on the Hot Singles Sales," but I can't verify that on billboard.com - David Gerard ( talk) 08:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think it can be verified. Hot Singles Sales indicates that there are 15 chart positions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 17:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • It sure can, there would be an entry for the song and for the artist - the artist page doesn't list any chart entries at all - David Gerard ( talk) 18:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I'm saying that something can't chart at a position that doesn't exist on the chart (#21 of 15 positions). —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Billboard charts generally go to 50 (sometimes 100 or 200), but they won't necessarily show that on the week page. So #21 is likely possible, but verifying Billboard chart positions for at least the past few decades is super-easy, and this failed - David Gerard ( talk) 21:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete barring evidence of notability, and particularly verifiable evidence of that chart claim - David Gerard ( talk) 16:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Milenko Krstić

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

Speedy Delete: as non-notable. No charges filed against him (except lying on immigration papers, for which he was given probation by a judge), no deportation proceedings, nothing to establish notability aside from speculation. In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty. Neither the minor charge to which he admitted nor his daughter being a beauty pageant winner are remotely notable. He may have a green card by now, for all we know. Instead of this nonsense, why doesn't someone create an English language article for Mario Čerkez?? I know I sound a little angry but this is abusive IMHO and I am sorry I didn't catch it sooner. The user with the ludicrous username of Vanished user svoinsr8wiraekfiu3rhnsfvr4sb has not edited since January 2013 and has made no other articles or even edits regarding the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Probably a Portland local who picked up a story somewhere. Quis separabit? 04:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: does not appear notable to me. Equally, I have BLP concerns here. In the interests of privacy, I believe the article should be deleted. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- a WP:BLP1E situation (investigation into the subject's past). BLP concerns are also valid, and this is best deleted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per K.e.coffman: there's no need for an article on Mr Krstić who does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Nick-D ( talk) 10:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, trivia; and as stated above does not meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a newspaper with trivial stories of passing interest. Kierzek ( talk) 13:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article shouts "BLP violation" all over it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Kashmala Gul

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

As her news search with local name "کشمالہ گل" doesn't show anything satisfactory along with English name search. Right now this fails WP:NMUSIC Marvellous Spider -Man 03:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as my PROD was removed with no convincing statements or other attempts at commenting; I still confirm what I said as there's nothing actually convincing for (as mentioned with my PROD) substantial and independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable musician The Banner  talk 09:43, 14 September 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Joe Vito

Joe Vito (  | 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 WP:GNG. Locally notable at best. Many of these references are just calendar entries for various events. ubiquity ( talk) 02:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (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. MelanieN ( talk) 01:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

H. L. Willis

H. L. Willis (  | 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 mayor of a small city. Under 7,000 people at the time Willis held office. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Then also delete the other mayors of Pineville, Louisiana, who have the same notability problems, and the mayor template. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another article on a non-notable mayor of Pineville, Louisiana. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Smalltown mayor with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL, and none of the non-localized sourcing it would take to make him more notable than the norm for a smalltown mayor. It warrants mention, as well, that the creator has been banned from editing Wikipedia — although that's not a deletion rationale in and of itself if the article wasn't created by a confirmed sockpuppet after the original block, it doesn't exactly help the case for retention here either. (To be fair, a mayor's includability is not dependent on the population the city had at the time he was mayor — even New York City once had a population of below 7,000 too — but rather, if a city is large enough now to hand its mayors an NPOL pass, then any mayor the place has ever had can have an article, as long as it's properly sourced, regardless of how big the city was or wasn't in that person's era. But with a population of just 14K today, Pineville still isn't large enough.) Bearcat ( talk) 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Local official with five newspaper sources. Pre-Internet; left office in 1950s. Qualifies under local official with sourcing. The rules say nothing about the elected local official, whether mayor or another office, or the size of municipality. 64.134.51.41 ( talk) 16:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It appears to meet WP:GNG which doesn't specify that local papers cannot be used to denote Wikipedia notability. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
If local newspapers were enough to GNG a topic of purely local notability, we would have to keep articles about every small town fire chief in existence, every municipal councillor in existence, every single mother who ever opened a furniture store on Main Street, every teenager who ever got a human interest piece written about him in the local media because he tried out for his high school football team a year after losing two toes in a lawnmower accident, and on and so forth. So yes, if a person doesn't have an automatic pass of an SNG by virtue of the size of community that he's mayor of, then the media coverage most certainly does have to expand beyond the local before he gets a GNG pass. Bearcat ( talk) 23:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:GNG says: "significant coverage in reliable sources" as most mayors get. Lawnmower man gets mentioned once, but not in biographical detail. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The coverage that exists of "lawnmower man" is not one bit less "biographical" in nature than any source here is — just within the past year alone, I've seen at least four articles about four different high school athletes with a non-standard number of appendages — two different nine-toed football kickers, a one-armed basketball player and a quad-amputee wrestler — all of which most certainly were "biographical" enough to count as quality sourcing if the mere existence of media coverage conferred a WP:GNG pass regardless of whether its context passed an actual notability claim or not. You're inventing a personal distinction, not reflective of what the sources actually contain, just to justify treating this differently than a person whose sourceability-to-notability ratio is otherwise identical. Bearcat ( talk) 18:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply
It's necessary to be familiar with actual AFD practice and precedent. All mayors are not automatically accepted as notable just because mayor — a mayor's notability does depend on factors such as the size of the city and/or the depth and range of sourcing that can be provided to support it. Every mayor in existence, even the mayor of a village of less than 50 people, would always qualify for a Wikipedia article if the existence of purely local media coverage were enough to confer GNG on a small-town mayor, because local coverage of all mayors always exists. Accordingly, WP:POLOUTCOMES specifically states that mayors are only presumed to pass NPOL in "cities of regional prominence" (which is commonly defined by many as a population of at least 50K, though even then a mayor isn't on truly safe ground until 100K if their sourceability isn't still significantly stronger than the norm), and the sourcing does have to expand beyond the purely local before the existence of media coverage confers a GNG pass in and of itself. No, it's not impossible for a smalltown mayor to clear the bar as "more notable than the norm" for some substantive reason — but smalltown mayors don't automatically clear the bar just because they and their local media coverage exist. Bearcat ( talk) 18:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The amount of coverage appears to meet WP:GNG, even if most of it is from local papers. It's true that not every mayor of every town automatically merits an article, but I believe this one does. CrispyGlover ( talk) 20:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If local newspaper reports were accepted as conferring notability then both of my parents and both of my children (and possibly my wife and I, because we were once the subject of the main front-page article in a local newspaper serving a population of about 200,000) would be considered notable. I'm sure that any of those would find it totally ridiculous that they should have an encyclopedia article written about them, as they are simply normal people going about their normal lives that by circumstance get reported in the local press. A mayor of a city of 7,000 is similarly such a normal person. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." You have to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources" plural. Everybody gets one article in a local paper. It also has to be "significant coverage" in that you can write a biography using the information in that coverage. Most people you can write a few sentences about, and a some you can write a paragraph about. To sustain a Wikipedia article you need "significant coverage in reliable sources". You also have to have some sort of notability in the lede, surviving a house fire would be excluded by WP:notnews. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Concur with nom. Small town mayor without any claim to notability. The article is inflated with irrelevant info, like the name of the street his father died on and a lightening strike. Mayoral career is covered in one sentence; he was appointed to complete a term after a resignation. I imagine that someday there will be a Wikibio with entries for everyone and links to genealogy, but WP is not that. MB 16:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL. This is largely a WP:PSEUDO biography and possibly WP:MEMORIAL. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". 24.153.207.70 ( talk) 15:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment But where is the "significant coverage"? Refs 1 & 2 just confirm his parents' deaths. Ref 3 is about his non-notable job as a building superintendent. Ref 5 apparently is about a lightening strike - not him. All that is left is 4 & 6 from the The Alexandria Daily Town Talk which may or may not be the same article since neither contain working URLs. This is not "significant coverage". MB 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I concur with the observation of MB that the coverage is not significant. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as certainly not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN, and there's certainly by far no notability from being a "grounds superintendent". SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the added material does not yet bring the article up to Wikipedia's requirements. I will userfy the article if someone wants to continue trying to improve it. MelanieN ( talk) 02:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

AliView

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

Non-notable bioinformatics package, lack of secondary sources Amkilpatrick ( talk) 15:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I don't see the problem with keeping page, there has been about 18000 downloads of the software, ca 800 downloads each month, and the software is very popular in segments of bioinformatics. The secondary source is the article in the peer reviewed journal Bioinformatics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.198 ( talk) 08:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia's notability standards are not related to having a lot of downloads: see WP:BIGNUMBER. As for the source, it isn't a secondary source, as it was written by Anders Larsson, the author of the software. If you can find one or more independent sources, that will be very helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete academic spam. To meet GNG there must be a few independent sources with substantial discussion. These do not appear to exist. Jytdog ( talk) 18:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment To be fair, IP is right that this software is mentioned in several papers (eg. Journal of Clinical Microbiology). I didn´t dig too deep, but it seems to be mostly bare mention or brief description. Sufficient coverage for Wikipedia article? I tend to agree (these sources are independent and some of them reliable), but I will not cast my vote until further research. My advice to IPs supporting this article: browse through these "scientiffic articles" and use them in the AliView Wikipedia article to save its place here. Pavlor ( talk) 07:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as none of this is actually coming close to establishing substance, and not simply something either PR-like or trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a clarification and summary of my two comments above:
    I included the link to the the refering 73 research projects that used and cited the software in this delete-discussion as an indication that the software is "notable" for a large group of people working in bioinformatics. Only this last week, while we have been discussing this issue, the number of research projects that have used and cited the software has increased from 69 to 73! https://scholar.google.se/scholar?hl=sv&q=aliview&btnG=
    Regarding the "lack of secondary sources", I would just like clarify that the entry is non opinionated and although the referring article is written by the author of the program, the article is published in a well renowned journal and was reviewed by 3 independent expert referees.
    Signed by: Per (author of the article in question and also the "anonymous ip"-comments above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.188.54 ( talk) 14:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Remember not to vote multiple times. If these academic sources are good, why not take best 2 or 3 and use them in the article? That would certainly raise notability of this article. As of now, no subject independent reliable sources are used, which is fast way to delete. Pavlor ( talk) 14:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your suggestions, - the thing is that these articles are mainly mentioning they have used the software: "Alignments were manually edited and inspected in AliView", they are not reviews of Alignment software. Isn't the peer review process of an article the guarantee for being reliable although a primary source. Per — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.188.54 ( talk) 16:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Article you have in mind would be fine for Wikipedia article content, but not for notability. For this purpose you need source written by somebody other (= independent on subject of the article). Even brief mention could help - eg. if several really good papers (top journals of its field of study) mention use of this software, it may be sign of notability. As I wrote, find best 2-3 and add them to the article (eg. AliView was used to visualise research of ..."reference" and ..."reference" etc.). Pavlor ( talk) 18:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Good suggestion, I added some references. Per — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.132 ( talk) 08:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Well done! Now, edit some of your superfluous "keep" votes as one editor can use bolded keep only once during AfD. You may be accused of sockpuppetry otherwise (you admited these "keep" votes are yours, so I assume this is only good-faith misunderstanding of AfD rules). Pavlor ( talk) 09:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks! Pavlor ( talk) 12:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Added sources show extensive use of this application by experts in the field. Fine for me. Pavlor ( talk) 09:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No substance + no credible assertion of significance + no notability = No thanks. (also, I feel like I csd'd this article or something close to a few weeks back, however that could just be deja vu...) TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Considering the relative abundance of sources for software, I generally expect some solid reliable independent secondary sources. Over here the research paper is not an independent source. The other research papers simply mention that they use the tool, but nothing about the software itself. I see this situation as having a credible claim of significance but not enough for notability. I understand that this is a tool in a niche field, but I still expect some non-trivial independent secondary coverage. (Tools/apps exist for every small field but we can't include them all per WP:NOTDIR. Which is why I insist on some non-trivial independent secondary coverage. If a tool is really notable, it will not be a problem to find non-trivial coverage. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no significance at this time; maybe in the future, but that falls under "too soon". Kierzek ( talk) 13:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added a reference to the Google Scholar web page that show that the program has been used and cited in 75 research projects including highest ranking journals souch as PNAS, Nature communications and MBE. The program has been used by research groups spanning all continents:) Only since this discussion started another 6 articles have used and cited the software. I think this is indicating that it is not just "Any Tools/apps that exist for every small field":) Per — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.53.61 ( talk) 15:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (NB: I am the nominator) I appreciate the additions made since this AfD request; however IMO the same concerns still remain. Is there some claim of notability besides the number of citations, eg some detailed reasoning (ie meeting WP:SIGCOV) of why it was chosen in the cited studies over any of the other many alignment visualizers listed in Wikipedia? Bioinformatics software packages in general seem to have the issue Lemongirl942 brings up: its existence alone doesn't merit a WP article. I'd like to see a large overhaul of the coverage of bioinformatics software on WP, for example cutting the aforementioned list to only bluelinked packages (which should also be able to demonstrate their own notability), but this is perhaps getting away from the current topic... Amkilpatrick ( talk) 01:05, 18 September 2016 (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. NPASR ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Marline Barberena

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

Barberena is totally not notable. She was Miss Nicaragua, but this is not enough of a notable listing to make someone notable and nothing else about her comes even close to making her notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: as this is a national winner of a pageant that feeds into Miss Universe. The consensus is still developing, but while a lot of the smaller international pageants may not have national winners being notable, this is the biggest game out there. Montanabw (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Nicaragua as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America 1000 14:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 talk 02:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: Come on people. She is not "independently" notable and everyone on this page knows this or will directly. She won one title and that is why we have policy about this. It is not just about the fact that there are "sources". The only way we can justify keeping a one time national winner of one event is to ignore all the rules. The purpose of that "rule" is so there are not undue restrictions, that hamper improvements to Wikipedia, and not to allow articles that will very likely forever be a stub biography article, about a person that won one title. This does not improve Wikipedia. Note: If we do consider "source" There are three references listed. #1)- Please look at first one used in the article. I used a translator but the title appears to be Miss Nicaragua statement and concerns "Miss Nastassja Bolivar" and mentions "Mrs. Olga Isabel Cifuentes" and "Miss Nicaragua 2014", with nothing I could find about the subject. #2)- The second reference is a primary source of "Beauty Pageant News", and #3)- The third is a Spanish Wikipedia entry that is not a reference. This means there is one primary source related to the one event. This discussion is not a vote count but closure is to be based on the merits of the discussion, reasoning, and WP:Policies and guidelines. In light of this evidence this is clearly a redirect unless someone can offer more substantial reasoning. Otr500 ( talk) 13:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Association of Vineyard Churches. ...per the comments over the last two re-listings. Anyone who wishes to merge may take the redirected page's contents from its history, which has been preserved. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Vineyard Bible Institute

Vineyard Bible 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)

No evidence of or claim of notability as an organisation; no RSes. The book references are general Biblical scholarship. Mostly promotional. Was part of a cluster of related promotional articles, mostly created by apparent SPAs (the original creator has "vbi" in his name). David Gerard ( talk) 07:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - massive cleanup is required, of course, but they do offer accredited degrees. St Anselm ( talk) 11:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Association of Vineyard Churches is a significant "new church" movement. This looks like its training programme. Even if it is a programme of distance learning, it is certainly notable, whether or not their qualifications are formally accredited. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Any claims to notability must be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources, which has not been demonstrated. — swpb T 13:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. in StAnselm is willing to rewrite it. A sufficiently substantial education institution. Apparently they do now offer degrees, but it's hard to be sure, as a good deal of their website seems out of date--and this article is too vague yto tell what is claimed. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • A knowledgeable rewrite would be excellent stuff - at present, if it were culled to an RS-supported stub, there wouldn't be much left ... - David Gerard ( talk) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and rRedirect to Association of Vineyard Churches. If kept, needs massive cleanup. Way too self-promotional. Montanabw (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 02:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 talk 02:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Frank Cook (industrial designer)

Frank Cook (industrial designer) (  | 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 haven't been able to find evidence of notability. The first source is an obituary, the second and third sources don't mention him. I didn't check the External Links. Marvellous Spider -Man 06:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because it doesn't have good sources. I didn't find any sources from Google search so, I don't think it meets notability standards of Wikipedia. Fuortu ( talk) 11:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 talk 02:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find anything that would satisfy GNG and BIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing found anywhere. The basically unreferenced. Except for an obituary merely announcing his death, the other references do not mention him. This seems to be more of a WP:Memorial. MB 19:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- appears to be a WP:MEMORIAL and as lacking RS. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - agree that WP:MEMORIAL applies. If there was RS citing which could be found, then could be mentioned in the RCA article, but otherwise not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek ( talk) 18:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • SNOW Delete as this is clearly not planned to be an actual substantial encyclopedia article; none of it actually suggests any actual independent notability, despite its flows of paragraphed information. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 05:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Vikky Varun

Vikky Varun (  | 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 two most reliable sources don't have any mention of him. I checked Indian Express and Hindu newspapers source where he is not mentioned. This page has some fake reference. The IMDB link is about a movie. He is definitely not notable. Marvellous Spider -Man 06:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Given how prevalent film stars are found in Indian media, and given the points above (lack of detailed coverage, etc), I'm not finding any convincing evidence that Vicky is any more than a MILL actor. Primefac ( talk) 21:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 talk 02:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Twenty One Pilots discography. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Twenty One Pilots (Twenty One Pilots album)

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

non-notable recording. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 talk 02:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Twenty One Pilots discography – I dug and dug but it seems unfortunately that reliable sources have largely ignored Twenty One Pilots initial endeavors, with much of the coverage focusing on their recent breakout success. Perhaps in the future, critics will return to the beginnings and offer reviews, but at the moment, there just isn't enough to support a standalone article per WP:NMUSIC. The discography page already contains information about the song's charting history. Mz7 ( talk) 16:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
One of the things I find interesting is that this album charted at position 141 on the Billboard 200, which in itself appears to satisfy point 2 of WP:NALBUM. However, upon closer examination of the notability guideline, it states: All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: ... 2. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. (emphasis mine). In other words, appearing on a chart may indicate notability, but if an in-depth examination yields little to no reliable source in-depth coverage on the topic, then it does not satisfy the basic criteria for notability. Mz7 ( talk) 19:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article — It's an album, it's notable enough to have its own article, there are reliable sources, I do not see why it should be removed? ( EthanRossie2000) ( talk)
@ EthanRossie2000: I want to keep the article too, but I can't find any reliable sources that provide an in-depth review of the subject. Could you provide links to some of them? Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 19:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ EthanRossie2000:. Please provide a few reliable sources, either online or in print, that provide significant coverage, like a review or analysis of the themes, that are not associated with the band or the record label. That would help to prove it's notable rather than simply claim that it's notable. For example, The Dave Clark Five, one of the first bands of the British Invasion released many albums, and only a few are notable. There are other bands who are notable and have released notable albums where some albums are not notable. This is not an indictment of the band, only an attempt to determine if this recording is recognized by experts in the field as being worthy of mention. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect for now. Viable search term, with potential to become notable in the future. (Bands that become huge often re-release their older stuff to their newfound fanbase to greater success. Like Bleach (Nirvana album) for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 16 September 2016 (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. Apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

A Witch Hunt in Faridabad

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

Fails to meet the notability standards for a movie.

No references from third party independent sources. Marvellous Spider -Man 01:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. On an unrelated note, you may want to tag the article's talk page with some project templates so that our automated trackers notify the projects that this article is up for deletion. Occasionally it can help bring in an extra editor or two to wiegh in on the afd. TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's little to nothing out there about this film, likely due to the fact that the film is unwatchable unless you're privately invited to watch said movie. It looks like it was a marketing campaign idea that backfired, as the extremely limited and secretive campaign only resulted in few to no outlets covering the movie. It's possible that coverage might exist in another language, but I'm kind of doubting it. This looks like it's a non-notable limited release film. I wish the film crew well, but this movie just isn't notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 13 September 2016 (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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Nsk92 ( talk) 21:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Richard Grant Hiskey

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

Article is essentially all WP:OR. Tried looking for additional sources to back up anything at all. Couldn't find any. Tried looking for additional sources to prove WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Couldn't find any. Doesn't look like this article meets our criteria for inclusion. Majora ( talk) 01:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I know when I made a mistake. Therefore, we can cut to the chase and I withdraw this AfD. Someone can close it whenever they see this. Thanks. -- Majora ( talk) 21:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above comment was moved from the talk page
Anyone can join the AAAS. That isn't a "highly selective scholarly society" and doesn't count towards proving they meet NACADEMIC. -- Majora ( talk) 01:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Anyone can join the AAAS, but that link shows that Hiskey was elected a fellow, something completely different from just being a member. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 10:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Good luck to you on your quest - thank you for your service.... Dr. Gary L. Goodman 02:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdguru ( talk • contribs)
My final note - for WP:NACADEMIC, it reads, "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." Dr. Hiskey was Alumni Distinguished Professor Emeritus but earned the distinguished professor in 1982 at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (a major institution of higher education and among the highest ranking chemistry departments in the country). So, he does meet the guidelines for inclusion ( UNC Yearbook). Thank you. Cheers. Phdguru ( talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on holding a distinguished professorship ( WP:PROF#C5, he also has a distinguished professorship at UNC named after him [9]), and fellowship of the AAAS (#C3) [10]. I think the paucity of (online) sources is a reflection of the fact he retired twenty years ago, which is a shame and probably means we will have to cut down the article a lot, but this is exactly why we have a SNG for academics – there should still be some mention of his obviously notable work. Joe Roe ( talk) 14:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep considering WP:PROF, which alone is enough as not only is it exact for the subject, but it's convincing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes several criteria of WP:PROF, as a Distinguished Professor at UNC, and also as an elected Fellow of AAAS. I have added several references to the article (for being a a Fellow of AAAS, a Guggenheim Fellow, and an award from the American Peptide Society). I also removed an enormously long publication section. The articles still needs work, but it is a clear keep. Nsk92 ( talk) 04:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WP:SNOW keep per clear passes of multiple WP:PROF criteria. The article still needs more cleanup but AfD is not the right mechanism for that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WP:SNOW keep. AAAS Fellow et al – TROUT for nom ;-) Agricola44 ( talk) 15:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC). reply
  • I know when I made a mistake. Therefore, we can cut to the chase and I withdraw this AfD. Someone can close it whenever they see this. Thanks. -- Majora ( talk) 21:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 05:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

YAWAY

YAWAY (  | 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 article fails to meet the standards of WP:NMUSIC.

A simple search result doesn't show anything. Marvellous Spider -Man 01:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't find anything at all at a glance. There might be paper sources, but we'd need them in the article - David Gerard ( talk) 08:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I can't find anything either to establish notability so it fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. There might be german language sources or paper source we're missing. Ayub407 talk 07:37, 17 September 2016 (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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

ROTU World

ROTU World (  | 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 can't find any evidence of notability. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no indications of notability no significant RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as noted there is nothing showing significant independent coverage; not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek ( talk) 03:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Ayub407 talk 07:32, 17 September 2016 (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. I leave it to Axiloxos do to the necessary renaming DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The Woodsman (soundtrack)

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

Non-notable soundtrack. The 2 sources added while this article was deprodded do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, rename, refocus. The play itself has received considerable acclaim and an Obie Award and is surely notable. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. This Wikipedia article started on the wrong foot, both in its focus and wording, but a substantial portion of the information now contained in the article (including the track listing) could be readily repurposed for an article about the play. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. An album consisting of the music from a stage play should be described as a "cast recording", not a "soundtrack". See Cast recording#Terms. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep given the reviews which at least establish substance, but this will seriously need to be refocused as the play's own article, not the soundtrack. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 18 September 2016 (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. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

U.P. Centennial Year

U.P. Centennial Year (  | 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 was a university event that I am sure was notable within the University system but appears not to have been notable outside of it. References given consist strictly of primary sources. Article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. I considered a redirect but could not find a basis on which to justify it. KDS4444 ( talk) 22:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:55, 10 September 2016 (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 Efficient XML Interchange or Efficient XML Interchange Working Group -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

EXI4JSON (EXI for JSON)

EXI4JSON (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My google search results indcate no coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 21:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

"EXI4JSON" is an abbreviation very recently introduced, therefore, online search regarding this topic also needs to use its full name "EXI for JSON". -- Nadotesumerogi ( talk) 16:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Borderline, certainly every combination of initials for every project does not require its own article. I would suggest merge into Efficient XML Interchange Working Group. That one is also scant at the moment too, but it looks like there have even been academic articles written on the more general idea. Either one on its own is clearly below the threshold for independent notability. Efficient XML Interchange might also be a place for it to go? This name seems a bit imprecise now, since JSON might be more popular than XML? I am not an expert in this are. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and then merge as needed as there's certainly still nothing actually suggesting substance and depth for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

University of the Philippines National Writers Workshop

University of the Philippines National Writers Workshop (  | 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 university writing workshop that does not rise to the level of notability required for a standalone article. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for further explanation. KDS4444 ( talk) 20:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:PROMO. With most of the article consisting of the section on how to apply, this article exists only to promote the subject. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Seems to be a WP:PROMO article. Ayub407 talk 07:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Daniel Weber (musician)

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

Notability is dubious, previously deleted by prod, if it doesn't merit an article it probably does merit a redirect to the article on his wife Ϣere SpielChequers 19:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, possibly redirect and salt the redirect - btw, this was recreated by the creator of the first PRODed version - David Gerard ( talk) 07:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and this should've been deleted as such sooner, examining this has found nothing at all actually close (despite the at-first seemingly substance) for actually establishing independent notability and, along with it, sufficient improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that the topic is not notable at this time. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Listings of india

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

Plenty of press releases, but I'm not sure if that's enough for notability. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Hi,Yes I agree, there are to or three press releases, but that's not amount to the notability of the organization. I was doing a research on the scope of Multiple listing service in Inida. It works on Internet Data Exchange technology. In India, its new to Real estate business, but having a huge business scope. In India, so far, there Listings of india is the only Multiple listing services company to establish centralized Real Estate property database. I am a regular contributor to Wiipedia, thought that this article would make Wikipedia more stronger. There are some references that I managed to gather from Intellectual Property of India, attached in the page as well. If we improve some of the contents to keep this article, would be great. I am pretty sure, this article would be very much helpful to many people of concern in India. ( Dhananjay Singh ( talk) 01:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it stands, no RSes actually about the company - David Gerard ( talk) 11:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Space Angels Network

Space Angels Network (  | 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 only seeing trivial or PR-like mentions: reports by the organisation; event participation; etc. Article has been extensively edited by an editor Special:Contributions/Chadcanderson who appears to be Chad C. Anderson, managing director of the org, whose article was subject to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Anderson (entrepreneur) and was closed as redirect to this article. I'm not convinced that the group is notable itself.

Note: I've significantly pruned the article recently of self-cited and / or promotional material; here's the version before I edited the article: July 2016 link. Sourcing is still questionable; for example, the The Tauri Group Report is a self-published source. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning delete, WP:TOOSOON. I tracked down the mystery-meat analyst report ( PDF) that's the main reference, it's not impressing me as a source for this article, apart from being a promotional work to sell the analyst's services; even though likely factually accurate, all mentions of Space Angels are passing. SpaceNews and BBC are RSes, but the things sourced to them are actually in quoted words from Chad Anderson. Too much sourcing to CrunchBase, a directory. The Forbes cite is to an actual staff piece and is good. Some of the refs are good. They might pass WP:CORP in not too long, but if this article is kept it'll need serious RS culling. (And this is after it already got one RS cull - that previous version is terrible) - David Gerard ( talk) 12:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A lot a lot of mentions in RS but many of these are either trivial/tangential or quotes by a company member [20], [21], [22]. I found one coverage which was significant but that too was an interview of Chad Anderson and doesn't qualify as an independent source. This company has some credible claims of significance but as of now I would say it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Nikhil Gowda

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

Non-notable actor with not even one released film to his name. Delete as per WP:NACTOR, WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Tomwsulcer: But the subject does not pass WP:NARTIST. The subject is essentially known for acting in 1 movie (not yet released). All the references are in the context of the movie and is essentially WP:BLP1E. There is nothing which suggests that the subject is notable independent of the single movie. This is too soon to have a Wikipedia article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. @ Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:, wondering how you might explain over 1500 pageviews in one day? Yes, I know, pageviews are not an official count, but still, you're deleting something that 1,500 sets of eyeballs want to read. This is an in-depth source. Ditto this. There are many more sources. So, it's all about one movie, you say, so that makes it a BLP1E? Sure is a big movie, but Gowda has been in other roles.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC) And, as guidelines go, the general notability guideline overrides any specific guideline such as NARTIST.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Tomwsulcer: You can't decide the article's notability just on number of the views right? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Of course -- but you can think of it this way -- those 1500 people are like customers who want a product, and each customer could potentially re-float the article if it gets deleted -- so trying to delete this article is like trying to swim upstream against a raging flood. But forget the pageviews -- the sources are clearly there.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:52, 10 September 2016 (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. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 14:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Bio Fusion

Bio Fusion (  | 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:GNG and WP:NGAME. I could not find any sort of coverage of it besides the lostmedia.wikia.com reference, which is not reliable. The Acclaim.com reference does not show where Bio Fusion was mentioned. (Acclaim.com appears to have changed ownership several times, and there's approx. 781 versions of the home page saved in the Wayback Machine.)

If this unreleased game was recently discovered, it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article. Perhaps it should be userfied? Sunmist ( talk) 14:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sunmist ( talk) 14:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Kudo system

Kudo system (  | 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 article is simply a list of taxa in a classification scheme used by RR Kudo in one edition of his Protozoology text (the 4th ed. of 1954, which happens to be widely available on the internet). There's no way to expand this list into a proper article, because Kudo's classification was not particularly unusual in its time, and has not been widely discussed as a system. While Kudo was an important and well-regarded protozoologist, there is nothing particularly notable about the taxonomy he used to organize the contents of his book. The title of the article suggests that this scheme was known as "the Kudo System". However, I'm unaware of any published source that uses that phrase (searches in Google Scholar and Google Books turn up nothing relevant). In any case, the proper place for an obsolete taxonomic system is WikiSpecies. Deuterostome (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nom states the case well. Admittedly "superseded taxnomic classification system" is a somewhat arcane branch of knowledge, and I don't believe we have specific guidelines re inclusion... but unless such a system has had a substantial impact and coverage during its time of relevance, I don't see a good reason for having an article on it.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 12:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:49, 10 September 2016 (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. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 14:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Mir owais ahmed

Mir owais ahmed (  | 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 appear to satisfy biographical notability or general notability, and there is no indication that the games satisfy gaming notability. The references appear to consist of interviews, which are primary only. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:47, 10 September 2016 (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 List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Deep Sashelas

Deep Sashelas (  | 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 character fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 23:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:45, 10 September 2016 (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 List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Erevan Ilesere

Erevan Ilesere (  | 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 article's notability is not established. TTN ( talk) 23:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_September_10&oldid=1142620637"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 September 11 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Memphis (2018 film)

Memphis (2018 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NFF the film has not begun principal photography and should not have its own article NathanielTheBold ( talk) 23:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Principle Photography is required to create an article. User should habe started a Draft article about the subject until it could have been moved into article namespace. Chase ( talk) 02:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Diana L. Fitzgerald

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

Despite a large number of references listed, does not appear to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Most of the references given are basically directory listings that do not contribute to notability (entries at Florida Far, California Far, Cornell University Law School, Fitzgerald & Isaacson LPP profile etc). There are a few references to news sources, but they all appear to contain 1-sentence mentions of the subject, ref no. 9 [1], ref no. 12 [2], ref no. 13 [3] (2 sentences here), ref no 15 [4]. I did GNews searching and found very little else. Does not seem to me to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nsk92 ( talk) 22:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete--not enough articles about her career to establish gng. I am open to being persuaded however -- JumpLike23 (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Does not meet wikipedia policy per above for signifigant coverage. Chase ( talk) 02:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While I agree that the sourcing is not the strongest, I feel that it meets the GNG. Granted, I would obviously feel this way having posted the article, though I do not disagree that it is lacking in certain respects. - @Rob talk 23:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Could you elaborate in which way you feel the article meets WP:GNG? GNG requires that the subject "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where "significant" means "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Which of the sources cited in the article in your opinion provide such coverage? Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 00:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I believe that the article fulfills the General Notability Guidelines because the article details her connection to several notable figures, and has been involved in a number of major companies and organizations, such as Zoo Miami and Fortune 500 companies. - @Rob talk 02:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Hmm, thank you, but no, that's not how WP:GNG works. Being connected to notable figures and organizations is not enough and does not make one notable, per the WP:NOTINHERITED principle. To satisfy WP:GNG one needs to show that Diana L. Fitzgerald herself has been the subject of specific and detailed coverage by independent reliable sources. I am not seeing anything of the sort in the article. Several directory-type listings, several refs to her own law firm, several one/two-word mentions in the news media, and the like. I do not see even a single independent source there that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" as WP:GNG requires. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Looks like it was just rewritten, I thought my version was stronger, but in any case, I do believe that the version I created met GNG. @Rob talk 00:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Fitzgerald is one of hundreds of business litigation lawyers. There is nothing even remotely special about her. When you have to cite that there was a comment sought from her on an article it just shows that she is not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and I have to chime along with John's message above; the article, I will note, is so noticeably bombarded with claims of other people and entities and then also sources consisting of laced PR, trivial coverage, etc. (The article is not even confidently navigable with such bombarding of sources alongside nearly every paragraph) None of this easily states the basics, of which would be best to start with, not overfocus with PR or other trivial and unacceptable information. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 18 September 2016 (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 List of Forgotten Realms deities. North America 1000 03:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Beshaba

Beshaba (  | 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 character fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 22:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jain University. Redirect history preserved for anyone interested in merging past contents ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Center for Management Studies - Jain University

Center for Management Studies - Jain University (  | 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:GNG. Both sources in the article are primary sources, and neither one establishes notability. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Suggest we merge redirect to main article Jain University (which isn't even properly linked here). I'm sympathetic to the idea that university level business schools are notable, but I'm just not seeing much in the way of independent coverage, at least in English. Maybe in Hindi? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Redirect to main article, as per Shawn's suggestion, although I should note how little content there actually is in this article at present. I found only one example of coverage in a reliable source [5]. There has not been enough reliable coverage identified to establish notability. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 21:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: Per above, Not enough content in this article to garner notablity. This could be covered just as well, if not better, in the article suggested above. Chase ( talk) 02:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: CMS Business school appears to cover the same subject, no? K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Oh yes, you're right. That article's official website link makes that clear. Creator User:Sainath nuvvula (of both articles and more) has recently been indef blocked by Timotheus Canens. There's no explanation as to why but I guess it's for spamming for JGI Group-related articles? Because of the spam block, I've changed to redirect, above. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I have also changed my vote, in light of this information. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 13:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Oh and as you'll see, I've also placed a speedy delete tag on CMS Business school as a duplicate article. Yes, they could all be redirects, but I've no particular interest in aiding the banned editor by creating a forest of such links. If anyone wants to remove the tag and redirect themselves, I've no objection, certainly. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Tommy Steele (country musician)

Tommy Steele (country musician) (  | 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 musician fails the general notability guideline as well as the musician-specific criteria at WP:BAND. I was unable to find any third-party coverage of this musician or his band. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Fails wikipedia policy per above. singles did not preform high enough on charts to establish the band on the basis of the guidelines. Chase ( talk) 02:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as none of this actually states, even basically, where there are any independent claims of significance and substantial notability; there's, as always, no automatic inherited notability from other people or entities. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 18 September 2016 (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. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 2011 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 2011 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: One reference if you can call it that, per above. Chase ( talk) 02:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
One referece is not enough reason to delete the article. Please see the Discussion at List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships. @ The Banner, please merge your deletion requests when requesting multiple of the same pages. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 08:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Can you point to the policy that clearly states that an article with only one reference should/must be deleted? Maybe you'd like to nominate these 2,000,000+ articles on that basis. Good luck! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I think that they call that policy WP:RS as it states that sources should be independent... The Banner  talk 18:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep don't see a reason why this is a listcruft!? All weightlifers have a page. I would say we need more of these kind of pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Lugnuts. This list is of notable individuals which helps navigation and meets WP:LISTN. - Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (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) Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 2010 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 2010 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 17 September 2016 (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) Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 1998 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 1998 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 17 September 2016 (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. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not a policy or even guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep don't see a reason why this is a listcruft!? All weightlifers have a page. Or do you have specific reasons? I would say we need more of these kind of pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, list of notable individuals that meets WP:LISTN. - Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2016 (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) Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 1999 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 1999 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 17 September 2016 (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) Yellow Dingo  (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 2007 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 2007 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman ( talk) 01:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 17 September 2016 (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships

List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft The Banner  talk 19:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello The Banner, please explain yourself a bit. All weightlifters at the world championships are appear to be notable. It's with these pages easy to get the information from a specific country who are participating. The same kind of lists are for the UCI Road World Championships and the UCI Track Cycling World Championships at Category:Lists of cyclists like the List of elite cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships, List of junior cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships, List of under-23 cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships and List of entrants at the 2015 UCI Track Cycling World Championships. So you should also nominate these pages for AfD. And also List of cyclists at the 2012 Summer Olympics, List of cyclists at the 2012 Summer Paralympics and all the pages at Template:Competitors at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
All weightlifters at the world championships are notable According to who? The Banner  talk 19:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ The Banner: I thought it went to WP:NSPORTS, but see the discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 23. But however, that is another discussion. I changed the sentence. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 20:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
So there is no ruling that they are/appear to be automatically notable. That makes it a list because you can make a list (by slightly altering the source) The Banner  talk 20:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Like I said. This is another discussion. Even if they are not all notable a list of them is notable. However all weightlifters at the 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015 world championships does have a Wikipedia page. I'll illustrate it with a few examples that this is another discussion.
Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 20:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep To continue: If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 20:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Every article is judged on its own merits. The Banner  talk 21:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
What are the mertis!? Like I asked in my first sentence, give a good reason why you want to delete this page! Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 08:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Request Please make it a Template:Afd footer (multiple). And why not nominating: List of weightlifters at the 2001 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2005 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2009 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2013 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2014 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2015 World Weightlifting Championships. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ The Banner, please merge your deletion requests. Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 08:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:55, 12 September 2016 (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 per WP:SNOW. I also note that the article was also a WP:COPYVIO as substantial portions were either closely paraphrased or word for word taken from this website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The World Trade Center Stories: 15th Anniversary Edition

The World Trade Center Stories: 15th Anniversary Edition (  | 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 article concerns a self-published book. The article is promotional and possibly written by an editor with a conflict of interest. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 17:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: WP:Complete bollocks. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 00:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as WP:CB. Blythwood ( talk) 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:WHATTHEWHAT?. I don't even know what this is. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is at least WP:Complete bollocks, and borders on WP:Patent nonsense. I'd be okay with it being Speedied under G1, although I admit it's a borderline case, since the sentences individually sort of make grammatical sense, even if together they make no coherent sense, nor are any of the words even vaguely related to the title of the article. Could also speedy per WP:SNOW? Fieari ( talk) 00:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Oregon Trail (video game)#Editions. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The Oregon Trail 5th Edition

The Oregon Trail 5th Edition (  | 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 sources found to pass WP:NVG. This article was previously deleted as a copyright violation, and is now just a completely unsourced stub. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to The Oregon Trail (video game)#Editions. I couldn't find anything, but the term is plausible for a search. -- Izno ( talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect seems best, but then won't we have confusion with lots of redirects? At that point we could have a redirect for the 3rd, 4th and 5th editions! So delete might be better. Blythwood ( talk) 00:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    Having multiple redirects is fine. -- Izno ( talk) 01:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    What's wrong with having multiple redirects to the same target? I don't see how that's confusing. Depending on the series article, the redirects could always been made to specific subsections relevant to the specific edition too. (ie something like a redirect target of [[Oregon Trail (video game series)#Fifth edition]]) Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I'd rather see resources invested into a The Oregon Trail (video game series) article that gives an overview of all Oregon, Amazon, Africa, Maya, etc. entries.-- Coin945 ( talk) 03:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirects are WP:CHEAP]. Fieari ( talk) 23:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Per above. It's a plausible search term, but it's not a notable enough series to have article on each individual edition. Smartyllama ( talk) 15:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - viable search term, but doesn't need its own article unless there's much more sources and content present. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 16 September 2016 (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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 21:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Mouctar Diakhaby

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

Deleted and re-created. A player with a career total of one appearance, according tot he table. No reliable independent sources to establish anything other than that he exists. Guy ( Help!) 17:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • What's missing from the nomination statement is that between being deleted and recreated this player made his debut in a fully professional league. I don't like this "fully professional league" determination of notability, not least because it gives a free pass to players who have turned out in a match for any of 92 English teams but for none in, for example, Georgia, where players who have played hundreds of matches for Dynamo Tbilisi, one of the top teams in the former Soviet Union, are not considered notable because they play in a country too small to have every team in their top league being fully professional. Good luck to the nominator in taking on the wikilawyering WP:FOOTBALL regulars, some of whom accused me of vandalism and personal attacks just because I pointed out that defending the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline without using a bit of common sense is wikilawyering. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as has made his debut. Giant Snowman 15:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • ...and the predicted wikilawyering with no attempt to engage in rational discussion goes on. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep clearly meets WP:FOOTBALL - I fail to comprehend this nomination. Nfitz ( talk) 23:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. IP's sour grapes are misguided, there is no wikilawyering in citing an established notability guideline. The player is just starting his career and has passed the threshold, there are numerous instances of players going no further being determined non-notable, but given this player has already achieved multiple junior national team appearances it seems unlikely he would fall into this bucket. The IP would also do well to remember GNG trumps subject specific guidelines, so there is no need for any georgian players to go without an article if he can find sources. Fenix down ( talk) 12:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Well could I remind you that the "fully professional league" guideline has no clothes. Nobody outside of Wikipedia classifies leagues, teams and players internationally on this basis, so what basis is there for doing so on Wikipedia? FIFA and the various continental governing bodies have classifications of leagues, but none of them is based on this made-up "fully professional league" requirement. There is a growing backlash against Wikiprojects producing their own notability guidelines on the basis of the consensus of a handful of editors obsessed about a particular topic, so, if the football wikiproject wants to maintain credibility it should come up with a more realistic guideline before one is imposed by tha community at large. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily satisfies WP:NFOOTY per above. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - article does needs improvement, but so far does meet the WP:NFOOTY standards. Should not be deleted. I do not understand the IP editor's argument of wikilawyering, seems more like a grief about a past dispute more than everything else. That doesn't mean that I'm not open to re-discuses the Wikipedia notability policy, but this isn't the place to do it. Inter&anthro ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTY. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sabbir Khan. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Munna Michael

Munna Michael (  | 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 and unreferenced Rathfelder ( talk) 17:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect: I had created the article by adding content with reliable sources. Then I had redirected the article to the director's article saying that when the principal photography of the film would start, the last revision of the article would be undone to meet the criteria of WP:NFF. Now if some other user has added content with no sources, the loss should not go the creator. The nominator instead of nominating the redirect for deletion, should had first checked the revision history of the article and then should had reverted all the revisions to my second revision. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠ ☎️ ✍⋡ 05:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Sabbir Khan: doesn't qualify for a standalone piece now but definitely would in six months or so. Anup [Talk] 15:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Swami Abhedananda Bharathi

Swami Abhedananda Bharathi (  | 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 passing mention in a source can't be a reason to keep this non-notable biographical article.

Overall fails WP:GNG Marvellous Spider -Man 17:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete as it stands, if cut to the one third-party RS it would be a sentence or two. Surely someone this very noteworthy should have sourcing ... - David Gerard ( talk) 08:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Da'is. postdlf ( talk) 17:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Muslim callers

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

Notability FlorenceJoyner ( talk) 09:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ FlorenceJoyner: Question: What are your concerns about this article? KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 11:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: List of Da'is seems to have the same scope: a list of Muslims who proselytise. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 11:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If this is indeed the same thing as List of Da'is, then Merge and Redirect.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect because I'm not sure if there's any material that actually needs to be merged; the articles listed at "List of Muslim callers" already seem to be listed at "List of Da'is." MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Da'is which already appears to contain the same info. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - at least needs a rename as "Muslim callers" clearly is not a term that cleanly translates into English. Blythwood ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Ali Sheharyar

Ali Sheharyar (  | 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:GNG - NottNott| talk 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Whether the WP:PROD tag was removed by an "IP user" (are there really any users who manage to edit without using IP?) or by someone who prefers to use a pseudonym than to reveal their IP address is immaterial. Once anyone has removed a PROD tag you can't reinstate it. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have just removed three references from the article to apparently reliable sources that are actually about other people with vaguely similar names. None of the other sources, nor any that I can find online, come anywhere close to the significant coverage in independent reliable sources demanded by our notability guidelines. Given the subject matter I would expect any such sources, if they existed, to be available online. Please note that most sources found by a search for "Ali Haider" are about Ali Haider Gillani, not this guy. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable YouTube personality. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as another classic example of an article only consisting of the subject's own websites and sources, that has the bare signs there is nothing actually substantial at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 18 September 2016 (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 Nomination withdrawn" Based on the additions by Mike Searson, there appears to be enough coverage to get past GNG Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply

.223 Wylde

.223 Wylde (  | 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 significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The product exists and there is some coverage in non-reliable sources, but most coverage I'm seeing in RS's is mentions or more of a product review sort of piece. The sole source used in the current article doesn't even mention this configuration to accept both cartridges. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No multiple independent acceptable sources appear to be available - fails GNG, WP:ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH. And per nom, the only reference doesn't even mention this product. Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep...I've found the following references with a simple google book search. [6] [7] [8] I'm sure there are many more I just stopped looking after the three. I've also found too many to count mentions. Perhaps, it would be better to rename the article to "Wylde chamber" and then rewrite the article accordingly. As the current name ".223 Wylde" does make it sound like a wildcat .223 caliber cartridge.-- RAF910 ( talk) 15:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Despite your implication that a search wasn't done..... it's not mentions that the subject is missing, it's significant coverage. Your first two examples are barely more than a mention. The third is a book reference saying that the has tested 2 rifles in the caliber. These sources confirm it exists, which isn't in dispute. What is lacking, still, is significant coverage. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP 223 Wylde is a chamber dimension which splits the differences between both SAAMI and NATO ammo specifications allowing either 5.56 NATO or 223 Remington to be used in the rifle in question. More manufacturers are using this spec with their barrels than any other configuration on the civilian market so shooters can use either round. The incorrect non-SAAMI use of decimals preceding non-metric ammunition calibers may be why editors not familiar with firearms cannot find appropriate sourcing.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • That's great that it splits the difference. Some substantial coverage would be helpful. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah I'm sure the editors at Newsweek and The New York Times didn't exactly cover it to death. I'll see what I can come up with-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You're right, they probably didn't. Good thing for us that those aren't the only reliable sources around. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a notable chamber variant that allows for two widely used cartridges often for competition. Expand section on the chamber developer, Wylde, and copycat usage in other rifles that use similar technique to accomplishe the same objective (i.e. mini-14 ranch rifle that can chamber both rounds even though they are marked for one). -- DHeyward ( talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Are you going to do the expansion and add reliable third party sources? Or are you just going to driveby !vote and waste more time talking about editors than issues? Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Disregard, someone else took care of what you merely talked about doing. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closer Despite the very clear description on the first line, the nominator seems unable to distinguish a barrel marking/chamber design from an actual cartridge. It is not a cartridge or a caliber so there is a very good reason why a search for a cartridge yields nothing. Competence is required and this is a nuisance nomination. It's like nominating "adjustable wrench" for deletion because there are no sources to indicate any bolts that were specifically designed designed to fit it. Time would have been better spent searching for the "any" key we are always supposed to press. Or post a question instead of crusading against firearm knowledge in an encyclopedia. Google hits alone should have been a clue that is notable and independently manufactured as either complete barrels withe different profiles, materials and twist rates or rifles. This is not a controversial article or anything other than an article describing what this particular specification is. -- DHeyward ( talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closer: The nominator does understand the difference, he just put it in simpler terms for the non-pedantic layman. The nominator also understands what significant coverage is and how this article lacks it, as well as how the number of Google hits has nothing to do with notability. Perhaps if those leaving a "note to closer" spent times addressing those issues rather than using it to talk about an editor, there would be more firearms knowledge in this encyclopedia. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Rivka Kidron

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

Article Sources are:

  1. Online Etymology Dictionary: no support for existence.
  2. Abarim Publications: no support for existence.
  3. Oxford Archeological Guides: The Holy Land (sic): Not verifiable, but from the index, pages 198-9 are for Ashqelon, which is nowhere near the Kidron Valley.
  4. Ancient Burial Ground with 100 Tombs Found Near Biblical Bethlehem: No support for existence (of "Rivka").
  5. Eastern Sketches – notes of scenery, schools and tent life in Syria and Palestine: page 102 and surrounds have nothing to do with "Rivka".
  6. The Land and the Book: "Rivka" not found.
  7. Hirschfeld, Yizhar. Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence: Not verified.

At minimum, available sources (searches performed) do not meet GNG/GEOLAND. I suspect it's a hoax, given that Rivka Kidron is/was an advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu. If so, then its creator has gone to some trouble. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 15:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment(side issue), is this a concern, that article creator name, Learnthatcom, is the same as this website - learnthat.com? Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, interesting that the wadi known as Nahal Kidron (mentioned in lead of Kidron Valley) that runs over 30km from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, also runs around 3km south of Kedar, where the article says this community is situated, and yet it is not mentioned. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the article is pure nonsense. No single ref refers to this place, no equivalent Hebrew article, or for that matter, a single Hebrew reference. Poliocretes ( talk) 08:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: is this a potential hoax? Created by a SPA Special:Contributions/Learnthatcom with few other contributions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I didn't find any support for existence of this place in Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Petroleum Planetary

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

New magazine, no sources, no indication of any notability. Article creation too soon. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Unreferenced, no evidence of notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was unable to find any references whatsoever to establish notability. This would be a clear case for speedy deletion, if there were a CSD criterion that allowed it. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can find nothing to substantiate any of the claims in the article. The only things that seem to mention the magazine is the magazine's website, which is hosted via Blogspot. Being hosted by a blogging website doesn't mean that something can't be notable, but it's usually not a great sign. This also isn't necessarily a sign of non-notability, but I'm less likely to believe the claims of popularity in the article when you consider that the blog (which has been active since at least 2014) only has 11 posts as of right now. I'd take into consideration that there might be more articles on the printed magazine, but I don't really see any indication on this website that there is a printed magazine. By all accounts the site appears to be a blog or electronic magazine rather than a printed work, which runs contrary to what's published on Wikipedia. Typically most magazine websites tend to have some sort of information available on how to subscribe to the print versions. Now even all of that aside, there's really nothing out there at all about this magazine on the website, which goes against the article's claim of the magazine being one of the most popular magazines in Pakistan and the most well known one of its type. If these claims really were true, then this would be covered somewhere and I just don't see any of this coverage. I'm aware that the people who run the magazine are reading this, so my recommendations would be to work on improving the website and to be careful of claims. The above claims could be true, however the only people saying these things are you and most people tend to be skeptical when it comes to promotional claims. You also need to understand that magazines are not automatically notable because they exist ( WP:ITEXISTS) and in order to show notability you must show where people other than yourselves (or anything WP:PRIMARY) is discussing the magazine in independent and reliable sources ( WP:RS). This is extremely difficult to do for magazines, but especially niche magazines, as the mainstream sources typically don't cover this sort of thing and the academic sources (the ones more likely to cover these types of things) have so many things to cover that magazines and so little money and manpower (in comparison to mainstream news outlets) that they almost always fall by the wayside in favor of extremely major mainstream publications. I'd also like to caution you on your language. Wherever you go, you are representing yourself and your magazine. Things like this is unprofessional and makes both you and the magazine look bad, which can result in a loss of respect and reputation - things that any magazine, especially a fledgling one, need to survive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Clear attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a new magazine. Joe Roe ( talk) 11:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • SNOW Delete as I frankly consider this speedy material even considering the thin claims of "popular magazine", as that would not save this article by itself at all; there's no substance for actually establishing both notability and non-PR. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 18 September 2016 (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. No credible assertion of notability was made within the article and no sources which would demonstrate notability could be found after a careful online search. Nick ( talk) 14:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

William Mergler

William Mergler (  | 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 article is a utter mess. It's a long-winded, completely unsalvageable piece about a NN person. Delete. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2016 (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) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Comparison of graphics file formats

Comparison of graphics file formats (  | 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 mundane list article lacking a notable topic per GNG, and appears to be synthesis - fails WP:SAL, which says, "stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as WP:V, NOR, NPOV...".
Wikipedia is not a repository, and is not a catalog or a directory, and is also not a platform for promotion --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • My first instinct would be to move to List of image file formats (and trim the unreferenced cruft if needed be). Image file formats is, obviously, a notable topic, and the individual file formats are notable as a group (not just individually); if restricted to the formats created by software with their own WP page, the scope is not too large. I disagree with the nomination, and think the topic fully meets WP:SAL.
However, Image file formats is already a list-like article. There is quite a large overlap between the prose article and the list. I am not sure how the content would best be organized. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion but support tidying up. There's a good deal of information presented in this article that isn't (readily) available in Image file formats. It could clearly do with a bit of work (e.g. a vector/raster indicator in the first table as well as the second, perhaps as a highlight in the 1st column). But the tabular format is useful, especially for the second table which has less overlap with the prose article. Deletion seems like a step too far; as a minimum the "technical details" table could be merged into Image file formats, but really some better integration is needed, including reducing the list sections of that article. ChrisHodgesUK ( talk) 13:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'll second Tigraan's and ChrisHodgesUK's views. The content of this article is a suitable WP list, so moving it to List of image file formats would be a better title. Yes, it duplicates material in Image file formats, but that article focuses on major formats (e.g., Image file formats#Major graphics file formats) and then just lists minor formats ( Image file formats#Other raster formats). That article could cover the main formats and features (and the reasons behind them — leaving gritty details to individual format articles) and then point to this article's more inclusive list of formats. That would make IFF less list-like and push it toward a more general overview. Glrx ( talk) 16:13, 14 September 2016 (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) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

OS X Mavericks

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

Sources available from Google News are either trivial, promotional, announcement, or passing mention. Article references appear to be press releases or closely affiliated with the product. Fails ORGIND and GNG. This article reads like a manual, which Wikipedia is not WP:NOTMANUAL, and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Steve Quinn ( talk) 13:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep but improve - As if deletionism will solve everything, when a quick run through the usual mainstream news sources and citing them would do the trick. Blake Gripling ( talk) 15:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Then please post some mainstream independent reliable sources - I don't think there are any. I did due diligence and did a Google News search and a Google search. So please don't jump the gun on "deletionism".
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but improve - it's no less notable than any other Mac OS X/OS X/macOS release, so it should be fixed, not removed. Guy Harris ( talk) 18:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry to say this but WP:WHATABOUTX. There are other articles on Wikipedia that have not established notability, but that is not really part of this discussion. If this topic is not deemed notable, then that is how it goes. If it is deemed notable by the posting or addition of independent reliable sources, then that is also how it goes. Please, no one take any of this personally. Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but improve- Guy Harris hits this on the head, it is no less notable than any other apple software release and it should be fixed, and not removed. FULL Disclosure: I was the one who originally created this article in the first place, I rushed to create it during the keynote, basically as I was watching it on my iMac. It has come a long way from when I created it. Haseo9999 ( talk) 01:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lexa (The 100). Any interested editor who still wishes to retrieve material from the redirected article, may do so from its history, which is well preserved. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Lexa Pledge

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

Unnecessary page with a lead and a copied "pledge" with barely any background information. If this article should exist, it should be thoroughly expanded upon first. Deletion or redirection to draft namespace. Alex|The|Whovian ? 13:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Lexa (The 100), which I tagged the article with apparently in parallel to this nomination. The topic is primarily about, and discussed because of, the TV series character. Alternatively merge to The 100 (TV series).  Sandstein  13:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, merging works just as well. Half of the article is entirely a copied pledge that could just be kept to the tertiary sources. Alex|The|Whovian ? 13:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. Also note that "redirection to draft namespace" wouldn't work due to CSD R2 – it could be moved without redirect and then users would still see an auto-generated link to the draft page, but it's pointless, as I doubt this is ever going to be notable and long enough to warrant a separate article. nyuszika7h ( talk) 13:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:25, 12 September 2016 (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 Hexagon AB. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Erdas Imagine

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

Sources available from Google News are promotional; from Google Newspapers passing mention; article references appear to be closely affiliated with the product; other ASPRS references are inaccessible - unable to verify - therefore, these could be passing mentions or promotional. This product does not appear to be notable. Fails GNG, and ORGIND. Notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Steve Quinn ( talk) 13:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Hexagon AB which appears to be the entity who sells it now? Clearly this one product is not independently notable, but it is worth a mention of it, given the long history. The parent company article could stand some work to add more prose and remove the marketing, etc. anyway. Suspect sources might be in other languages than English. But would be more work of course than a quick death. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I agree with W Nowicki. Product with such long history deserves at least mention. Current sources have mostly ad-like quality, not sufficient for an article. Maybe there are some reviews in magazines specialized for this field of study, but this is certainly outside of my expertise. Pavlor ( talk) 18:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. A7, G11 by DGG ( non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 11:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Rayna Tours and Travels

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

De-prodded, quasi-promotional article about a travel company. Sounds like the average WP:MILL, and searches for sources, even just Rayna Tours without "and Travels", reveal little or nothing but trivial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. — Sam Sailor 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom, if cut to sources it would be a paragraph and not a convincing one - David Gerard ( talk) 14:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • 'Delete per WP:PROMO; this is a replica of a corporate web site. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:01, 11 September 2016 (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. Any interested editor may flag the article for improvement respectively. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

KKHP-LP

KKHP-LP (  | 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. Even WP:BCASTOUTCOMES says ". Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated." There is no such real notability demonstrated beyond having a license etc. WP is not a directory. Jytdog ( talk) 11:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) (Striking "low power" thing as inaccurate/modify. Jytdog ( talk) 00:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)) reply

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

KMEC-LP (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jytdog ( talk) 11:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES, LPFM stations ARE notable and this has been backed up by AfDs in the past. The "neighborhood" that KKHP serves has a population of about 20,000+. KKHP serves three seperate towns with a 60dBu coverage, 54dBu coverage is well into Chico and that's a population of about 87,000. I'd say that's a pretty big "neighborhood". KMEC-LP serves Ukiah, California, which holds a population of around 16,000 people. Again, another large "neighborhood".
You appear to have LPFMs and Part 15s confused. LPFMs are legal stations, licensed by the FCC, and can broadcast from 1 to 100 watts. Part 15s, are NOT legal stations (ie: pirate stations) and typically only broadcast about 1 milliwatt, that's 1/100th of an actual watt. Part 15s that only broadcast 1 milliwatt are sometimes left alone, but are subject to being shutdown by the FCC. Ones that broadcast waaay more than that 1 milliwatt are subject to fines and seizure of equipment. LPFMs are NOT the same as Canadian VF stations. Bearcat and I actually had a discussion on this. Canadian VF stations are the same as US Part 15s. That's why there is a push to remove those. They aren't notable per NMEDIA.
I have updated the KKHP and KMEC pages with clear sources from various sources. These are sufficient for all other pages and bring it well into GNG, V, and N. I would ask that Jytdog withdraw his AfDs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:18 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)
I struggle with the notion that somehow WP has become a directory of radio stations where there is no demonstration of meeting basic GNG via significant discussions in independent sources... Jytdog ( talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Struggle all you like, this is backed up by strong and consistant community consensus and policy. I could say the same about bugs or TV episodes, but those are backed up by consensus as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:20 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)
In both articles you added four references; three from the FCC showing the station exists and who owns it, and the the fourth from Nielsen. Here is what is actually at the link for KKHP: "No Summer 2016 data found for KKHP-FM.". And Here is what is actually at the link for KMEC-LP: "No Summer 2016 data found for KMEC-LP" In my view none of these sources helps much showing that the station is worthy of a WP article - sure they would be great if WP was a directory. But we aren't. There needs to be signficant discussion in independent sources to meet GNG. There ~appears~ to be some WikiProject creating a walled garden going on here. Jytdog ( talk) 20:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Dude, you've said several "my" and "I" statements. Your view or your opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is the community's view and the community's opinion...and in turn the community's consensus. That consensus is that radio stations are notable, be them AM, FM, HD, or LP. The entire consensus is covered in NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES. This is not a walled garden, this is a community of users who work on these articles, keep them updated backed by consistent strong consensus from the community. I'm sorry that you can't accept that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:17 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)
Don't know what you mean by "my" and "I" statements. Whatever - this seems to be upsetting to you and I am sorry for that. Let's just focus on the work - do these articles meet basic GNG or not? Jytdog ( talk) 21:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • LPs aren't the same thing as Part 15s or VFs; they're a class of station that does still have to have an FCC license, while the problem with Part 15s and VFs is that they're exempted from having to have a license. (And the reason there were so many VF stations to delete is that those stations did formerly have to have CRTC licenses as well, making them eligible for inclusion per NMEDIA by the same criteria as any other radio station — their change of status from licensed to license-exempt changed the notability equation after those articles already existed.) The determining factor, however, is not the presence of the words "low power" in the article — it's the existence or non-existence of an FCC/CRTC broadcasting license, regardless of the transmitter power that is or isn't involved. Yes, we ultimately do want improved sourcing beyond just the FCC documents, but the FCC documents are enough sourcing in and of themselves to cover the basic notability criterion. There are, for example, important technical details that a radio station's article needs to contain for which the FCC documents are the only possible source — newspaper coverage about a radio station is never, for example, going to get into the station's ERP or HAAT stats, so we have to turn to the FCC database for those. So no, the FCC documents aren't enough sourcing by themselves to get a radio station's article up to GA or FA status — but they are enough sourcing by themselves to cover off the basic includability issue. Keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat ( talk) 22:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and work at beefing up the articles. Both stations have a broadcast history, which is one of the criteria noted in NMEDIA, with KMEC-LP's running approximately 11 years at this point. And in my time here, I can't remember ever seeing an article that was nominated for deletion on a licensed, operating LPFM not survive the discussion. I'm travelling for work, so can't get into the heavy lifting, but finding an additional source that could flesh out KMEC-LP somewhat took seconds, and I've dropped a note for Neutralhomer with that information. Mlaffs ( talk) 02:12, 11 September 2016 (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. North America 1000 05:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

John O. Henes

John O. Henes (  | 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:BASIC. Little depth of coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO. He was locally a wealthy person, and donated 50 acres of land on which a park named after him is located. This doesn't seem to pass the ANYBIO criteria of "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". He appears to be a successful local businessman, but not notable by Wikipedia standards. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Withdrawn by nominator. Sufficient new information has been added to the article. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The article has been expanded to included Henes' inventing activity. Doremo ( talk) 12:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- the inventing activity adds to notability. Not sure by how much, but I believe the article adds value to the encyclopedia at this point. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and I nearly closed myself, there's enough for a historically-informative article; this is similar to an article I improved some time ago. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Wairakei Masters Tournament

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

Non-notable tournament. No sources which mention this tournament. No google hits which are not copies of this Wikipedia article gadfium 22:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 22:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. 22:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 09:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable amateur golf tournament. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing actually establishing notability or substance apart from it being apparently major; none of this even actually establishes why and how it could be its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Inger Ellen Nicolaisen

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

Was csd-A7 tagged, however there is just enough information in the article to warrant an afd here I think. Listing for community input on article's fate. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • delete as it stands, very skimpy on RSes (I can't tell if NFVB.no is a specialist source - even then I'd want more - or just promotional) - David Gerard ( talk) 08:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (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. Merge/redirect discussions can continue on the article talk page.  Sandstein  08:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Clickability

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

Was PRODded a second time, with "Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article's tone is advertorial in nature, so WP:PROMO applies." I concur. This article doesn't show any notability or usefulness as an article, and was substantially written by redlinked SPAs. It's been unfixed for years and shows no prospect of being fixable. David Gerard ( talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, plus the article seems to be using a lot non-notable awards that the company received as grounds for its notability. -- MorbidEntree - ( Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete See below; Original comment: confirming my PROD that the nominator cited. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete. The only immediately apparent reliable source for the article as it stands is Information Week, and that particular citation is a dead link. A Train talk 22:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC) [see updated comment below] reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the rewrite?  Sandstein  08:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm still unconvinced. The new article is definitely a big improvement but do the new references really provide depth of coverage? There's a lot of passing mentions. I grant that determining depth of coverage can be subjective and the article is clearly no longer the blight it used to be so I'll strike my delete !vote. But I'm not enthusiastic enough about the new sources to weigh in as a keep, either. A Train talk 13:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Here are three sources that are not passing mentions:
    1. McClure, Marji (2008-10-01). "Clickability Empowers Clients to Build Successful Sites". Information Today. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10 – via HighBeam Research.

      The article notes:

      Clickability, Inc. was founded in 1999 in San Francisco by four friends: John Girard, Jeff Freund, Sean Noonan, and Timur Yarnall. Girard, the company's CEO, serves on Clickability's senior management team along with Freund, the organization's CTO, and Noonan, Clickability's vice president of finance. Yarnell left to start his own company, Broadcast Interactive Media, LLC, which is now Clickability's largest reseller.

      ...

      Clickability's tools began appearing--and still appear--on hundreds of media websites, including CNN and The Wall Street Journal. But in 2000 and 2001, when internet advertising markets faced tough times, the Clickability team determined it was time to shift gears.

      ...

      The Clickability platform is an on-demand web content management system that enables nontechnical users to control content on their websites through its entire life cycle, from creation and management to publishing and delivery. It is offered in three editions (express, professional, and enterprise) depending on the size and needs of each customer, which can combine its web publishing, advertising, marketing, and hosting functions all on a single platform.

      The platform has four parts. The first, infrastructure as a service, involves Clickability serving as the host of the application as well as the content repository for its clients' content. The next is onboarding and support, which transitions customers to the platform. The third is the software-as-a-service (SaaS) component.

      Questia Online Library has a preview of the article here.
    2. Marshall, Matt (2008-02-06). "Fremont Mobile Services Gets Funding". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      Clickability: The San Francisco-based online content management company raised $8 million.

      Clickability offers an all-in-one package to help clients like the New York Times, CNN Interactive and others manage their Web sites.

      It's an online content management system that comes with analytics tools, its own content delivery network, data storage, e-mail newsletters, RSS feeds and other services, so large publishers can more efficiently manage their Web properties.

      The company started in 1999, raised $7.3 million in 2000, and has been profitable since 2004, according to VentureWire.

      Its latest round, for $8 million, was led by Shasta Ventures with previous investor Convergence Partners returning to the round.

    3. Galbraith, Patrick (2009). Developing Web Applications with Apache, MySQL, memcached, and Perl. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 6. ISBN  0470538325. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      Clickability is a company that provides SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) web content management platform products. Their services include content management, web site publishing and delivery, search, web analytics, and newsletter delivery. They use memcached as a layer-2 cache for application servers to store content objects as serialized Java objects. They now run multiple instances of memcached, which are reguarly cleared and versioned for cache consistency. They also use multicast messaging to cache objects across multiple memcached servers, as well as a messaging queue used for sending a clearing message to application servers. They originally did not use memcached, but were able to implement it into their architecture within a couple of days after deciding to take advantage of memcached's benefits. Because of memcached, particularly how it provides a caching layer to web applications to prevent excessive hits to the database, they now serve 400 million page-views a month!

    Cunard ( talk) 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on the sources presented. They are mostly PR like, including an interview with the founder (source #1) and the funding announcement (source #2). Source #3 is a passing mentioned, which does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and is insufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. Combined, these sources do not overcome WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The Information Today article is an in-depth article about the company. It contains quotes from the founder which is standard journalistic practice and does not exclude it from establishing notability.

    The second article is not merely a funding announcement. It provides "deep coverage" about the company's history (its founding, its clients, its past funding round).

    The third source provides "deep coverage" about the technology aspects of the company's software.

    From WP:CORPDEPTH:

    Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

    It is clear based on my rewrite that it is possible "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization", so the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH.

    Cunard ( talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Combined, these sources do not overcome WP:PROMO. – I am an editor with no conflict of interest with the subject. I rewrote the article. Please explain how the article still violates WP:PROMO so I can address Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations.

    Cunard ( talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article has been rewritten by a neutral editor with no connection to the subject (no PROMO). It's written in a neutral manner. The sources are in-depth according to CORPDEPTH. It meets GNG. -- Green C 14:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it still might be marginal, but does seem like it stood the test of time, and has a remarkable discipline to avoid buzzwords and acronyms. Benefit of the doubt. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as either the Keep votes themselves are acknowledging the concerns but are still choosing to say keep or they sinply ignore it altogether; like with the Delete vptes, everything here is essentially simply PR including the fact it simply comes with the usual and expected news about funding and financing which happens to all companies especially the ones that are seeking and hoping to establish capital and funding; any AfD that has closed as Delete with this basis has bee noticeable, and this is yet another case of it. The article itself even goes to specifications at what, where and why the product was being used; any such information can and would only be used to seek clients and investors, this is something else that has been established at AfD (this article itself even goes to focus about what happened to their employees (see first section, "cut employees from 40 to 15). Any attempts to actually classify this as "coverage and reviews" cannot be taken seriously if they themselves simply chopse to look the other way and not face the actual PR concerns. Even from the above, it's all still essentially business listings and profiles, see for example: Because of memcached, particularly how it provides a caching layer to web applications to prevent excessive hits to the database, they now serve 400 million page-views a month! No one would honestly say that's something convincing for both actual coverage and substance, if it simply inflates and puffs the company's own being. Going to the Keep votes again, they have made no attempt to mention or otherwise acknowledge these concerns, and they even go to the basis of "Oh well, at least someone with no COI at least changed the article, it at least takes care of something". I'll also note this was even deleted in 2008 as G11, another classic example of repeated advertising and the attempts that follow. At best, once deleted, this can be redirected to the Limelight Networks article given the acquisition. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • After reading the entire article, Im inclined to delete. It sounds this was posted just to get more people to use it. Pyrusca ( talk) 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I did not rewrite the article "just to get more people to use it". This is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Cunard ( talk) 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I believe the user meant the fact why the article was started to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Northamerica1000 ( talk · contribs), I oppose a merge of Clickability to Limelight Networks. A merge of the material would be undue weight because:
    1. Much of the Clickability article contains information about Clickability's history and products in the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2004 before it was sold to Limelight Networks in 2011 and
    2. Clickability is not a part of Limelight Networks anymore because Limelight Networks sold Clickability to Upland Software in December 2013.
    Cunard ( talk) 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
A reason for a merge is because the Limelight Networks article presently provides absolutely no context about what Clickability does. All it states is, "May 2011, the company acquired Clickability for $10 million. On December 23, 2013 Upland Software announced that they had acquired Clickability from Limelight." Why would we want to keep the merge target I suggested "dumbed down" for Wikipedia's readers, providing no context? Also, I would say merge to Upland Software, but no such article exists, so this is the most appropriate target. North America 1000 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I view "Redirect" as a cleaner outcome; the subject has been deemed to be not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Anything useful can be pulled from the article history. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
However, K.e.coffman, regarding my analysis above especially regarding the advert foundations that have happened here (including mentioned by the nominator), would you object to deletion first? SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 18 September 2016 (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) 21:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Iqbal Masood Nadvi

Iqbal Masood Nadvi (  | 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 just barely enough information in this article to suggest some notability; that being said, the article's got other issues and those have long been unaddressed, so here it is for community consideration on its fate. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No evidence of passing WP:Prof. Claims for WP:GNG should be explicated. Xxanthippe ( talk) 11:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I removed a large amount of promotional/unsourced content from the page before but I don't think this is worth saving. Couldn't find any reliable coverage. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 12:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Islamic Circle of North America. To be fair, WP:PROF does a poor job in this area because most of the criteria won't apply to Islamic scholars. However I can't find sufficient coverage to meet the GNG either. A redirect to ICNA and brief mention the he is the current president seems appropriate. Joe Roe ( talk) 14:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ Joe Roe: I actually though of that myself, but if you look at the ICNA page the president is given as Naeem Baig, not Iqbal Masood Nadvi, which lead my to wonder if he is no longer their president or if the ICNA page needs updating. TomStar81 ( Talk) 15:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ TomStar81: According to this their presidents serve for two years and Nadvi has been the president since January 2016. Joe Roe ( talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Only one mainspace article links to the page, the daily page views are very low, and there seems to be nothing worth saving on the page. I don't see a redirect as necessary in the circumstances. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 18:28, 11 September 2016 (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. There was a strong attempt to bring the article up to where it meets Wikipedia standards, but consensus was that it still doesn't. I will userfy this on request, if one of the parties wants to continue trying to improve it. MelanieN ( talk) 01:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Invest.com

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

Sources given lack in-depth coverage of the activities of the company. Not notable. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • comment from creator: trused Sources exist within the article.The company is registered under "Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission" as well as an in-depth third party article from a trusted sourced( http://citywire.co.uk/) I agree that improvements could be made to the article. But I do believe the page is notable. Ymd2004 ( talk) 00:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • [this was on an old version] Delete: I did a complete reference check. Almost all sources are bad: primary or user-generated, often just puffery. (We shouldn't have primary links to the fact they're allowed to operate in the EU, that's a basic presumption of financial service companies, which is why there isn't a third-party RS to this effect.) The article has literally one RS. Mostly this is puffery to inflate apparent notability. Even a couple of the unreliable sources fail verification. No evidence it passes WP:CORP - David Gerard ( talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 23:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I noticed this one recently, none of it comes close to substantiating actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- per TOOSOON. Coverage includes: "A new leading start-up robo adviser platform in the UK, invest.com, specialises in once hard-to-access alternative investments..." indicating that the company is not yet notable. I cannot find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with reasoning of David Gerard. Fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx ( talk) 11:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've removed non relevant text and have added references. The company coverage includes sources from: The Telegraph, CNBC, The Huffingon Post and This is Money. This indicates the company is notable Ymd2004 ( talk) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Tsipori, Tali (2016-05-25). "Online investment co invest.com raises $20m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      invest.com first made headlines in 2014 when it paid $5 million for its domain name.

      invest.com says it charges a 1.5% management fee and 15% of profit but as an opening offer until June 22 no management fee will be charged.

      ...

      By the end of 2017, invest.com plans to launch in other countries, including Germany, Italy, Russia, Asia, and the Middle East, as well as launching several new alternative investment products.

    2. "Invest.com Launches Hedge Fund for the People' With $20m in Backing". TheMarker. 2016-05-26. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      Three years after buying the domain name invest.com, Israeli tech investor Moshe Hogeg is launching a “hedge fund for the people” backed by $20 million in investment capital from his Singularteam venture capital fund and other, unnamed investors. Launched in Britain, the new site will offer investors seven alternative investment strategies, which it said are “similar to those employed by quant hedge funds.” Invest.com’s portfolio management service requires a minimum investment of 1,500 pounds ($8,500) for a customized portfolio, with the investor’s risk appetite determined by questions posed by a robo-adviser and trades conducted automatically.

    3. Dakers, Marion (2016-05-23). "Invest.com rejoins the fight for online traders". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      Invest.com, one of the world’s most expensive website names, is relaunching itself as an alternative investment and trading site two years after its $5m sale.

      An Israeli venture capital firm named Singulariteam took control of the domain name in 2014, and has since brought in additional backers including Renren, the Chinese social network, to invest a total of $20m in the new platform.

      Ophir Gertner, who ran iForex before moving to help launch Invest.com a year and a half ago, said the site was built to compete with a growing number of robo-advisers now offering lower-cost investment help.

      ...

      Invest.com is modelling itself on the “two and twenty” fee structure at hedge funds, charging customers a flat 1.5pc plus 15pc of their profits.

    4. Mizrahi, Avi (2014-11-27). "Exclusive: Over $5 Million Paid for Invest.com by Israeli VC to Enter the Forex Business". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.
    5. Avital, Yaneev (2016-05-26). "Moshe Hogeg's online investment platform Invest.com raises $20 million". he:Geektime. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

      The article notes:

      The new investment platform defines itself as a ‘hedge fund for the masses.’ Unlike traditional hedge funds that require a large sum of starting capital investment, however, Invest.com investors can start investing with an initial deposit of £500.

      Similar to hedge funds, the investment platform’s portfolio management is based on seven different investment strategies to try and achieve returns even in a down market. Among other aspects, one can invest in foreign currencies, futures, bonds, stocks, and more. The platform uses algo-trading, or automated trading using algorithms, that enables a quick response to market changes in a constant and dynamic way and based on the personal preferences of each investor. Another emphasis on Invest.com is on the liquidity of the investment, where the investor can withdraw their money at any time.

      If the investor wishes to manage their own investments, they can do so with an initial deposit as low as £500 and if they want to consult the portfolio management services of Invest.com, they can do so with an initial deposit of at least £1,500.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 01:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I do not consider paragraphs about the subject to be "passing mentions". Cunard ( talk) 01:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions needed on Cunard's sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wow, this is a mess. I think a little WP:TNT would do the article well. TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Still delete Not seeing the CORPDEPTH. TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Still delete on rewrite. It's not the puff piece it was, and you've done good work here, but still doesn't have the WP:CORPDEPTH, sorry - David Gerard ( talk) 00:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- the article is still advertorial sounding; I'm not changing my vote yet. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Which parts of the article are "still advertorial sounding"? Please let me know so I can fix it. Cunard ( talk) 00:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

This reads like a prospectus:

In 2016, Invest.com started an online investment platform it called a "hedge fund for the masses" because whereas hedge funds typically require a massive initial investment, Invest.com required only £500. [1] Clients' investments are liquid in that they can be withdrawn whenever customers wanted. Invest.com's platform allows customers to invest in foreign currencies, futures, bonds, and stocks. It uses algorithmic trading. [1]
Customers have the option of either managing their own investments or using Invest.com's managing services. For self-management, the starting investment required is £500. For active management from Invest.com, the starting investment required is £1,500. [1] Invest.com uses a robo-advisor to pose a series of questions to customers to determine customers' risk level and execute trades robotically. [2] It makes investments through the financial instrument contract for difference. It charges clients a flat fee of 1.5% and an additional 20% on all profits earned. [3]

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Avital2016-05-26 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Invest.com Launches Hedge Fund for the People' With $20m in Backing". TheMarker. 2016-05-26. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.
  3. ^ Dakers, Marion (2016-05-23). "Invest.com rejoins the fight for online traders". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

This is the bulk of the article. I'm sure this information can be found on the company's website and an encyclopedia article is not required. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

This is a description of the company's investment product. This is its core business so that is why it is "the bulk of the article".

The notability guidelines do not say that "this information can be found on the company's website" means "an encyclopedia article is not required". An encyclopedia article is still useful because it presents the information neutrally and sources the information to independent reliable sources, whereas the company's website presents the information non-neutrally.

Cunard ( talk) 01:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I do not find the sources to be particularly independent or in-depth For example, the second link appears to be a reprint of the press release (?) as the same headline appears in multiple websites: "Invest.com Launches Hedge Fund for the People’ With $20m in Backing" (sample link:

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/tech-roundup/1.721513) When I click on one of them, the byline is "Market staff" (i.e. not bylined by an individual journalist). K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

TheMarker article doesn't appear to be a press release. It says " TheMarker staff" where TheMarker "is a financial website in Israel, as well as the financial supplement of the daily national newspaper Haaretz". But even if the non-bylined source is disregarded, the articles in Globes, he:Geektime, and The Daily Telegraph should be sufficient to establish notability. Cunard ( talk) 02:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:N is a guideline while WP:NOT is a policy. The article is still promotional in nature / TOOSOON and should be deleted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I am an editor with no conflict of interest with the subject. I rewrote the article. Please explain how "The article is still promotional in nature" so I can address Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations. Cunard ( talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The section "Online investment platform" still reads like a prospectus, creating an impression that the article exists solely to promote a business and to get people to enroll in the company's financial services. The history section contains information about funding and trivial details such as where the company is registered. All of this information can be found on the company's website, and an encyclopedia entry is not needed.
WP:N is a guideline, which states that some subjects may meet the notability requirements but would still not warrant an article. I believe this is such a case. In any case, the WP:COPRDEPTH may not have been met, so it would disqualify the article as well. Hope this clarifies my concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I appreciate your explaining your concerns about the article. I don't think see anything actionable for me to work on improving the article. Information about the company's product, history, and funding is what the sources discussed and what I expect in an article about a company.

WP:N is a guideline, which states that some subjects may meet the notability requirements but would still not warrant an article. I believe this is such a case. – thank you for stating that you agree Invest.com meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline even if you don't think there should be an article.

In any case, the WP:CORPDEPTH may not have been met, so it would disqualify the article as well. – the Israeli and UK sources from Globes, he:Geektime, and The Daily Telegraph meet WP:CORPDEPTH.

Cunard ( talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Clarification: I did not state that the company meets the notability guideline; I believe this assertion comes from editor Cunard, and not myself, and I was explaining that even if there's a belief that the notability guideline is met, an article may not be warranted. I've stated above that the reason for deletion is WP:TOOSOON and that I did not find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. WP:PROMO is part of WP:NOT and supersedes the notability discussion anyway. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
How does the article violate WP:PROMO? Which section of WP:PROMO are you referring to? Here is one section:

Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid.

I believe Invest.com is "written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery" after I rewrote it. Do you disagree?

Cunard ( talk) 20:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

At this point this is coming across as attempting to filibuster the AFD process - David Gerard ( talk) 21:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article meets CORPDEPTH and doesn't violate PROMO. There is coverage in multiple reliable sources. It has been rewritten by a neutral editor with no COI. -- Green C 13:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Firstly some of the sources have been misrepresented. There is a difference between the domain Invest.com and the company which currently has control of Invest.com. Sources for one cannot be used for another and this article is about the latter. Secondly, per WP:SPIP, many of the sources are questionable. Geektime is essentially a blog which contains user submitted content. Finance Magnates is similar, anyone can register and submit content and there seems to be a feature to submit news about one's company. The Daily Telegraph references is more about the domain name. References 1 and 2 are essentially routine coverage - the kind where companies send press releases to the newspaper's financial section and it is redressed and reprinted. These cannot be used for WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. In today's world, publishing news about a startup's investment/funding is no big deal. Almost every startup can "create" such news and if we go by such a literal interpretation of GNG, wikipedia will become a directory of companies. But that precisely goes against WP:NOTDIR. To prevent this, we try to find out whether the the company is featured prominently in mainstream media (and not techblogs). Most notable companies will usually be profiled in mainstream media and these article will not be "5 line mentions in a redressed press release". This particular entity is nowhere close to being notable at this point and I advocate a delete. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • This nails the problem with the referencing on this article - David Gerard ( talk) 14:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Mars Hill Academy (Lexington, KY)

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

Delete: non-notable, non-high school. Quis separabit? 02:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Quis separabit? 02:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Article was created because two schools with the same name were battling over who the original article would refer to. TimothyJosephWood 10:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as creator, after looking into it a bit more, which I should have done to begin with. TimothyJosephWood 12:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Basically no coverage in reliable secondary sources as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 12:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as certainly not convincing for schools notability, simply a Christian school. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Dan Smith (tattoo artist)

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

Alleged to be a CSD article, but I'm skeptical here so I'm opting for an afd instead. Chief complaint is an apparent lack of notability. Article has bounced around somewhat since it came to be on Wikipedia, so its a mess in the history and log sections, however the talk page alleges two prior deletions for reasons unrelated to the GNG, and I did not find any previous afd on the matter (although it was a quick look and not a through scan), so I'm confident that G4 doesn't apply here. TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:52, 10 September 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm Not Your Girl

I'm Not Your Girl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced musical article concerning one song with questionable notability. Was previously deleted under CSD criteria, then recreated in its current form. Listing for community input on article's fate. TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It says "The song peaked at #21 on the Hot Singles Sales," but I can't verify that on billboard.com - David Gerard ( talk) 08:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think it can be verified. Hot Singles Sales indicates that there are 15 chart positions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 17:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • It sure can, there would be an entry for the song and for the artist - the artist page doesn't list any chart entries at all - David Gerard ( talk) 18:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I'm saying that something can't chart at a position that doesn't exist on the chart (#21 of 15 positions). —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Billboard charts generally go to 50 (sometimes 100 or 200), but they won't necessarily show that on the week page. So #21 is likely possible, but verifying Billboard chart positions for at least the past few decades is super-easy, and this failed - David Gerard ( talk) 21:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete barring evidence of notability, and particularly verifiable evidence of that chart claim - David Gerard ( talk) 16:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Milenko Krstić

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

Speedy Delete: as non-notable. No charges filed against him (except lying on immigration papers, for which he was given probation by a judge), no deportation proceedings, nothing to establish notability aside from speculation. In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty. Neither the minor charge to which he admitted nor his daughter being a beauty pageant winner are remotely notable. He may have a green card by now, for all we know. Instead of this nonsense, why doesn't someone create an English language article for Mario Čerkez?? I know I sound a little angry but this is abusive IMHO and I am sorry I didn't catch it sooner. The user with the ludicrous username of Vanished user svoinsr8wiraekfiu3rhnsfvr4sb has not edited since January 2013 and has made no other articles or even edits regarding the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Probably a Portland local who picked up a story somewhere. Quis separabit? 04:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: does not appear notable to me. Equally, I have BLP concerns here. In the interests of privacy, I believe the article should be deleted. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- a WP:BLP1E situation (investigation into the subject's past). BLP concerns are also valid, and this is best deleted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per K.e.coffman: there's no need for an article on Mr Krstić who does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Nick-D ( talk) 10:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, trivia; and as stated above does not meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a newspaper with trivial stories of passing interest. Kierzek ( talk) 13:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article shouts "BLP violation" all over it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Kashmala Gul

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

As her news search with local name "کشمالہ گل" doesn't show anything satisfactory along with English name search. Right now this fails WP:NMUSIC Marvellous Spider -Man 03:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as my PROD was removed with no convincing statements or other attempts at commenting; I still confirm what I said as there's nothing actually convincing for (as mentioned with my PROD) substantial and independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable musician The Banner  talk 09:43, 14 September 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Joe Vito

Joe Vito (  | 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 WP:GNG. Locally notable at best. Many of these references are just calendar entries for various events. ubiquity ( talk) 02:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (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. MelanieN ( talk) 01:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

H. L. Willis

H. L. Willis (  | 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 mayor of a small city. Under 7,000 people at the time Willis held office. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Then also delete the other mayors of Pineville, Louisiana, who have the same notability problems, and the mayor template. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another article on a non-notable mayor of Pineville, Louisiana. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Smalltown mayor with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL, and none of the non-localized sourcing it would take to make him more notable than the norm for a smalltown mayor. It warrants mention, as well, that the creator has been banned from editing Wikipedia — although that's not a deletion rationale in and of itself if the article wasn't created by a confirmed sockpuppet after the original block, it doesn't exactly help the case for retention here either. (To be fair, a mayor's includability is not dependent on the population the city had at the time he was mayor — even New York City once had a population of below 7,000 too — but rather, if a city is large enough now to hand its mayors an NPOL pass, then any mayor the place has ever had can have an article, as long as it's properly sourced, regardless of how big the city was or wasn't in that person's era. But with a population of just 14K today, Pineville still isn't large enough.) Bearcat ( talk) 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Local official with five newspaper sources. Pre-Internet; left office in 1950s. Qualifies under local official with sourcing. The rules say nothing about the elected local official, whether mayor or another office, or the size of municipality. 64.134.51.41 ( talk) 16:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It appears to meet WP:GNG which doesn't specify that local papers cannot be used to denote Wikipedia notability. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
If local newspapers were enough to GNG a topic of purely local notability, we would have to keep articles about every small town fire chief in existence, every municipal councillor in existence, every single mother who ever opened a furniture store on Main Street, every teenager who ever got a human interest piece written about him in the local media because he tried out for his high school football team a year after losing two toes in a lawnmower accident, and on and so forth. So yes, if a person doesn't have an automatic pass of an SNG by virtue of the size of community that he's mayor of, then the media coverage most certainly does have to expand beyond the local before he gets a GNG pass. Bearcat ( talk) 23:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:GNG says: "significant coverage in reliable sources" as most mayors get. Lawnmower man gets mentioned once, but not in biographical detail. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The coverage that exists of "lawnmower man" is not one bit less "biographical" in nature than any source here is — just within the past year alone, I've seen at least four articles about four different high school athletes with a non-standard number of appendages — two different nine-toed football kickers, a one-armed basketball player and a quad-amputee wrestler — all of which most certainly were "biographical" enough to count as quality sourcing if the mere existence of media coverage conferred a WP:GNG pass regardless of whether its context passed an actual notability claim or not. You're inventing a personal distinction, not reflective of what the sources actually contain, just to justify treating this differently than a person whose sourceability-to-notability ratio is otherwise identical. Bearcat ( talk) 18:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply
It's necessary to be familiar with actual AFD practice and precedent. All mayors are not automatically accepted as notable just because mayor — a mayor's notability does depend on factors such as the size of the city and/or the depth and range of sourcing that can be provided to support it. Every mayor in existence, even the mayor of a village of less than 50 people, would always qualify for a Wikipedia article if the existence of purely local media coverage were enough to confer GNG on a small-town mayor, because local coverage of all mayors always exists. Accordingly, WP:POLOUTCOMES specifically states that mayors are only presumed to pass NPOL in "cities of regional prominence" (which is commonly defined by many as a population of at least 50K, though even then a mayor isn't on truly safe ground until 100K if their sourceability isn't still significantly stronger than the norm), and the sourcing does have to expand beyond the purely local before the existence of media coverage confers a GNG pass in and of itself. No, it's not impossible for a smalltown mayor to clear the bar as "more notable than the norm" for some substantive reason — but smalltown mayors don't automatically clear the bar just because they and their local media coverage exist. Bearcat ( talk) 18:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The amount of coverage appears to meet WP:GNG, even if most of it is from local papers. It's true that not every mayor of every town automatically merits an article, but I believe this one does. CrispyGlover ( talk) 20:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If local newspaper reports were accepted as conferring notability then both of my parents and both of my children (and possibly my wife and I, because we were once the subject of the main front-page article in a local newspaper serving a population of about 200,000) would be considered notable. I'm sure that any of those would find it totally ridiculous that they should have an encyclopedia article written about them, as they are simply normal people going about their normal lives that by circumstance get reported in the local press. A mayor of a city of 7,000 is similarly such a normal person. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." You have to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources" plural. Everybody gets one article in a local paper. It also has to be "significant coverage" in that you can write a biography using the information in that coverage. Most people you can write a few sentences about, and a some you can write a paragraph about. To sustain a Wikipedia article you need "significant coverage in reliable sources". You also have to have some sort of notability in the lede, surviving a house fire would be excluded by WP:notnews. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Concur with nom. Small town mayor without any claim to notability. The article is inflated with irrelevant info, like the name of the street his father died on and a lightening strike. Mayoral career is covered in one sentence; he was appointed to complete a term after a resignation. I imagine that someday there will be a Wikibio with entries for everyone and links to genealogy, but WP is not that. MB 16:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL. This is largely a WP:PSEUDO biography and possibly WP:MEMORIAL. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". 24.153.207.70 ( talk) 15:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment But where is the "significant coverage"? Refs 1 & 2 just confirm his parents' deaths. Ref 3 is about his non-notable job as a building superintendent. Ref 5 apparently is about a lightening strike - not him. All that is left is 4 & 6 from the The Alexandria Daily Town Talk which may or may not be the same article since neither contain working URLs. This is not "significant coverage". MB 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I concur with the observation of MB that the coverage is not significant. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as certainly not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN, and there's certainly by far no notability from being a "grounds superintendent". SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the added material does not yet bring the article up to Wikipedia's requirements. I will userfy the article if someone wants to continue trying to improve it. MelanieN ( talk) 02:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

AliView

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

Non-notable bioinformatics package, lack of secondary sources Amkilpatrick ( talk) 15:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I don't see the problem with keeping page, there has been about 18000 downloads of the software, ca 800 downloads each month, and the software is very popular in segments of bioinformatics. The secondary source is the article in the peer reviewed journal Bioinformatics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.198 ( talk) 08:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia's notability standards are not related to having a lot of downloads: see WP:BIGNUMBER. As for the source, it isn't a secondary source, as it was written by Anders Larsson, the author of the software. If you can find one or more independent sources, that will be very helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete academic spam. To meet GNG there must be a few independent sources with substantial discussion. These do not appear to exist. Jytdog ( talk) 18:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment To be fair, IP is right that this software is mentioned in several papers (eg. Journal of Clinical Microbiology). I didn´t dig too deep, but it seems to be mostly bare mention or brief description. Sufficient coverage for Wikipedia article? I tend to agree (these sources are independent and some of them reliable), but I will not cast my vote until further research. My advice to IPs supporting this article: browse through these "scientiffic articles" and use them in the AliView Wikipedia article to save its place here. Pavlor ( talk) 07:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as none of this is actually coming close to establishing substance, and not simply something either PR-like or trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a clarification and summary of my two comments above:
    I included the link to the the refering 73 research projects that used and cited the software in this delete-discussion as an indication that the software is "notable" for a large group of people working in bioinformatics. Only this last week, while we have been discussing this issue, the number of research projects that have used and cited the software has increased from 69 to 73! https://scholar.google.se/scholar?hl=sv&q=aliview&btnG=
    Regarding the "lack of secondary sources", I would just like clarify that the entry is non opinionated and although the referring article is written by the author of the program, the article is published in a well renowned journal and was reviewed by 3 independent expert referees.
    Signed by: Per (author of the article in question and also the "anonymous ip"-comments above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.188.54 ( talk) 14:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Remember not to vote multiple times. If these academic sources are good, why not take best 2 or 3 and use them in the article? That would certainly raise notability of this article. As of now, no subject independent reliable sources are used, which is fast way to delete. Pavlor ( talk) 14:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your suggestions, - the thing is that these articles are mainly mentioning they have used the software: "Alignments were manually edited and inspected in AliView", they are not reviews of Alignment software. Isn't the peer review process of an article the guarantee for being reliable although a primary source. Per — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.188.54 ( talk) 16:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Article you have in mind would be fine for Wikipedia article content, but not for notability. For this purpose you need source written by somebody other (= independent on subject of the article). Even brief mention could help - eg. if several really good papers (top journals of its field of study) mention use of this software, it may be sign of notability. As I wrote, find best 2-3 and add them to the article (eg. AliView was used to visualise research of ..."reference" and ..."reference" etc.). Pavlor ( talk) 18:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Good suggestion, I added some references. Per — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.239.132 ( talk) 08:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Well done! Now, edit some of your superfluous "keep" votes as one editor can use bolded keep only once during AfD. You may be accused of sockpuppetry otherwise (you admited these "keep" votes are yours, so I assume this is only good-faith misunderstanding of AfD rules). Pavlor ( talk) 09:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks! Pavlor ( talk) 12:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Added sources show extensive use of this application by experts in the field. Fine for me. Pavlor ( talk) 09:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No substance + no credible assertion of significance + no notability = No thanks. (also, I feel like I csd'd this article or something close to a few weeks back, however that could just be deja vu...) TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Considering the relative abundance of sources for software, I generally expect some solid reliable independent secondary sources. Over here the research paper is not an independent source. The other research papers simply mention that they use the tool, but nothing about the software itself. I see this situation as having a credible claim of significance but not enough for notability. I understand that this is a tool in a niche field, but I still expect some non-trivial independent secondary coverage. (Tools/apps exist for every small field but we can't include them all per WP:NOTDIR. Which is why I insist on some non-trivial independent secondary coverage. If a tool is really notable, it will not be a problem to find non-trivial coverage. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no significance at this time; maybe in the future, but that falls under "too soon". Kierzek ( talk) 13:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added a reference to the Google Scholar web page that show that the program has been used and cited in 75 research projects including highest ranking journals souch as PNAS, Nature communications and MBE. The program has been used by research groups spanning all continents:) Only since this discussion started another 6 articles have used and cited the software. I think this is indicating that it is not just "Any Tools/apps that exist for every small field":) Per — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.53.61 ( talk) 15:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (NB: I am the nominator) I appreciate the additions made since this AfD request; however IMO the same concerns still remain. Is there some claim of notability besides the number of citations, eg some detailed reasoning (ie meeting WP:SIGCOV) of why it was chosen in the cited studies over any of the other many alignment visualizers listed in Wikipedia? Bioinformatics software packages in general seem to have the issue Lemongirl942 brings up: its existence alone doesn't merit a WP article. I'd like to see a large overhaul of the coverage of bioinformatics software on WP, for example cutting the aforementioned list to only bluelinked packages (which should also be able to demonstrate their own notability), but this is perhaps getting away from the current topic... Amkilpatrick ( talk) 01:05, 18 September 2016 (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. NPASR ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Marline Barberena

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

Barberena is totally not notable. She was Miss Nicaragua, but this is not enough of a notable listing to make someone notable and nothing else about her comes even close to making her notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: as this is a national winner of a pageant that feeds into Miss Universe. The consensus is still developing, but while a lot of the smaller international pageants may not have national winners being notable, this is the biggest game out there. Montanabw (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Nicaragua as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America 1000 14:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 talk 02:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: Come on people. She is not "independently" notable and everyone on this page knows this or will directly. She won one title and that is why we have policy about this. It is not just about the fact that there are "sources". The only way we can justify keeping a one time national winner of one event is to ignore all the rules. The purpose of that "rule" is so there are not undue restrictions, that hamper improvements to Wikipedia, and not to allow articles that will very likely forever be a stub biography article, about a person that won one title. This does not improve Wikipedia. Note: If we do consider "source" There are three references listed. #1)- Please look at first one used in the article. I used a translator but the title appears to be Miss Nicaragua statement and concerns "Miss Nastassja Bolivar" and mentions "Mrs. Olga Isabel Cifuentes" and "Miss Nicaragua 2014", with nothing I could find about the subject. #2)- The second reference is a primary source of "Beauty Pageant News", and #3)- The third is a Spanish Wikipedia entry that is not a reference. This means there is one primary source related to the one event. This discussion is not a vote count but closure is to be based on the merits of the discussion, reasoning, and WP:Policies and guidelines. In light of this evidence this is clearly a redirect unless someone can offer more substantial reasoning. Otr500 ( talk) 13:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Association of Vineyard Churches. ...per the comments over the last two re-listings. Anyone who wishes to merge may take the redirected page's contents from its history, which has been preserved. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Vineyard Bible Institute

Vineyard Bible 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)

No evidence of or claim of notability as an organisation; no RSes. The book references are general Biblical scholarship. Mostly promotional. Was part of a cluster of related promotional articles, mostly created by apparent SPAs (the original creator has "vbi" in his name). David Gerard ( talk) 07:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - massive cleanup is required, of course, but they do offer accredited degrees. St Anselm ( talk) 11:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Association of Vineyard Churches is a significant "new church" movement. This looks like its training programme. Even if it is a programme of distance learning, it is certainly notable, whether or not their qualifications are formally accredited. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Any claims to notability must be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources, which has not been demonstrated. — swpb T 13:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. in StAnselm is willing to rewrite it. A sufficiently substantial education institution. Apparently they do now offer degrees, but it's hard to be sure, as a good deal of their website seems out of date--and this article is too vague yto tell what is claimed. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • A knowledgeable rewrite would be excellent stuff - at present, if it were culled to an RS-supported stub, there wouldn't be much left ... - David Gerard ( talk) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and rRedirect to Association of Vineyard Churches. If kept, needs massive cleanup. Way too self-promotional. Montanabw (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 02:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 talk 02:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Frank Cook (industrial designer)

Frank Cook (industrial designer) (  | 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 haven't been able to find evidence of notability. The first source is an obituary, the second and third sources don't mention him. I didn't check the External Links. Marvellous Spider -Man 06:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because it doesn't have good sources. I didn't find any sources from Google search so, I don't think it meets notability standards of Wikipedia. Fuortu ( talk) 11:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 talk 02:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find anything that would satisfy GNG and BIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing found anywhere. The basically unreferenced. Except for an obituary merely announcing his death, the other references do not mention him. This seems to be more of a WP:Memorial. MB 19:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- appears to be a WP:MEMORIAL and as lacking RS. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - agree that WP:MEMORIAL applies. If there was RS citing which could be found, then could be mentioned in the RCA article, but otherwise not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek ( talk) 18:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • SNOW Delete as this is clearly not planned to be an actual substantial encyclopedia article; none of it actually suggests any actual independent notability, despite its flows of paragraphed information. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 05:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Vikky Varun

Vikky Varun (  | 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 two most reliable sources don't have any mention of him. I checked Indian Express and Hindu newspapers source where he is not mentioned. This page has some fake reference. The IMDB link is about a movie. He is definitely not notable. Marvellous Spider -Man 06:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Given how prevalent film stars are found in Indian media, and given the points above (lack of detailed coverage, etc), I'm not finding any convincing evidence that Vicky is any more than a MILL actor. Primefac ( talk) 21:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 talk 02:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Twenty One Pilots discography. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Twenty One Pilots (Twenty One Pilots album)

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

non-notable recording. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 talk 02:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 02:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Twenty One Pilots discography – I dug and dug but it seems unfortunately that reliable sources have largely ignored Twenty One Pilots initial endeavors, with much of the coverage focusing on their recent breakout success. Perhaps in the future, critics will return to the beginnings and offer reviews, but at the moment, there just isn't enough to support a standalone article per WP:NMUSIC. The discography page already contains information about the song's charting history. Mz7 ( talk) 16:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
One of the things I find interesting is that this album charted at position 141 on the Billboard 200, which in itself appears to satisfy point 2 of WP:NALBUM. However, upon closer examination of the notability guideline, it states: All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: ... 2. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. (emphasis mine). In other words, appearing on a chart may indicate notability, but if an in-depth examination yields little to no reliable source in-depth coverage on the topic, then it does not satisfy the basic criteria for notability. Mz7 ( talk) 19:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article — It's an album, it's notable enough to have its own article, there are reliable sources, I do not see why it should be removed? ( EthanRossie2000) ( talk)
@ EthanRossie2000: I want to keep the article too, but I can't find any reliable sources that provide an in-depth review of the subject. Could you provide links to some of them? Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 19:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ EthanRossie2000:. Please provide a few reliable sources, either online or in print, that provide significant coverage, like a review or analysis of the themes, that are not associated with the band or the record label. That would help to prove it's notable rather than simply claim that it's notable. For example, The Dave Clark Five, one of the first bands of the British Invasion released many albums, and only a few are notable. There are other bands who are notable and have released notable albums where some albums are not notable. This is not an indictment of the band, only an attempt to determine if this recording is recognized by experts in the field as being worthy of mention. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect for now. Viable search term, with potential to become notable in the future. (Bands that become huge often re-release their older stuff to their newfound fanbase to greater success. Like Bleach (Nirvana album) for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 16 September 2016 (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. Apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

A Witch Hunt in Faridabad

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

Fails to meet the notability standards for a movie.

No references from third party independent sources. Marvellous Spider -Man 01:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. On an unrelated note, you may want to tag the article's talk page with some project templates so that our automated trackers notify the projects that this article is up for deletion. Occasionally it can help bring in an extra editor or two to wiegh in on the afd. TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's little to nothing out there about this film, likely due to the fact that the film is unwatchable unless you're privately invited to watch said movie. It looks like it was a marketing campaign idea that backfired, as the extremely limited and secretive campaign only resulted in few to no outlets covering the movie. It's possible that coverage might exist in another language, but I'm kind of doubting it. This looks like it's a non-notable limited release film. I wish the film crew well, but this movie just isn't notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 13 September 2016 (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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Nsk92 ( talk) 21:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Richard Grant Hiskey

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

Article is essentially all WP:OR. Tried looking for additional sources to back up anything at all. Couldn't find any. Tried looking for additional sources to prove WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Couldn't find any. Doesn't look like this article meets our criteria for inclusion. Majora ( talk) 01:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I know when I made a mistake. Therefore, we can cut to the chase and I withdraw this AfD. Someone can close it whenever they see this. Thanks. -- Majora ( talk) 21:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above comment was moved from the talk page
Anyone can join the AAAS. That isn't a "highly selective scholarly society" and doesn't count towards proving they meet NACADEMIC. -- Majora ( talk) 01:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Anyone can join the AAAS, but that link shows that Hiskey was elected a fellow, something completely different from just being a member. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 10:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Good luck to you on your quest - thank you for your service.... Dr. Gary L. Goodman 02:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdguru ( talk • contribs)
My final note - for WP:NACADEMIC, it reads, "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." Dr. Hiskey was Alumni Distinguished Professor Emeritus but earned the distinguished professor in 1982 at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (a major institution of higher education and among the highest ranking chemistry departments in the country). So, he does meet the guidelines for inclusion ( UNC Yearbook). Thank you. Cheers. Phdguru ( talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on holding a distinguished professorship ( WP:PROF#C5, he also has a distinguished professorship at UNC named after him [9]), and fellowship of the AAAS (#C3) [10]. I think the paucity of (online) sources is a reflection of the fact he retired twenty years ago, which is a shame and probably means we will have to cut down the article a lot, but this is exactly why we have a SNG for academics – there should still be some mention of his obviously notable work. Joe Roe ( talk) 14:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep considering WP:PROF, which alone is enough as not only is it exact for the subject, but it's convincing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes several criteria of WP:PROF, as a Distinguished Professor at UNC, and also as an elected Fellow of AAAS. I have added several references to the article (for being a a Fellow of AAAS, a Guggenheim Fellow, and an award from the American Peptide Society). I also removed an enormously long publication section. The articles still needs work, but it is a clear keep. Nsk92 ( talk) 04:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WP:SNOW keep per clear passes of multiple WP:PROF criteria. The article still needs more cleanup but AfD is not the right mechanism for that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WP:SNOW keep. AAAS Fellow et al – TROUT for nom ;-) Agricola44 ( talk) 15:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC). reply
  • I know when I made a mistake. Therefore, we can cut to the chase and I withdraw this AfD. Someone can close it whenever they see this. Thanks. -- Majora ( talk) 21:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 05:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

YAWAY

YAWAY (  | 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 article fails to meet the standards of WP:NMUSIC.

A simple search result doesn't show anything. Marvellous Spider -Man 01:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't find anything at all at a glance. There might be paper sources, but we'd need them in the article - David Gerard ( talk) 08:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I can't find anything either to establish notability so it fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. There might be german language sources or paper source we're missing. Ayub407 talk 07:37, 17 September 2016 (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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

ROTU World

ROTU World (  | 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 can't find any evidence of notability. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no indications of notability no significant RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as noted there is nothing showing significant independent coverage; not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek ( talk) 03:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Ayub407 talk 07:32, 17 September 2016 (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. I leave it to Axiloxos do to the necessary renaming DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The Woodsman (soundtrack)

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

Non-notable soundtrack. The 2 sources added while this article was deprodded do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, rename, refocus. The play itself has received considerable acclaim and an Obie Award and is surely notable. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. This Wikipedia article started on the wrong foot, both in its focus and wording, but a substantial portion of the information now contained in the article (including the track listing) could be readily repurposed for an article about the play. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. An album consisting of the music from a stage play should be described as a "cast recording", not a "soundtrack". See Cast recording#Terms. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep given the reviews which at least establish substance, but this will seriously need to be refocused as the play's own article, not the soundtrack. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 18 September 2016 (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. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

U.P. Centennial Year

U.P. Centennial Year (  | 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 was a university event that I am sure was notable within the University system but appears not to have been notable outside of it. References given consist strictly of primary sources. Article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. I considered a redirect but could not find a basis on which to justify it. KDS4444 ( talk) 22:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:55, 10 September 2016 (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 Efficient XML Interchange or Efficient XML Interchange Working Group -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

EXI4JSON (EXI for JSON)

EXI4JSON (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My google search results indcate no coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 21:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

"EXI4JSON" is an abbreviation very recently introduced, therefore, online search regarding this topic also needs to use its full name "EXI for JSON". -- Nadotesumerogi ( talk) 16:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Borderline, certainly every combination of initials for every project does not require its own article. I would suggest merge into Efficient XML Interchange Working Group. That one is also scant at the moment too, but it looks like there have even been academic articles written on the more general idea. Either one on its own is clearly below the threshold for independent notability. Efficient XML Interchange might also be a place for it to go? This name seems a bit imprecise now, since JSON might be more popular than XML? I am not an expert in this are. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and then merge as needed as there's certainly still nothing actually suggesting substance and depth for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

University of the Philippines National Writers Workshop

University of the Philippines National Writers Workshop (  | 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 university writing workshop that does not rise to the level of notability required for a standalone article. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for further explanation. KDS4444 ( talk) 20:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:PROMO. With most of the article consisting of the section on how to apply, this article exists only to promote the subject. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Seems to be a WP:PROMO article. Ayub407 talk 07:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Daniel Weber (musician)

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

Notability is dubious, previously deleted by prod, if it doesn't merit an article it probably does merit a redirect to the article on his wife Ϣere SpielChequers 19:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, possibly redirect and salt the redirect - btw, this was recreated by the creator of the first PRODed version - David Gerard ( talk) 07:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and this should've been deleted as such sooner, examining this has found nothing at all actually close (despite the at-first seemingly substance) for actually establishing independent notability and, along with it, sufficient improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that the topic is not notable at this time. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Listings of india

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

Plenty of press releases, but I'm not sure if that's enough for notability. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Hi,Yes I agree, there are to or three press releases, but that's not amount to the notability of the organization. I was doing a research on the scope of Multiple listing service in Inida. It works on Internet Data Exchange technology. In India, its new to Real estate business, but having a huge business scope. In India, so far, there Listings of india is the only Multiple listing services company to establish centralized Real Estate property database. I am a regular contributor to Wiipedia, thought that this article would make Wikipedia more stronger. There are some references that I managed to gather from Intellectual Property of India, attached in the page as well. If we improve some of the contents to keep this article, would be great. I am pretty sure, this article would be very much helpful to many people of concern in India. ( Dhananjay Singh ( talk) 01:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it stands, no RSes actually about the company - David Gerard ( talk) 11:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Space Angels Network

Space Angels Network (  | 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 only seeing trivial or PR-like mentions: reports by the organisation; event participation; etc. Article has been extensively edited by an editor Special:Contributions/Chadcanderson who appears to be Chad C. Anderson, managing director of the org, whose article was subject to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Anderson (entrepreneur) and was closed as redirect to this article. I'm not convinced that the group is notable itself.

Note: I've significantly pruned the article recently of self-cited and / or promotional material; here's the version before I edited the article: July 2016 link. Sourcing is still questionable; for example, the The Tauri Group Report is a self-published source. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning delete, WP:TOOSOON. I tracked down the mystery-meat analyst report ( PDF) that's the main reference, it's not impressing me as a source for this article, apart from being a promotional work to sell the analyst's services; even though likely factually accurate, all mentions of Space Angels are passing. SpaceNews and BBC are RSes, but the things sourced to them are actually in quoted words from Chad Anderson. Too much sourcing to CrunchBase, a directory. The Forbes cite is to an actual staff piece and is good. Some of the refs are good. They might pass WP:CORP in not too long, but if this article is kept it'll need serious RS culling. (And this is after it already got one RS cull - that previous version is terrible) - David Gerard ( talk) 12:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A lot a lot of mentions in RS but many of these are either trivial/tangential or quotes by a company member [20], [21], [22]. I found one coverage which was significant but that too was an interview of Chad Anderson and doesn't qualify as an independent source. This company has some credible claims of significance but as of now I would say it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Nikhil Gowda

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

Non-notable actor with not even one released film to his name. Delete as per WP:NACTOR, WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Tomwsulcer: But the subject does not pass WP:NARTIST. The subject is essentially known for acting in 1 movie (not yet released). All the references are in the context of the movie and is essentially WP:BLP1E. There is nothing which suggests that the subject is notable independent of the single movie. This is too soon to have a Wikipedia article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. @ Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:, wondering how you might explain over 1500 pageviews in one day? Yes, I know, pageviews are not an official count, but still, you're deleting something that 1,500 sets of eyeballs want to read. This is an in-depth source. Ditto this. There are many more sources. So, it's all about one movie, you say, so that makes it a BLP1E? Sure is a big movie, but Gowda has been in other roles.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC) And, as guidelines go, the general notability guideline overrides any specific guideline such as NARTIST.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Tomwsulcer: You can't decide the article's notability just on number of the views right? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Of course -- but you can think of it this way -- those 1500 people are like customers who want a product, and each customer could potentially re-float the article if it gets deleted -- so trying to delete this article is like trying to swim upstream against a raging flood. But forget the pageviews -- the sources are clearly there.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:52, 10 September 2016 (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. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 14:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Bio Fusion

Bio Fusion (  | 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:GNG and WP:NGAME. I could not find any sort of coverage of it besides the lostmedia.wikia.com reference, which is not reliable. The Acclaim.com reference does not show where Bio Fusion was mentioned. (Acclaim.com appears to have changed ownership several times, and there's approx. 781 versions of the home page saved in the Wayback Machine.)

If this unreleased game was recently discovered, it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article. Perhaps it should be userfied? Sunmist ( talk) 14:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sunmist ( talk) 14:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Kudo system

Kudo system (  | 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 article is simply a list of taxa in a classification scheme used by RR Kudo in one edition of his Protozoology text (the 4th ed. of 1954, which happens to be widely available on the internet). There's no way to expand this list into a proper article, because Kudo's classification was not particularly unusual in its time, and has not been widely discussed as a system. While Kudo was an important and well-regarded protozoologist, there is nothing particularly notable about the taxonomy he used to organize the contents of his book. The title of the article suggests that this scheme was known as "the Kudo System". However, I'm unaware of any published source that uses that phrase (searches in Google Scholar and Google Books turn up nothing relevant). In any case, the proper place for an obsolete taxonomic system is WikiSpecies. Deuterostome (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nom states the case well. Admittedly "superseded taxnomic classification system" is a somewhat arcane branch of knowledge, and I don't believe we have specific guidelines re inclusion... but unless such a system has had a substantial impact and coverage during its time of relevance, I don't see a good reason for having an article on it.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 12:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:49, 10 September 2016 (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. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 14:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Mir owais ahmed

Mir owais ahmed (  | 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 appear to satisfy biographical notability or general notability, and there is no indication that the games satisfy gaming notability. The references appear to consist of interviews, which are primary only. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:47, 10 September 2016 (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 List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Deep Sashelas

Deep Sashelas (  | 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 character fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 23:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:45, 10 September 2016 (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 List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Erevan Ilesere

Erevan Ilesere (  | 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 article's notability is not established. TTN ( talk) 23:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_September_10&oldid=1142620637"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE