< 11 June	13 June >

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. Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Tandon[edit]

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

The subject has not attracted sufficient independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. I suggest we redirect to FreeCharge. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I requested this article be undeleted through the undeletion request form. It was reviewed and approved. This article is primarily about Sandeep Tandon, not Freecharge. He has multiple instances of press coverage about his contributions as an angel investor in the start-up industry. An additional notice has been placed on the article indicating a contributor has a COI, which I disclosed on my user page and Sandeep Tandon's page. USCalum91 (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much in terms of independent sources or significant enough coverage to merit a WP:GNG pass. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Wikipedia is not Linkedin. My opinion is that as a leading Indian venture capitalist involved in multiple projects, high profile deals, and interviews with news companies regarding the state of Indian economics, Sandeep Tandon should have an article denoting his contributions to Indian venture capitalism. A couple of other sources not in the original article, but should probably be added are https://inc42.com/buzz/used-car-marketplace-spinny-raises-funding/ (showing Spinny another startup), https://www.inventiva.co.in/2019/06/13/list-of-most-active-angel-investors-in-india-every-startup-should-know/ and https://www.cnbc.com/video/2015/10/01/is-india-ready-for-a-tech-revolution.html. I do have a COI, so I'm not directly making these additions myself. USCalum91 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. This isn't the place for resumes per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Odd one this. I can confirm that in 2015 his firm was one of the largest Indian internet buyouts in history (see Sequoia Capital, one of the most respected VC firms in the world, talking with him here as part of their buyout by a Sequoia company). However, other RS is thin; I would have expected such a transaction to have more RS?. Britishfinance (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2019 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malaria and the Caribbean[edit]

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

Unsourced personal essay on the topic. This is likely a notable topic, but there's nothing here that would be salvaged to build an article on the topic. I think a clean start per WP:TNT may be best. Ajpolino (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic but needs references such as McNeill, J. R. (2010-01-11). Mosquito Empires: Ecology and War in the Greater Caribbean, 1620–1914. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139484503. and "CARPHA urges region to deal seriously to eradicate mosquitoes". Jamaica Observer. May 14, 2019. Retrieved 2019-06-12. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IMPERFECT. WP:STUBIFY if necessary as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of the previous two comments. By the way, Ajpolino, I'm not sure why you wanted to delete (rather than improve) an article given that you agree that the topic is notable. Alarichall (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,I agree the topic is notable, needs some more sources. Alex-h (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic but needs some references and sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think we have a consensus that the topic is notable, but needs work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim C. O'Brien[edit]

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

Created by subject's employer (see SPI and COIN report).
Doesn't seem to pass WP:GOOG. Results yield corporate bio from employers and connected institutions, routine coverage, a brief mention in a book footnote...
Written as an autobiography/resume. MarioGom (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, I din't find anything that makes him notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to me like this AfD needs more discussion. On the one hand, he's notable for being the first Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs of the United States, and he received a lot of coverage for it. ^[1]^[2]^[3] The Trump administration seems to have also appointed a Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs, also named O'Brien, which reinforces that notability claim because his nomination seems to have created a WP:LASTING effect. On the other hand, WP:BLP1E could apply here: I cannot find any other WP:RS that aren't passing mentions or O'Brien being the primary source. Would be interesting to dig into hostage books and see if he gets decent coverage, but it might be WP:TOOSOON. Pilaz (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "US appoints 'first hostage envoy'". 28 August 2015.
^ Cole, Kevin. "Omahan picked by President Obama to coordinate return of U.S. hostages". Omaha.com.
^ "Obama to name James O'Brien hostage affairs envoy". Reuters. 28 August 2015.

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's consensus that this does not belong in main space. Anybody who's interested in working on it can request a move to draft space at WP:UND. Sandstein 08:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Individual behaviour in organisations[edit]

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

Original research, largely unsourced. The glowing paragraph on the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, (which is pseudoscience) shows that this article is unapologetic opinion, not a summary of what independent, reliable sources have to say about the subject. Vexations (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t understand why this article still has an AfC tag on it. Has it passed AfC or has the creator sidestepped the AfC process? It’s really not suitable for Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mccapra, The creator moved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=move&user=&page=Draft%3AIndividual_behaviour_in_organisations&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= Vexations (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An actual subject is meso organizational behaviour, a subfield of organizational behaviour. Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In the usual micro/meso/macro terminology, individual behaviour is the micro level. Meso is an intermediate level such as the study of interactions between different layers of a hierarchy. See Micro, Macro, and Meso Theories. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You aren't reading what I wrote, which states what an actual subject is. You aren't reading the original author's user page, which is quite important to read here, not least when it comes to the topic of actual subjects that are missing. And perhaps more importantly you aren't reading Smith, Schneider & Dickson 2005. ☺ Such a definite assertion of what meso is, based upon a single source, founders quite badly. Better people than us have done the research, and concluded that quite a lot of these single sources disagree with one another even as regards the basic idea. Ironically this demonstrates it to be an actual subject, studied by people, and with analyses of the literature in the field.
    Our review of the literature had led us to anticipate there to be no clear consensus regarding the definition of 'meso' or those characteristics that delineate meso research, and our informal survey did not disappoint us.
    ^{— Smith, D. Brent; Schneider, Benjamin; Dickson, Marcus W. (2005). "Meso‐organizational behavior: Comments on a third paradigm". In Clegg, Stewart R.; Hardy, Cynthia; Lawrence, Thomas B.; Nord, Walter R. (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of organizational studies. SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781848608030.n5. ISBN 9781446206898.}
    Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's claim that this is original research seems quite false. The level of citation seems quite reasonable and there are plenty more sources out there such as entire books on the subject – see The Psychology of Behaviour at Work: The Individual in the Organization, for example, which naturally includes sections on personality and psychometric testing. Relevant policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, I said largely unsourced. To be a bit more accurate, over 75% of the article has no sources. But even claims that do have sources, such as "Each of the sixteen different personality types either have a positive or negative affect for patterns of behaviour amongst individuals" Samson (2018) are still hopelessly wrong. That isn't remotely what Samson said, who summarizes it himself as "The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment measures a person's preference for introversion versus extroversion, sensation versus intuition, thinking versus feeling and judging versus perceiving". That is quite a bit more accurate, but unfortunately still doesn't point out that the MBTI is pseudoscientific nonsense. For me to call it OR was perhaps a mistake. As for the topic, the micro-level of organizational behavior is a notable topic. If you think the article can be fixed, please show how. The only option I see is a complete rewrite. I have considered merging with Organizational behavior, but I see nothing in this article that could improve the target of the merge. If you do, please identify what can be retained. Vexations (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Return to draft space This article is going to need a lot of work. The second sentence said "can lead to developing can lead to developing". [1] Some basic proofreading would be nice. The way the article is written though needs to be redone. Dream Focus 04:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, The creator, User:Maize en tars hasn't edited since 7 June 2019 [2]. They say they're a student in OLES2129, which appears to be this study unit. It's listed as facilitated by User: Fransplace on the outreach dashboard Fransplace can you suggest a way forward? thanks, Vexations (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very much a synthesized class essay, not an encyclopedia article on an established cohesive topic. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space: per Dream Focus, the article needs work, not deletion. After the article is sourced we can determine of it is original research. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space please Vexations. Our course has finished though we are encouraging students to continue to work on improving pages and, in particular those they're watching and have contributed to. Fransplace 03:08, 20 June 2019 (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Drive Faster[edit]

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

Only references to their own material. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep: the trajectory of this band seems to have mirrored that of the band they evolved from, Polytechnic – interest from the music press and alternative radio stations, supported bigger name acts on tour, released one album, then split up... at least, I assume they split up before making a second album, because their website and their record company's website are both dead, and the band's social media goes cold in 2013. It's true I can't find much in-depth coverage of the band itself online. But their sole album was reviewed by a variety of reputable UK music publications, as shown at AnyDecentMusic [3] (the MusicOMH review link is dead, but easily retrievable using the Wayback Machine). Wide coverage of this album doesn't surprise me, given that Polytechnic had attracted a fair amount of interest from radio and record labels, and there would be interest in the music coming from this new group. And given that the album was reviewed in so many publications, I think it's likely that there would be at least brief print coverage of the band itself in NME and Q from the time. Richard3120 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as their albums have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources as per WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 12 June 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eatigo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional content already removed Kleuske (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So far I don't see why the coverage in the multiple cited sources would fail to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Paul 012, it isn't about quantity of sources, it is about quality. You say that there are sources that satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH but those same sources *also* must satisfy (for example) WP:ORGIND. None of the ones in the article meet both! HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on announcements and/or interviews or are churnalism and fail WP:ORGIND. Others are run-of-the-mill listings and fails CORPDEPTH. Others again are from connected sources and are not independent, failing WP:ORGIND. Article is also written like an advertisement and/or vanity piece failing WP:SPIP. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HKing. ∯WBG^converse 14:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, WP:NOTADVERTISING. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:15, 19 June 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gordy Bunch[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and the sources used do not go beyond the routine coverage that local politicians receive and therefore does not pass WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and fails NPOL. Per nominator GPL93 Lubbad85 (☎) 18:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:POLOUTCOMES, The Woodlands, Texas has a population exceeding 100,000 residents, this is regional prominence. Also passes WP:NPOL and WP:GNG he has received coverage from national news sources such as Fox News, he has also been a candidate for Texas State Senate, and is founder and CEO of a The Woodlands Financial Group (TWFG) and President of Professional Insurance Agents of Texas. TWFG Insurance is ranked #1 in Texas and Louisiana and 8th largest privately-owned independent insurance provider in the United States. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and The Woodlands, Texas should be looked at as something close to a city... It defies explanation for an international audience to be honest. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After further searching it seems that the subject passes WP:GNG on their extremely successful business career alone, therefore whether or not they satisfy WP:NPOL is irrelevant. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. The Woodlands, Texas is currently an unincorporated special purpose district in Texas and the chair of the township is elected by the other members of the board. While the Fox News article provides some nationalized coverage of the subject, the level of nationalized coverage is not what we typically desire for a local board member. --Enos733 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for local political figures is not a question of the municipality's population — it depends on the quality of the sourcing, and a population of 100K is not an instant notability freebie for a mayor or municipal councillor or board chair in the absence of adequate sourcing. People also do not get Wikipedia articles for running as candidates for higher NPOL-passing offices — for "Texas State Senate" to have any bearing whatsoever on his notability, he would have to have won that election and thereby sat in the State Senate as a Senator, not just run and lose. But the references here are not building a strong case for his notability: they are nearly all primary sources and small community hyperlocals in which coverage of the local political scene is merely expected to exist, and the only one that's a genuinely national source just briefly mentions his existence in the context of being fundamentally about something other than him. This is not how you make people at this level of political office notable enough for Wikipedia articles: the notability test is not "as soon as his name has been mentioned in a national media source once" — he has to be the subject of substantive coverage, not just get namechecked in coverage of other things, before a source assists in building his notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bearcat. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Just a local politician. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2019 (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. On second thought, the nomination makes so little sense that a consensus to delete is unlikely to emerge. Sandstein 19:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Computer Studies (Maubin)[edit]

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

doesn't have enough media attention or doesn't qualify to be a page clickheretogototheuserpageofAggarwala2727 (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cant read Burmese sources but this is a recognised university in Burma so automatically notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Fully accredited (goverment) degree awarding institution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swop[edit]

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

A dance style also apparently known as "hip-hop lindy" or "lindy hip-hop". A websearch come up with mentions here and there (mostly on social media and video sharing websites), but I'm having trouble locating any sources apart from this 2010 article about the creation of the "brand new dance genre" of swop. That's not enough for a standalone article, and that's not enough to warrant adding a mention to either Swing music or Lindy hop (the swing style that apparently influenced this modern development). Swing Hip Hop looks like a potentially valid more general article, but that got deleted ten years ago. – Uanfala (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 3 sentence article, the first two sentences of which are covered in the one at hand (except that the deleted article spelled it "swap"). The third sentence was another couple-XY-danced-it-on-a-dance-competition-tv-show claim. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Context-aware network[edit]

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

I see some evidence that "Context-aware network" is a real concept:

Danny Raz; Arto Tapani Juhola; Joan Serrat-Fernandez (1 May 2006). Fast and Efficient Context-Aware Services. John Wiley & Sons. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-470-02868-1. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Thomas Magedanz; Ahmed Karmouch; Samuel Pierre (16 November 2005). Mobility Aware Technologies and Applications: Second International Workshop, MATA 2005, Montreal, Canada, October 17 -- 19, 2005, Proceedings. Springer. p. 149. ISBN 978-3-540-32031-9. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Klaus David (2006). Context Awareness for Proactive Systems. kassel university press GmbH. p. 77. ISBN 978-3-89958-210-9.
Jadwiga Indulska; Laurence T. Yang; Jiannong Cao (29 June 2007). Ubiquitous Intelligence and Computing: 4th International Conference, UIC 2007, Hong Kong, China, July 11-13, 2007, Proceedings. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 610. ISBN 978-3-540-73548-9. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

However I have no confidence that this article accurately describes the concept of "context-aware network" that the above sources discuss. It seems to be a lot of unreferenced assertions and original research.

It does cite one published book (the first cite above), but it doesn't clearly identify which page(s) in the book supports which of its assertions. Although the book does briefly discuss an "Ad Hoc Context Aware Network" at one point (p.22), what it has to say about the topic appears to have only limited connection with what this article talks about.

Also found Christian Makaya; Samuel Pierre (5 April 2012). Emerging Wireless Networks: Concepts, Techniques and Applications. CRC Press. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-4665-1619-9. which appears to plagarise/copyvio this Wikipedia article (given most of the article text was written in 2005, and that book was published in 2012, I presume the plagarism/copyvio is from Wikipedia to CRC Press and not the other way around).

While this topic itself might be notable enough for an article (if someone was sufficiently motivated to write one), the currently existing article is basically unsalvageable, and so deletion is the best option. WP:TNT. SJK (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it was not meant to support anything in the article. It was meant to be further reading, on the (different) subject of context-aware services moreover. The insertion of a section heading in the middle of the sentence was done by another editor, 7 years later. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson, Andy Dingley, Charles Matthews, Ericwg, Hydromania, Kvng, Msnicki, and Rorshacma: I think the previous AFD Intelligent computer network (on which you all commented) is related to this one, since they are on a similar topic, if I remember right (I can't actually confirm this any more since as a non-admin I no longer have access to the revision history of the deleted article) both were created by a similar IP at around the same time, and have similarities in language, and also this article was actually proposed at one point as a possible merge target in the discussion on that article. Since you all commented on that previous AFD but haven't commented here yet, I thought I'd draw this to your attention to this one in case you wish to comment here as well. Thanks SJK (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:TNT. This is an excellent topic for an article, should anyone wish to write one. Unfortunately we don't have one as yet, and this article (pretty much unchanged since the first draft in 2005) is so lacking that I see it more as a barrier to a decent article than a useful starting point or framework. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a valid reason to delete. The actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which states
Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

The current draft is in no way an obstacle to improvement. If the nominator or anyone else thinks that they can do better, they can overwrite any or all of the current text per WP:REWRITE. The deletion function is neither required nor helpful. If we were to delete the article instead, this would tend to disrupt development of the topic in several ways. Firstly, there would be no existing text to attract readers. Secondly, anyone trying to recreate the topic would find that it had been previously deleted and this would explicitly deter recreation. Thirdly, article creation now has to jump several hurdles due to non-wiki bureaucracy which now makes it quite difficult for casual readers to start new topics. So, it is much easier for people to revise an existing page than to create a new one. Fourthly, by maintaining an edit history, rather than deleting it, we are all able to inspect the history of the topic and so, in the event of dispute, able to ascertain what exactly has been attempted over time. This encourages experimentation and boldness, because we are able to revert to a prior version, if something doesn't work out. See also WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP.

Andrew D. (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existing text is a nett negative to the project. In no way does it "attract readers". It might confuse some, and it reflects badly on WP in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Andy Dingley. The actual topic title may be notable, but all indications seem to point towards the fact that this article does not, in any way, correctly or accurately describe what the actual concept is. There is a big difference between an article that is imperfect, and one that is comprised entirely of WP:Original Research. WP:TNT may not be official policy, but the idea that incorrect, borderline incoherent, articles are better than nothing is ludicrous. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks ANY reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required WP:GNG. I agree with nom that the term does appear in scholarly articles but that it's unclear that what this article describes is consistent with what is described in those scholarly sources. Imho, this entire article appears to be impermissible WP:OR. Msnicki (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current text is not referenced or focused enough to be of value to readers or for other editors to build from. We could WP:STUBIFY if there were a single referenced statement. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Rorshacma. Fails WP:GNG and could use some WP:TNT. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2019 (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. Creating a redirect from Yasin Börü to the event is a matter of editorial discretion. Black Kite (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Yasin Börü[edit]

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

No biographical value besides the referred event. Viztor (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much sure that a child's death during a riot, which was covered by the media, 'has' biographical value. Yet, I'll respect the outcome of this discussion and wait for the results. Keivan.f^Talk 03:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough information to justify a separate article from the main event, 2014 Kurdish riots in Turkey. AidanSW (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. No coverage beyond the fact of his killing. Can redirect to 2014 Kurdish riots, but I doubt anyone is actually searching this name.Hydromania (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Yasin Börü, then redirect to 2014 Kurdish riots in Turkey – As said above, there is no biographical value besides the event. So, shouldn't the page redirect to the event? To explain the move before redirecting, it's to preserve the page history. Invalid^OS (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of Yasin Börü so I ran a proquest news archive search on his name. Here is the first article in the search:

Yasin Börü murder case goes awry, top suspects present documented alibis

Cihan News Agency; Istanbul [Istanbul]17 Apr 2015. " STANBUL (CIHAN)- An investigation into the murder of four members of the Free Cause Party (Hüda-Par), among them 16-year-old Yasin Börü, has come undone, as three of the top suspects have presented documented alibis.

These suspects have proven that one was hospitalized, another was behind bars and the third was serving in the military on the opposite side of the country at the time of the murders, which took place during violent protests in the southeastern city of Diyarbakir on Oct. 7.

The undeniable innocence of these suspects has aroused suspicion regarding the integrity of the investigation.

The latest proof of innocence was presented earlier this week, after Ersin Adiyaman had been labeled a fugitive, located in Istanbul, taken into custody and detained for a day. Following his detention, the branch of the military in which he had served sent documents to authorities revealing that Adiyaman had been performing his mandatory military service in western Turkey while the crime was taking place on the other side of the country. Adiyaman testified at the Diyarbakir 5th High Criminal Court, confirming that he was in the 57th Artillery Brigade in Menemen, a district in the province of Izmir, between Oct. 6 and 8, and that he was only discharged on Oct. 22.

In March, lawyer Mahsum Kaya revealed that his client, Ahmet Y., was in prison while Börü and his friends were murdered. Kaya stressed that, though he had submitted documents proving that his client was still behind bars until Oct. 9, his client has not been released.

Similarly, suspect B.D. has been able to prove that he was admitted to Selahattin Eyyübi State Hospital on Oct. 2, where he received treatment until Oct. 24, making him unable to have committed the crime.

During the Eid al-Adha (Feast of the Sacrifice) holiday, Börü and his friends Riyat Günes, Ahmet Dakak and Hasan Gökouz were distributing the meat of sacrificed animals to those in need with friends in Diyarbakir, a province at the center of violent protests that took place across Turkey between Oct. 6 and 8. The protests were triggered by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levent (ISIL) having besieged the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani.

According to witness reports, the four friends came upon a group of protesters on Oct. 7 while distributing the meat and ran away, seeking shelter in the lobby of an apartment building, where they were pursued and stabbed by the protesters. Witnesses say Börü fled to the building's upper floors but was pushed out of a third-floor window by unidentified protesters. The group ran over his body with a car and crushed his head with a stone.

(Cihan/Today's Zaman) CIHAN .

My comment: There are 54 news stories in the archive. Activists in the case has a twitter account with 5141 followers [4], translation reads: Yasin Börü Case: This account is used to inform the public. Developments related to the judicial process will be shared. Google his name and lots comes up. At this point, I have no idea what tht fuss is aobut, not even sure whether he Kurdissh, Turkish, or whethere this is about one of the other foualt lines that causes regular plitical tremors in Turkey. But there is a page on him in Turkish Wikipedia: [5]. And the terse nominating statement makes me wonder what axe Nom has to grind here. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. The event he was killed at was notable, but he is not. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2019 (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 and redirect to Rotary International. Randykitty (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Hewko[edit]

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

A search for independent sources about this person hasn't revealed anything very promising. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hewko is CEO and Secretary General of Rotary International, the organization with 1.220.000 members and usd 100.000.000 budget.

Hope this if enough? --Perohanych (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources appear to be independent of the subject (I thought the Bloomberg one might be at first, but the "request update" link at the bottom of the page suggests not). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "request update" link at the bottom of the Bloomberg's page does not mean that Bloomberg does not make fact-checking of proposals for update.

What about Forbes?

Google Search shows 160.000 results

--Perohanych (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes source is an interview. I clicked through 11 pages of Google results without finding any significant coverage, and then it told me that was the end of the results, so I'm not sure where the rest of the supposed 160,000 are. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:IV one can read: «At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography.» The Forbes source is a kind of an interview that at the second part includes the Hewko's bio. --Perohanych (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is also imрortant that the interviewer is a recognized journalist — Devin Thorpe, Bestselling Author, Educator and Speaker. Just search for Devin Thorpe in Wikipedia --Perohanych (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider, that John Hewko is the Chief Executive Officer and General Secretary of Rotary International, one of the world’s largest service and humanitarian organizations with 35,000 clubs throughout the world, and of its foundation, The Rotary Foundation. He oversees the operations of both entities and manages a combined operating budget of over $400 million and assets of more than $1 billion. — John Hewko: General Secretary/CEO – Rotary International and The Rotary Foundation, Ukrainian Catholic Education Foundation --Perohanych (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perohanych, you've been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that notability is judged by coverage in reliable, independent sources, not by operating budgets. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, you are right, I've been editing Wikipedia for 13 years, made 100.000+ edits, started 3.200+ articles (mainly in Ukrainian Wikipedia). English is not my native language, and it is not easy for me to take part in the discussion and to write articles in English. I am deeply assured, that a person who for several years operates staff and assets of the hudge RI empire, a person who is interviewed by Forbes and other worldwide media, satisfies WP:GNG. I am also sure, that you are not cordless :) Please help me to improve the article, to find reliable, independent sources for the article. --Perohanych (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I have already searched for reliable, independent sources and didn't find any significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perohanych The Forbes piece isn't valuable to establish notability because its a.) an interview and b.) written by a contributor and not Forbes' editorial staff. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The interview shows a depth of preparation and includes a biography. The interviewer is a recognized journalist. See above! --Perohanych (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The biography looks like it's been cut and pasted in to me. I doubt that the journalist wrote it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had planned to nominate this yesterday but forgot. He is not independently notable and I'm not convinced his position in RI is notable itself. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is CEO of Wikimedia Foundation independently notable? Budget of WMF is the same as RI, assets of RI are much bigger, history is much longer. --Perohanych (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when their website is in the top 5 most visited and used sites in the world. This isn't even remotely a valid argument. Try again. But by all means, if you want to delete Jimmy Wales, please send it right on over to AFD. I'll grab the popcorn. Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean Jimbo, but Katherine Maher --Perohanych (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - heads a very large, well established organization and the general public may want to look him up. Admitteddly, the number of sources is borderline, but I don't think that Forbes interviews just anybody. Pundit|utter 03:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pundit Wikipedia is not a directory for heads of companies or CEOs. You cannot substantiate an entire BLP with "he works for xyz." Praxidicae (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary International is not just a company. It's a worldwide movement with more than one million people, which inter alia almost defeated poliomyelitis on our planet. And Ivan Hevko do not just "works for RI", he leads RI. --Perohanych (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I think your argument is valid, we should not be a phone book, and we should not promote CEOs' egos. However, It seems that Rotary International is not a company, but a really large NGO, operating in 200 countries, with 1.2 million individual members, which makes it one of the largest non-religious membership movements. The question, of course, is how many largest NGOs deserve detailed coverage and bios for their CEOs. I'd say that probably not more than top 100 per budget, membership, or some other criteria are a safe bet. I don't have any data to support that, but my best guess that RI would satisfy this criterion because of its wide membership. Pundit|utter 07:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making an argument based on the fact that it's core mission is "good" but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. No one is contesting the notability of Rotary International, so I'm not sure what your argument is here about the organization itself but even so, notability is not inherited. Being a member or working for a notable organization doesn't make an individual notable. Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but I have heard, that there is a criteria for majors of cities - number of people who live in the city. Am I right? --Perohanych (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to make an argument for his notability under WP:NPOL? Because I can assure you he does not meet that. Praxidicae (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at the very least shouldn't there be a redirect made to Rotary International if this isn't kept? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with that, Coolabahapple. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cool:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV, but could be a reasonable search term, so after deletion create a redirect to Rotary International. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Barca (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptophile[edit]

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

Dictionary definition but moving this to Wiktionary is not an option because scriptophile is a neologism that nobody uses (or at least nobody uses on the web and isn't in my old 2000 page English dictionary). Pichpich (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're using the wrong language. Honoré de Balzac used it in 1833. It is a French word, largely an idiosyncrasy of de Balzac, who used it in Les Cent Contes drolatiques much of which was in an imitation Middle French of de Balzac's invention. And Wiktionary already has wikt:fr:scriptophile. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The French word seems to have a very different meaning: "Collector of stocks and old titles" according to Google Translate. — Smjg (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, "Collector of stocks and old titles" is the Google translation of the French Wiktionary definition. If I try to get a translation "scriptophile" itself, it just leaves the word alone. I'm not sure how to tell whether this means it doesn't recognise the word in French, it doesn't have an English translation for it, or it's the same in English. — Smjg (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The creator posted multiple definitions of questionable validity on the same day, I PRODed them all & posted a note asking the poster to flesh them out. Nothing was done. Someone removed the PROD because it was PRODed same day as creation, I was going to AfD it myself. JamesG5 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you saying you've looked through all 117,000 hits on Google, and not one of them is a use of the word? @Echo1111: Did you make this word up, or can you provide evidence that this is a word in actual use outside of your circles? — Smjg (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Xe does not have to do that. We aren't lexicographers looking for word uses, we are encyclopaedists looking for documentation of article subjects. (You need more familiarity with Google, by the way. It won't show 117,000 results to look at, and there will not have been 117,000 results. That is not the way that Google works. Indeed, 117,000 is not even the figure that it gives to me.) Uncle G (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although the first page of the Google search gives a high number of hits (I get 106,000, same ballpark) but if you actually go through the hits, it stops at page 12 with a total of 115 hits so yes, you can check all of them. They're almost exclusively pages in French and the few pages in English don't use the word with the meaning proposed in the current article. Pichpich (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTDIC. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIC and a failure to prove this is a real word as it's being used. No sources, so fails WP:GNG to. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2019 (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. WP:CSD#G7. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ErimtanArchaeology and Arts Museum[edit]

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

Typo in title of a blank article. Requested by the creator. CeeGee 18:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, incorrectly titled empty article, did this have to come to afd? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2019 (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Petro-Chemicals Limited[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. A failed draft due for deletion which was moved by its author into mainspace without any further review. Source all demonstrate its existence and not its notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes references from The Sentinel, Economic Times, and The Telegraph, all of which are newspapers in India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious keep is obvious. Definitively meets WP:GNG, just a quick look at GNews shows the presence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, No sign of advertisement, a government company that only a few others produce the same thing . It is notable. Alex-h (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NCORP, being clearly notable from the references used in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2019 (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. AfD is not a vote, and the opinions of editors with low participation in Wikipedia outside of this discussion (including the article creator), are given little weight. The arguments for keep rely on sourcing that is not generally considered sufficient to demonstrate notability of the subject. bd2412 T 19:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PyCM[edit]

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

It is pretty clear to me that this is a course project/student project with which an associated paper is published. As of now, this do not belong here. We should see if this gets more popular. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is good enough in comparison with other open-source softwares that accepted before (like Cantera_(software) & Aika_(software)). َAnd in my opinion with this popularity and dependent codes, it is something more than a course project. Sarminhamidi (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying other non-notable articles. They have both been PRODed. Clnreee (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I see, I guess the article has enough to be kept here. This article provides reliable references (i.g. Journal of open source software and Github -the most popular community of software developers-, etc.) in comparison with other accepted articles for "open-source software" (as @Sarminhamidi: has mentioned) that most of them are self-cited (some of them even do not reach the Wiki's criteria). In addition, this library with more than 640 stars, 200 dependent codes and 1000 installs per week, is more popular than currently available articles on English Wikipedia like ELKI, Cantera and OpenNN.

I hope my comments are helpful. Aviow (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Github is taking the role of a reliable source? Viztor (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor: "As of May 2019, GitHub reports having over 37 million users and more than 100 million repositories (including at least 28 million public repositories), making it the largest host of source code in the world." ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

References

^ "User search". GitHub. Retrieved May 23, 2019. Showing 37,446,292 available users
^ "GitHub passes 100 million repositories". VentureBeat. 2018-11-08. Retrieved 2019-06-13.
^ "Repository search for public repositories". GitHub. Retrieved June 5, 2018. Showing 28,177,992 available repository results

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviow (talk • contribs)

Those would be good for the GitHub page, but have no relevance for this article. Clnreee (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the lack of significant mentions in third party reliable sources. Clnreee (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of meeting NSOFT. Charmk (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems a notable article to me. Some big names like Naver^[1] and Maastricht University ^[2], used this library in their projects. And also this library has top rank in statistics ^[3] and statistical-analysis ^[4] topics in github.--SebastianQuilo (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SebastianQuilo: I mean. You do sound like we're going to map the whole dependency tree of Github projects. We're not going to have an article on non-notable library even if some other non-notable libraries authored by some notable entities use it. Notability is not inherited. You don't write an article about every single department of a company, same here for libraries.Viztor (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Viztor: Your statement (Notability is not inherited) is completely right. But a big question is : what is the exact definition of notability? there is no general answer for this question which includes all the topics. These kinds of libraries, never reach general notability, but are popular between experts. I suggest you to take a look at Scikit-learn (a big name in machine learning), most of it's references are their own website.--SebastianQuilo (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SebastianQuilo: Well, your arguments are based on definition, so I will have to answer on that. Notability can be defined in many ways, as given in many guidelines. However, I'm pretty sure in this particular case, the library is not that popular even in the list you give, with the top one having 5k stars and this few hundreds, while scikit-learn is the most popular in some categories. If you'd like to push for some other inclusion criteria for software libraries inclusion, I'd welcome that. However, even if something like that is presented, with the data we have now, this particular library would not merit an article. Viztor (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "CLaF: Open-Source Clova Language Framework. Contribute to naver/claf development by creating an account on GitHub". NAVER. 14 June 2019. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
^ "Guideline for designing optimal crowdsourcing experiments: MaastrichtU-IDS/crowdED". Maastricht University IDS. 15 November 2018. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
^ "Statistics Topic". GitHub. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
^ "Statistical Analysis Topic". GitHub. Retrieved 17 June 2019.

Delete Not notable. User is trying to create resume for himself. Check similar AFDs: LMPHP and PHP JSON Parser. Also User:SebastianQuilo is created for this AFD (registered 2 days ago with 12 edits). -- ARASH PT talk 22:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arash.pt: Be fair, I'm not related to this article, but your comparison is funny. --SebastianQuilo (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: based on references found above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV and WP:PROMO . Wikipedia is not the place for people to promote their own projects and such corruption should be swiftly uprooted from this encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Post Millennial[edit]

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

Article about an online news startup, not properly sourced as meeting WP:WEBCRIT. Websites are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG -- but three of the six sources here (its Alexa rank, its self-published masthead and a Twitter tweet) are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all; one is a media bias-rating directory that does not have a well-established reputation as a reliable or accurate rater of media bias; one is a news story which tangentially verifies a stray fact about a person named in the article body, while not even namechecking this website's existence at all in the process; and the last is a podcast.
The podcast is actually a stronger source than usual in this case, as it actually includes genuine third-party analysis about The Post Millennial by an unaffiliated journalist, and is not just a Q&A interview in which the site's founders are talking about themselves -- but it's still a podcast, which means it doesn't get this over the notability bar all by itself as the only acceptable source in play. None of the other sources are doing anything at all, as all of them fail one or both of the "reliable source" and "substantively about The Post Millennial" tests -- but that still leaves us with just one decent notability-supporting source, and passing WP:GNG requires much more than just one decent notability-supporting source. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added some citations. The site is growing quickly and has been cited in National newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halijohn (talk • contribs) 14:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting cited in other publications is not the notability test for a media outlet. Being the subject of coverage in other publications is the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the well analyzed rationale of the Nom. Sources may be perfectly acceptable for content without advancing notability and this is lacking. According to Alexa.com there would be 2470 websites rated higher. Relaxing the notability criteria could open the door for a host of equally non-notable articles. Otr500 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Jenkins[edit]

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

Non-notable radio presenter. Article appears to be more of a CV (WP:NOTRESUME) and doesn't currently meet WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG, poor coverage, Alex-h (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2019 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style & Society (magazine)[edit]

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

UPE Promotion for non notable magazine. None of the awards for the founder are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the mag. A lot of PR and primary. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I have grave concerns given this page was created by Amandadoyle543 - same editor who was center of COI discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_142#Amandadoyle543 - a discussion whereby nothing seems to have come of it. Someone should look further into the editor!MaskedSinger (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2019 (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) 20:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinya Claiborne[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable individual. None of the awards are majors. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of her. A lot of PR and primary. Only source of any note is the New Yorker but thats primarily about a news event that she happened to have been at like many other people. Page is pure PR complete with official promo shot. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As I just wrote on another discussion where Amandadoyle543 is involved - this is same editor who was center of COI discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_142#Amandadoyle543 - a discussion whereby nothing seems to have come of it. Someone should look further into the editor! Furthermore the person who created this page has been blocked. Something not kosher here. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not meet the notability criteria. Sources used as references are either not independent (including press releases) or are minor/niche publications and do not represent significant coverage. TimBuck2 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2019 (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. Black Kite (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Choi[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable actor. Lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions. (Teen Wolf had a lot of episodes but was never a main character). None of the awards are majors. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of him. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The advertisement rescue squadron has been called in. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable actor who has appeared in multiple mainstream television and movie productions. Subject also has Sustained notability (not required) Lubbad85 (☎) 19:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just being in multiple productions is not enough for NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He played the lead role in a film notable enough to have significant coverage at NBC news. [6] He got coverage at [7] At [8] "Tom Choi does a very good job as Brad’s straight-laced father". That's just some of the first page results Google news search shows for "Tom Choi" "actor". Other stuff appearing as well but I think that's enough. Dream Focus 19:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popdust looks good. Getting closer. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this diff an undisclosed paid editor tag was added without a rationale. I'm going to remove but add it back if there is a rationale - upe is a specific type of spam (hired work) not just any spam like by a friend or family which would be a COI. -- GreenC 20:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep can understand why the article was nominated. I'm swayed towards the keep side because of the board membership in SAG-AFTRA - checking the results he was re-elected in 2017 - this can be seen as recognition amongst his peers. --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Bovée[edit]

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

This person is a non-notable political fundraiser and staff person, with little, if any, news coverage. OCNative (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as almost entirely unsourced. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially no information on him can be found. (To other searchers: be wary of references which are actually about John Bovee Dods ).Gilded Snail (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2019 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated[edit]

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

Unreferenced & promotional Rathfelder (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has some coverage from some media and mentioned in some journals and books. Does not seem that promotional. Merely a list of products. But I wonder why this article was previously redirected to National Informatics Centre? They seem to be different organizations and they corporate ([9]) --94rain ^Talk 14:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A page on NIC already exists and this page is of no value and holds no relevance. M 11:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

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. RL0919 (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Tweedy[edit]

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

No notability established and no evidence of WP:BIO being met. No other references other than his company examinership found. Also, the article hasn't been updated since 2013. ShirLey GOo (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or related guidelines. For example, neither of the main papers of record in Ireland (IT and IN&M) have any history of coverage of the subject directly. (There are one or two things about his businesses going into administration/etc. But nothing where he is the main subject of the coverage). The same is true of the handful of links which were added to stave off the original PROD tag. (The linked articles do not cover the subject. They cover the subject's businesses. And, at that, only one very limited element of those businesses). That the article seems to have been initially created as some form of attack page (or a joke?) is also a significant concern. Mine is a very firm delete recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2019 (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 for Computing Machinery#Special Interest Groups. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SIGSIM[edit]

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

Not notable enough for its own article Rathfelder (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Association_for_Computing_Machinery#Special_Interest_Groups, where it is mentioned with all the other ACM SIGs. I was unable find enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG notability thresholds. According to our deletion policy WP:ATD, alternatives to deletion should be considered before deletion. Basic facts about this SIG are verifiable, however, and the SIGSIM is a plausible search term. Hence redirect is a reasonable alternative in this instance. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 00:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine by me.Rathfelder (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2019 (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. Nominator has agreed to draftify, and no other suggestion has been made. (non-admin closure) Invalid^OS (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Information Technology (USA)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, and lacking in useful content. Merge it into NAF (non-profit organization)? Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - There are five governing academies at NAF (non-profit organization). Three of them have thorough articles. This one and the Draft:Academy of Hospitality and Tourism (I already moved it to draftspace) do not. There is a wealth of information out there, it just needs to make its way into these two articles before it gets brought back out to the main space. Orville1974 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me. Rathfelder (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:13, 12 June 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experts-Exchange[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the sourcing provided is from vanity websites. No real coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The website was quite popular, and may be of intereset in future Wiki5537821 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it already survived one nomination, so it can just be rolled back to a satisfactory state. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kids these days have no respect for the famous double entendres of old. Artw (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the arguments here do not appear to be addressing the source issue (Wiki5537821 comes closest) - is there any good source on this website?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are, one of which was even around at the time of the first AFD discussion:
- Fischer, Scharff & Ye 2004, pp. 366–369 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFischerScharffYe2004 (help)
  - Fischer, Gerhard; Scharff, Eric; Ye, Yunwen (2004). "Fostering Social Creativity by Increasing Social Capital". In Huysman, Marleen; Wulf, Volker (eds.). Social Capital and Information Technology. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262083317.
- David 2007, pp. 189–191, Case study: Experts-Exchange harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDavid2007 (help)
  - David, Shay (2007). "Toward Participatory Expertise". In Karaganis, Joe (ed.). Structures of Participation in Digital Culture. Social Science Research Council. ISBN 9780979077227.
- Schümmer & Lukosch 2007, pp. 150–151, §3.2.6 Reward harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSchümmerLukosch2007 (help)
  - Schümmer, Till; Lukosch, Stephan (2007). "Community Support". Patterns for computer-mediated interaction. Wiley Software Patterns Series. Vol. 10. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470025611.
Reading these, it seems that it is possible to write a decent article, far better than what Wikipedia has now. There are even (poorer quality) sources that I haven't cited that document additional things like the site's use of Google First Click Free earlier this decade (which I wouldn't trust to be objective on much else, but which I trust to report this fact reliably). Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (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. As a merge-back did not have unanimous consensus and involves pages that didn't link to this discussion, I'll punt it to a dedicated merge discussion. This page's history has to stay for attribution reasons, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Summer discography[edit]

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

Delete -There exists separate Donna Summer albums discography and Donna Summer singles discography pages, in addition to this page. This article duplicates the information contained on those two separate pages, and does not appear to have been updated, with current references, as frequently as the other two. The separate albums and singles discography pages are linked on the main Donna Summer article. Nqr9 (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was an article split, and the page looked like this quite happily for five years, preserving the edit history and author attribution (which were not carried over), until just over a month ago someone undid that. Always check the edit histories when nominating things at AFD. Deletion is, after all, the removal of the edit history and authorship (from view), so one should be aware of what one is asking about. Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since the separate singles and albums discographies were split from this article, this article must not be deleted to preserve attribution. That said, it is actually the separate album and singles discographies that should be deleted, since the split was unnecessary and contrary to the treatment of other musicians' discographies. Rlendog (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or if the separate singles and album articles have been updated more frequently than the main article, that information should be merged into the main article and the separate album and singles articles should be redirected to preserve attribution. Rlendog (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another option, if the separate album and singles pages are to remain, is to redirect Donna Summer discography to Donna Summer#Discography. That would preserve the history while removing the duplication. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Donna Summer albums discography and Donna Summer singles discography Back Into This Article - I don't think that old page split described by Uncle G above was a good idea, per WP:CONTENTFORK. Now we have two pairs of articles (Discography/Albums Discography AND Discography/Singles Discography) repeating each other's information. If a new greatest hits album were released next week, it would be necessary to update two different Discography articles and there is no guarantee that a user would know to do both, thus making two articles on the same thing inconsistent with each other. Or, enthusiastic maintainers of Donna Summer articles have to do everything twice, which is redundant and likely to cause errors eventually. Put everything back into one Discography article. It's okay of that article ends up being very long, because Donna had such a long and accomplished career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonable option.Nqr9 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article and delete the other two as per User:doomsdayer520. It is okay to have one long article. However, I would trim some of the irrelevant and unsourced content about her label associations. Even if the content can be sourced, it still not belong in the discography, which is essentially just a list.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other two articles have more-accurate chart positions/better references, though.Nqr9 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2019 (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. G11 by Jimfbleak with reason given: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self-written vanity page, see WP:YFA WP:COI WP:RS WP:Notability (music) (non-admin closure) 94rain ^Talk 07:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ametrom[edit]

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

Musician who has questionable notability. He also seems to have a huge COI issue going on. (The prod was removed earlier) Wgolf (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:17, 12 June 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution: The Musical![edit]

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

Non-notable film; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. References and "reviews" cited merely mention subject, not providing significant coverage to warrant article. Wikipedical (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I agree with nom about sourcing: it's all very passing-mention stuff, nothing that I think really meets significance threshold for GNG, and I'm not sure how it fulfills any SNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable film. Geoffroi (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sheer lack of sources. The best I could find were a couple of mentions in round-up articles about film festivals, the most in depth read: "The local underground art scene gets a boost at Mezzanine with a screening of Evolution: The Musical!, a hilarious 40-minute religious-themed "movella" by first-time directors and writers Kenny Taylor and Andrew Bancroft that will feature live music and comedy from some of the film's cast." E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2019 (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.