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.
I received a ticket today on OTRS (#2015041610032721) where the person requested that it be deleted. I decided to do some background research on Google, and other than a few mirror sites and one YouTube video that seems to have been done after this page popped up. Furthermore, there is a lack of any real mentions online, other than brief blips when using Google, so I also have my doubts about whether this even existed or not, especially since the only citations on the article are for the top part, with the "battle" information being completely uncited. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I can't see any reason to think this is unsupported by sources, but they are likely to be in Spanish or Japanese, and probably not online. "Not finding anything on Google" is not a reason for deletion! Imaginatorium (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, those are only snippet views, and don't have access to the books, to see how much coverage are in those books on the subject of this AfD. If I had preview views, I might add them, but at this point I do not unfortunately.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The battle details are made-up and do not match e.g. Robert J. Antony (2010). Elusive Pirates, Pervasive Smugglers: Violence and Clandestine Trade in the Greater China Seas. Hong Kong University Press. p. 82-83.. According to the book Carrion intimidated the pirate leader and the pirates left without a fight.
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.
Hi WikiDan61 & Joseph2302, many thanks for your advice. I do understand that not every sentence in my articles are coming from a reference source. However, all conclusions I have ever made are based on research, data and theories. Would you please provide some examples that you consider as original research? I have no intention to mess around, and have been trying hard to maintain a neutral tone. Yet neutral does not equal to not critical. Thank you. Keep Gytgyt1234 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gytgyt1234 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [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.
This article appears to be positing the possible use of various technologies as a teaching tool. While it is clear that technology can be (and is) used in teaching all the time, the author appears to be drawing original conclusions from the given source, constituting original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WikiDan61 & Joseph2302, many thanks for your advice. I do understand that not every sentence in my articles are coming from a reference source. However, all conclusions I have ever made are based on research, data and theories. Would you please provide some examples that you consider as original research? I have no intention to mess around, and have been trying hard to maintain a neutral tone. Yet neutral does not equal to not critical. Thank you. Keep Gytgyt1234 (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Gytgyt1234 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
This article and the others related to it are flagged for speedy deletion. They are opinion-based essays and all contain original research. The CSD criterion I used, however, is that the pages are duplicates of existing pages. The only factual information in any of the articles can be found elsewhere, for example in Raspberry Pi. Roches (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2015 (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.
This article appears to be positing the possible use of Facebook as a teaching tool. The fact that this use is not currently employed, but that the author has done research indicating that it could be used for this purpose consitutes original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!22:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WikiDan61 & Joseph2302, many thanks for your advice. I do understand that not every sentence in my articles are coming from a reference source. However, all conclusions I have ever made are based on research, data and theories. Would you please provide some examples that you consider as original research? I have no intention to mess around, and have been trying hard to maintain a neutral tone. Yet neutral does not equal to not critical. Thank you. Keep Gytgyt1234 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Gytgyt1234: Conclusions based on research are, in themselves, a form of original research. (At Wikipedia, we use the term "synthesis", and it is discussed at WP:SYNTHESIS.) What is needed would be conclusions that are already published in reliable sources, that we as Wikipedia editors can then turn to in our writing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!00:45, 22 April 2015 (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.
Not sure about notability about this guy-or when he was around either. Says he is a landlord (yeah not that notable) and a politician-but is he notable though? Wgolf (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as a note I have tried to find anything about him but basically just wiki mirrors or people with the same name. Wgolf (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2015 (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.
No indication that Kane-Berman is notable. The article doesn't cite any independent sources, and I couldn't find any. He's an active commenter on South African politics and society, but I see no indication anybody has written about Kane-Berman in some detail. Huon (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I'm seeing the same thing as the nom: a lot of pieces by Kane-Berman, but jack about him. Even if he's in the South African Who's Who, WW has become such a bucketshop in recent decades that it cuts no notability ice with me. Nha TrangAllons!16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found a speech and some essays by him, but only a single blog that mentions him and his work. I'm surprised, since he's in a Who's Who, how little there is available. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2015 (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 article title seems to be a wikipedia invention: none of the sources give her a numeral. Also, the woman in this article is the fourth wife of Bayezid II and the daughter of Alaüddevle Bozkurt Bey, the eleventh ruler of the Dulkadirids. However, Gülbahar Hatun, also known as Ayşe Hatun, is also (according to that article) the fourth wife of Bayezid II and possibly the daughter of Alaüddevle Bozkurt Bey, the eleventh ruler of the Dulkadirids. In addition, the death years and death places are the same, and so claiming that this Ayşe Hatun is not Gül-Bahar seems uncertain at best. Since the article title is completely unfamiliar, unrecognizable, imprecise and inconsistent, there is no need to retain a redirect and the article can be deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2015 (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.
Delete: It was kept in the previous AfD because AfD/XfD ten years ago was just a disgrace -- "It's important" and "seems notable" were common, and closing admins seemed to rule on nose count rather than policy. (Honestly, there's room for a team of Wikignomes to go back through every Keep result up through around 2006 and recheck things.) As the nom says, this is a band that did nothing, charted nothing, toured nowhere and met not a single notability criterion. Nha TrangAllons!16:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish other volunteers had bothered to make a few more pages for the band members, so it could meet "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." Foil obviously didn't tour/release much, but their roster clearly marks them as a mini supergroup of Seattle underground grunge and sludge. If we could find at least one point from WP:MUSICBIO, pages like this can be extraordinarily useful to readers trying to make sense of scene's very confusing member swapping timelines. Earflaps (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2015 (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.
delete Everybody and their dog are making 3D fused filament printers these days. Novelty is in no way implicit, nor does it imply WP:Notability. If they're notable, it might be for the licensing stance, but even that doesn't seem significantly distinctive from other printer makers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no vote I am owner of this company, so I'm not voting, but I thought I'd chime in. The present article looks like it was pulled from our website, and not many secondary sources. That doesn't mean there aren't any. As for being notable, our company produced the first hardware *ever* certified by the Free Software Foundation (who incidentally had a large role in the existence of wikipedia). Our printer is Editor's Choice of both PC Mag and Tom's Hardware, both major tech publications. We have also had many many reviews and articles over the last few years. We have been the *front page article* of the major newspaper the Denver Post, twice, plus other articles and blog posts there. We have a list of over 100 media references on our website here: https://www.lulzbot.com/news/in-the-mediaJebba (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I don't understand just what it is that the FSF have certified here. Was it in respect of the printer's ability to produce parts? Or an open sourced ability for others to produce printers of this design? I'm also puzzled (other than US-centricity) as to why the FSF have singled this machine out over the RepRap, which has been pushing an open source agenda for ten years. I just don't see the FSF certification as being significant re notability – any issue of primacy is a very tenuous one about when it was recognised by the FSF, rather than a substantial one about Aleph being first to adopt such an approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the very next tab I went to after this (I regularly search google for news about us), was ComputerWorld, a major tech publication of long standing. Their 3D printer reviewer writes: "the Lulzbot Mini remains my current benchmark for judging rival printers until a better one comes along". Just sayin'... http://www.computerworld.com/article/2910250/review-the-da-vinci-junior-is-the-easy-bake-oven-of-3d-printers.html Also, does market share count? I know you say everyone in their dog is making printers, but are all of them covered in market research reports such as the #1 in the industry Wohlers Report? Plus we get coverage in all the other ones covering the industry. Your dog printers aren't in there, I assure you (unfortunately, these reports aren't gratis). Jebba (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I make my own Lulzbot? Because I can make my own RepRap or Rostock. I rather expected that to be part of the FSF certification when I first read it, but it seems not. (I've never seen this as a useful thing to do, but it's a popular principle here, just down the road from Bath) Could {some long list of 3D printers} be similarly certified, if the FSF chose to? (ie do they meet the same criteria) Why did the FSF choose this one first? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may be OT... Yes, you can make your own LulzBot. We believe it is the most free/libre/open consumer product ever released. All development is done in the open. Our internal directories sync to the public every 30 minutes. We have over 100 gigs of data publicly accessible of released and development projects, visible at these sites: http://download.lulzbot.com/http://devel.lulzbot.com/ We also have other various code up on github: http://github.com/alephobjects/ We released what was the first "full stack" release of a RepRap based on Prusa's famous design (back in 2011). Josef Prusa himself said it was the best one out there at the time. We publish everything, including production schedules, plans, daily production spreadsheets, the layout of our assembly lines, how we build wire harnesses, everything. I don't know of any company that comes close, tbh (but they may exist, I'm just realizing now how awesome the Spanish company BQ is). You can see our assembly line procedures for the LulzBot Mini here, for example: https://ohai-kit.alephobjects.com/group/mini/ As for the certification, perhaps read up on it. They can't just certify "RepRap". There is an audit performed, and we are required to build conforming with that. They can spot check, and even can get audited themselves. This is a formal certification (think "UL" or similar). We got it first because we did the work to get it all worked through. It was the FSF's first, and they move.real.slow. I assure you they take this very seriously. They know me from previous projects, so that likely helped assure them I would go through the whole process. Other RepRap systems could be FSF certified, but not necessarily all of them. In general, systems that are RAMBo based most likely conform with RYF, but they aren't certified unless the FSF reviews their gear to be what they say it is, and the manufacturer signs a document saying they will agree to RYF requirements. Jebba (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just piling on this wall of text. We also run one of largest 3D printer clusters in the world. This isn't a one off event. We are running 135 printers in a cluster (plus we have 10-20 in other various spots in the building). This cluster runs 24/5 and produces 75kg of finished parts per *day*. Here's an older (over a year ago) article about it: http://www.gizmag.com/tour-aleph-objects-lulzbot-factory-hq/31024/ There's other articles too. Tis notable? Jebba (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current article fails to demonstrate notability. If the article is to stay, then it needs to be a better article. Jebba - fancy reworking any of it as a draft (maybe under your own userspace)? I'm happy to "adopt" this (and copyedit) in any way that can help avoid COI concerns. In particular, it needs someone who is familiar with the subject to write an article with editorial narrative such that it explains why the Lulzbot is significant in what is now a crowded marketplace.
WP:Notability isn't that important - it's a simplistic measure that WP uses because it has to define some vaguely objective measure, but it's a matter of wikilawyering to make any article pass it, if you throw enough sources at it. Personally I'm not that fussed about it; a "notable" article can still be a bad article. Clearly in this case there are enough printed sources citeable to pass that hurdle. The real question is (and one I can't answer) is why does this printer matter? I certainly wouldn't support a view that, "each and every 3D printer receiving a review article is WP:Notable". So what does Aleph / Lulzbot have over and above these? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re: notability, you state that you wouldn't support "each and every 3D printer receiving a review article is WP:Notable". Isn't that a straw man? I didn't realize anyone was arguing for that. How about companies that have *hundreds* of article citations and many many reviews spanning a few years from industry publications to major media? Would that work? If so, why not take down the "notability" notice you put on the page? Jebba (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Color me unimpressed. If there are indeed "hundreds of article citations" about Aleph Objects, why hasn't Jebba posted some solid, reliable ones? There are numerous business publications that qualify, and the ones he's chosen to contribute to this AfD discussion are a combination of press releases and tech blogs. The one solid source I've seen is the Computerworld article, and that -- like a bunch of others -- are about products, not about the subject of the article. (An article on this LulzBot printer may well be sustainable, by contrast.)Weak Keep: I'm slightly more impressed with the links Jebba came up with from the Denver Post and NPR. They clear the bar for the company ... barely. (I'd still look more favorably on an article for LulzBot, for which there are far more sources.) Nha TrangAllons!16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Jebba (talk·contribs) and 50.205.5.74 (talk ·contribs). The two articles from The Denver Post provide detailed coverage of the subject. The KUNC article also discusses Aleph Objects directly and in detail.
Weak keep It seems to be at least somewhat notable, but the Lulzbot seems more notable. Perhaps the article should be about the Lulzbot with a section on the company, and not vice-versa.Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 20:09, 2 May 2015 (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 Banner. I've re-read the post with your points in mind, I have made edits to make it explicit that she is primarily a songwriter. RE: 'not talking about the artist', how do you suggest I make this more explicit, as I feel the whole article is written about her and she makes up the majority of the content? David r adams1 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner. Could you please remove the flag unless you still have questions or deem the article innapropriate, please respond. Thanks David r adams1 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just made one small cosmetic change without fixing the issues stated in the nomination. It is a long list of nice names with inappropriate external links in plain text, inappropriate sources (YouTube) and no info about ms. Williams and the tiny bit that is there is unsourced. Her singing career is with bands, not on her own account. Her writing edits are for co-writing, nothing on her own account and completely unsourced.
And you should not removed the AfD-template until after closure of this procedure, although usually this is done by the closer (not me). The Bannertalk12:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What might otherwise appear to constitute notability, namely composing top ten songs, is really an illusion. She works for Xenomania which is the production company that produced those songs. No real basis for a claim to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. She appears to be more of a producer, and if so, we usually delete such articles per WP:MILL. Songwriters are "it depends". Is there any way to source this article better? Also, can we userfy it? Bearian (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (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.
Fails both WP:BASEBALL/N and WP:NOLYMPICS. Baseball was only a demonstration sport in 1956, and Clement does not have a Sports-Reference Olympics page. I found a similar discussion, which resulted in a merger to that particular demonstration sport's page from that year, so maybe a merge could be possible. Penale52 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding anything for this guy on baseball-reference.com, either. Looks like a fail of NBASEBALL, definitely. Nha TrangAllons!16:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't disqualify him on the basis of Olympics being only a demonstration sport, but as there are no real RSes for him, not even in Baseball Reference, (just a game summary and an obituary which reads to me like it was written by a family member), I don't see a basis for keeping. That said, if someone could provide some significant RS, I'd be willing to rely on his Olympic appearance to presume that there is more and enough to keep. Rlendog (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2015 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon01:20, 12 April 2015 (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.
Delete per Bejnar and Drunk in Paris. It's good to know the creator has now realised that the article now has a wrong information. It helps to keep updated about events before determining whether to create articles about them. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2015 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon03:08, 12 April 2015 (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 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.
Shitcan this article: No evidence that they pass either the GNG or WP:BAND, and I expect finding reliable sources would be bearish in any event. Nha TrangAllons!16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's actually a band named "Shit"? Seriously? Anyways, no evidence they pass any of the WP:NBAND criteria, having a bit of trouble checking for WP:GNG(if someone knows more google fu than I do, please post a decent query we might use). Then there's Ryan Tong (the band's leader) "Ryan+Tong" which is somewhat better, but still unable to tell if any refer to the same Ryan Tong. Maybe the article's creator can provide us with some help here? I tried Jonah Falco (mentioned as being some sort of collaborator in article) "Jonah+Falco"&oq="Jonah+Falco" which gives a decent number of results, though, as to whether any of those are reliable sources, or whether any provide significant and independent coverage of Shit, I don't know. ―Padenton|✉20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other than faeces related stuff I can't find anything at all - Might I suggest the band go back to the drawing board and pick something more original than just "Shit"?. –Davey2010Talk14:28, 28 April 2015 (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.
I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon03:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This one has a bit of an unusual observational history: it was discovered in 1940, but then lost and not rediscovered until 1980 [1][2]. That's all I found in the way of specific studies of this object, but it may be enough to save this article from being just a name and some orbital elements. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per Praemonitus. That the thing was lost and subsequently rediscovered isn't "unusual" at all -- that happens sometimes in astronomy. It's certainly not any measure of notability. Nha TrangAllons!16:40, 22 April 2015 (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 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.
Comment – Actually, the article does not have a promotional tone. Rather, it provides a straightforward overview of the company and its operations. North America100006:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restartKeep, blank and rewrite. The initial version contains extensive copy-paste from the 2003 launch press release. Only retrievable content I can see are the sources that just added (by @Northamerica1000:), one sentence and the infobox:
Comment – After some edits, the present page version does not contain copyright violations of the press release listed above (See Earwigs Copyvio Detector report). Of note is that substantial content remains in the article after the cleanup, contrary to the delete !vote above. Page versions with copyvio problems can be Revision deleted, instead of the entire article having to be deleted. North America100011:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your thoroughness. Sadly, there are no archives of AIB's website at archive.org to compare. Since half of the initial version is a known copyvio, normal procedure is to doubt the rest, and rewrite it. On re-rereading WP:CV, I don't see any reason to delete or revdelete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:38, 4 April 2015 (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.
No specific notability. This is not a first-order division of the university, but only a single department within the CUniversity'sCollege of Arts and Sciences. No notable faculty or alumni are listed. essentially no third-party references. It's already mentioned in the article on the college, and I see no need for a redirect any more than any other within-college program, especially since the heading starts with the same name--nobody looking for it could miss it. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's "under the direct supervision of its director and the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences," meaning not independent of the academic hierarchy. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I do not see the need to merge, what should be kept?) A redirect from UPLB IBS to the university page could be considered, but not from the whole title. Tigraan (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2015 (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.
Hoping for greater participation this time so we can get a consensus; will inform Wikiproject.This does have mentions in articles and databases, but they do not add up to WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As this has been sitting tagged for notability for over 3 years, it could really do with a consensus being reached. Pinging Tom.Reding, Avicennasis. Praemonitus and exoplanetaryscience also participated in last (very recent) AfD. Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per past astronomy consensus I believe they chose to keep asteroid/minor planets up to number 4000 (or possibly only 2000). This makes it either way. Plus the last discussion on many many such bodies less than two weeks ago was withdrawn. Many had chosen to keep but several had said that dealing with just one or just a few was ridiculous when there are hundreds of thousands of these minor planets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus was not to keep those up to 2000, but to individually assess those up to 2000. Dealing with one or two is not an issue (all of them will eventually be looked at) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in an AfD. The recent discussion you mention (one of many recent discussions, which include those redirected) was withdrawn, it is really difficult to assess that number of asteroids in one AfD, so it was understandabley withdrawn. None of your comments, Fyunck(click) are about how this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to suitable list- this article contains literally no information that could not be included in a table of similar asteroids. This information would be better presented as a multi-column table containing orbital parameters of asteroids. Diluting information over a multitude of microstubs like this is the worst way to present it. ReykYO!09:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That table does not contain orbital elements, which I would like to see preserved. Though looking at the list now, including all those extra columns would cause it to run off the right edge of the screen. I wonder if it would be possible to include the asteroid infobox, which is now in the article, in the list in collapsible bits for each asteroid? That might be the best way. ReykYO!09:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO. I was unable to find any research that provides non-trivial detail about this object. At first I thought there was an entire publication about it [3] but on closer examination it looks like just an entry in a database that someone once saw a need to cite individually. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: While it was the subject of a light curve study,[4] and is mentioned in a few scholarly journal articles, there is insufficient coverage to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2015 (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.
I couldn't verify that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years, unresolved. Last AfD closed as no consensus because it attracted zero comments; let's hope we can have a full discussion this time. Notifying Fabrictramp who tagged the article for notability and Fisheriesmgmt who opened 1st AfD, as well as creator. Boleyn (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Spanish rticle, but it is poorly sourced, e.g. using Twitter as a reference. It didn't further confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer Can I ask that as this has already had an AfD closed because of poor participation, and because it has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is repeatedly re-listed rather than just closed as no consensus due to poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IF they wernt noteable 7 years ago and there still no signs of them being noteable now it seems quite reasonable that they arent. Amortias (T)(C) 11:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm seeing articles in the Spanish-language press from the subject, but none about the subject. I'd say this was a GNG fail. Nha TrangAllons!17:24, 22 April 2015 (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 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.
Delete-per nom. BTW there is no page for Saha Gun, I would move the page there if I could but that would ruin the AFD is the thing. Wgolf (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NFF and being TOO SOON. Marathi title "सहा गुण" tranlates as "preserved endurance" (unhelpful) and "Saha Gun" gives no reliable sources, but does lead us to production's Facebook page. IF this is ever completed, released, AND gains requisite coverage (even if Non-English, an undeletion can be considered. Schmidt, Michael Q.03:07, 23 April 2015 (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.
Prod whose deletion tag was removed by a IP's only edit. Anyway I can't seem to find any notability for this novel at all. Wgolf (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2015 (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.
Minor special-purpose programming language. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Described in a peer-reviewed paper, but the number of citations of that paper is low (4 on GS, of which 2 self-citations).
I am new to this--I don't even know what PROD means. But after browsing policies and other articles, I agree with the concerns about the notability of this article, raised by Qwertyus. After all, it was not a good idea to write an wiki article of something I originally did. Please go ahead and delete the article. I'm sure, in the future, whenever it reaches its critical mass, this article will be written by someone with better sources for notability. Thanks! Bjkwon (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "minor" and "special purpose" are not valid reasons for deletion. Also does WP:RS now ignore peer review in reputable journals in favour of citation counting. News to me. Explains our extensive Justin Bieber coverage though. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: there is precedence for using citation scores as a proxy for the available of secondary sources and for regarding authors' papers about their own inventions as primary. See, e.g., Identifier Network and in particular Mark viking's comment on mwetoolkit. I think David Eppstein at some point remarked that he wants published evidence that at least two groups have spent significant effort on a method/invention/software, and I tend to agree with that, although this is not a formal guideline. In this case, two citations are self-citations; one is a bachelor's thesis; the final one is a peer-reviewed paper that only acknowledges use of the software without providing in-depth coverage. ("Minor" is just my shorthand way of expressing this; "special-purpose" is descriptive, not a reason for deletion.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source we have on this is primary and has been cited only four times in Google scholar. Two of those four are papers authored or co-authored by Kwon, the creator of this language; one is a bachelor's thesis supervised by Kwon, and the remaining one is by a co-author of Kwon. Additionally, at least two of the four (including the one not directly involving Kwon) don't mention AUX itself, but rather mention (very briefly) the Psycon software package coming from the same reference. Re my suggestion mentioned above about publications by multiple independent groups: this is my interpretation of WP:GNG's "multiple sources are generally expected" as it applies in this case. Additionally, formal languages such as this one can be notable by other means than through academic publications and citations, but we have no evidence of this in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the sources David Eppstein mentions, there is also an announcement of the software in a book, but this is again primary and little more than a press announcement. I concur with David, there are no in depth secondary reliable sources discussing this software and barely any secondary citations (those, mostly in the context of Psycon). The software thus both fails WP:GNG and the software specific essay WP:NSOFT. Perhaps the language will catch on at some point and secondary reliable sources will develop. But until then, there are no independent sources with which to write an article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources independent of the author. Academic papers need decent citation counts to be significant. Any random person can write an academic paper, they don't grant notability by themselves. WP:ACADEMIC even states that google scholar (and many other paper search sites) lists a large number of papers that aren't in peer reviewed journals. ―Padenton|✉07:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Apart from the issues and concerns about notability commented above that I generally find acceptable, I would like to raise a point you all seem to overlook. Citation counts are not a proper measure of notability, because academic papers describing originally developed research tools are not cited as much as regular papers: papers that later utilize the tool for their own research and often opt not to cite the original paper because that was merely a tool, unless there is significant interest or need to describe the research methods in detail. While the legitimacy of this practice could be in question in a puristic sense, this practice is rarely a problem nor a violation of academic codes of conduct, so long as there is a consensus that neglecting to mention some names of tools used for a study in a paper does not compromise scientific rigor and integrity. This is similar to not citing MATLAB or Visual Studio in many engineering/technical papers (if the exact methods of computation carry far less weight than the study conclusion), even though those tools were clearly in use to accomplish the study goals. Sometimes some creators of research tools explicitly request citing the original paper to anyone using the tools (example in the similar nature: Praat) and nowadays citing software tools is considered a commendable and safe practice, so journal editors even welcome it, but, nevertheless, many tools (not only AUX but also many other tools) used by researchers are left uncited. Instead, very often, the tool creators are thanked in the acknowledgment section of the paper, which is, however, not searchable nor indexed and such acknowledgment is not repeated in the future (as opposed to the perpetual obligation, whenever relevant, of formal citation). By no means I try to promote the notablilty of AUX, which I recognize should be a lot more effective if done by someone else, but at least I wanted to raise this point---the limitation of google scholar search or google search in general. Also, for the record, the journal Behavioral Research Methods in which the AUX paper appeared is a reputable peer-reviewed journal published by a reputable scholarly society, Psychonomic_Society. It is not true that "any random person can write a paper" in such a quality academic journal---even though admittedly these days we are bombarded by so many junk journals where "any random person can write a paper" for a fee, I would do my homework first before making such a depreciatory comment toward a fine journal. Bjkwon (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2015 (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.
Unless I'm reading the guidelines wrongly, or there's something missing from this article (which I can't find), I don't think this person is notable. Black Kite (talk)18:44, 21 April 2015 (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.
While it's true that there are few biographical links to Chuck Pierce, there are (many) hundreds of interviews, conference appearances, books and the like. It's not quite accurate to call the sources that were added primary sources (although some certainly are). I would think that the references showing Pierce's appearances on Syd Roth's show, Patricia King's show and the many, many articles on Elijah list would be sufficient to show that he's sufficiently notable to merit an article. Waitak (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This reads as if the subject had a one-man ministry, who manages to get on to TV shows occasionally. Basically it reads like the bio of yet another NN minister of relgion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2015 (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.
Obscure self-published musician, without a notable record label. www.residentadvisor.net is pretty much the only non-performance announcement/advertisement source found. This guy doesn't even have a website on a non-free site. The Dissident Aggressor18:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's not a requirement that an artiste's label be notable. However we do need independent coverage, and I can't see it. There's about as much coverage on Soundcloud etc. as we'd expect from a musician who's been busy making stuff, but we want more than this - reviews. Can't see those (Which isn't to say they aren't out there for those who know better where to look than I do). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was the one that removed the Speedy tag (with reluctance) as notability is "asserted" but not demonstrated or sourced. Glen05:53, 27 April 2015 (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 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.
Redirect. This one was tricky to search for because the phrase "1969 Alain" gets lots of hits that are not about astronomy. But, filtering for likely keywords like "asteroid", I found no non-trivial coverage of this object in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The mere existence of an astronomical object, and the fact that it has been named, do not by themselves establish notability for astronomical objects. See WP:NASTRO. --Bejnar (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2015 (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.
speedy delete and delete this spam from my mailbox, wait was thinking of something else lol. (This does look like something that would pop up in ones email though) Wgolf (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask that folks do a bit more research into the subject first. There are news sources, which do discuss this business, and it's a big business. Pandeist (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. How would that possibly be a COI? It's a social media page, like my Facebook page and my Twitter page. Am I not allowed to edit Facebook and Twitter for having pages on the site? Pretty sure it doesn't work that way.... Pandeist (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rarely have I seen a longer list of unreliable sources for a Wikipedia article. There is not one substantial reliable independent source to support the significance of this me-too website, just a lot of press releases recycled in tabloids. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the biggest cam sites on the planet. It's won industry awards, its Alexa tracked and fairly high ranked, and is sourced by the mainstream press. I'm not saying this article doesn't need clean up, but the attention the site has received regarding Alexa/Alexandria Morra and "Library Girl" Kendra Sunderland seems enough to source it. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Library Girl" was WP:1E, and specific mentions of the site she used (do any industry independent sources even name it?) would be passing mentions anyway. (Otherwise, being #574 on Alexa doesn't make one an automatic shoo-in.) Pax23:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Раціональне анархіст, you're right about Library Girl being a 1E, but coverage on her included mention of MFC, at least in sources I read. And just for your edification, being #574 puts the site in the top 6/1000's of percent of sites on the web, in other words "really high" relative to total number of sites, roughly a Billion. OK, so not as impressive as Ebay or YouTube, but not too shabby either. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ebay is #5. YouTube is #3. Meanwhile, myfreecams is now #581 and dropping like a stone. Why, a fellow could be forgiven for thinking they desperately need the free advertizing on Wikipedia to keep the good times running another quarter on fumes. (They've lost half their global Alexa ranking in just the last year.) Pax07:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree with any of what you have just stated, but it doesn't change the fact that there are roughly 999,999,000 other websites that wish they ranked as high as MFC. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep per sources provided by Morbidthoughts, especially the New York Times, and the fact that they as an adult cam website won the top award in their field (live cam websites) , 3 times in a row for XBIZ once for AVN. GuzzyG (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the sources offered here are a bit sensationalist, and the coverage in each source is generally pretty light. However, taken together, there's arguably significant coverage in reliable sources, even if the individual articles are a bit lacking. If the article becomes too promotional, it can be fixed through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surprisingly for a cam site, it seems to meet WP:NOTABILITY, and has no shortage of secondary sources. Although I don't see it progressing past start class, I say keep. Googol30 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2015 (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.
Band was an early influence in garage punk which I did refer to. Tell all the articles depending on early influence as their notability like The Chocolate Watchband, The Human Expression, H.P. Lovecraft (rock group), The Third Bardo, Mystic Tide... (shall I continue, the list goes on) that being the earliest influence is not notable than they should be deleted too. Also, the Allmusic article about them was written by Richie Unterberger, one of the most respected and prominent music critics, so he too was aware enough of their notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015
More - First psychedelic rock band of Phoenix (addresses issue of WP: BAND), signed to major label, reoccurring sources verifying notability, re-released material (addresses WP:GNG) This goes along with my statements above. Like I said, if this band isn't notable neither is the countless list of bands I only chipped the iceberg off of. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:36, 21 April 2015
Even More! : Also, the user's statement that this is a "recreation" is also false. The issue with the last page was it did not offer references and directly copied from the ones it did use. It would have stayed if someone rewrote it, as mentioned in the past discussions. So, as a result, I have reliable references and the writing is not copied from any text. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2015
The actual article nominated for deletion was apparently a whole different article than the current one (but on the same band). This one is only a few months old, whereas that one was nominated for deletion in 2008. The old article may not have been as well-sourced. So, it wouldn't be best to keep the current article and build it up into being the best article possible? Garage rock aficionados, by their very nature (and by the very nature of the genre they follow), have a keen interest in bands from a long time ago that are usually practically unknown to most people. They want to have resources and biographies to learn about such bands, and an encyclopedia can chronicle the original purveyors of what is essentially an ethnographic folk music. We shouldn't apply the same standard of notability of a unique smaller band from fifty years ago who has a specialist/interest collector/fan base to more a more recent Holiday Inn act playing mainstream Karaoke fare that is unlikely to ever have any collectable interest with music lovers. There is a difference.
It is amazing that people are still discussing this band fifty years later. And, keep in mind that this band came from a pre-internet, pre-cable TV, pre-MTV, pre-digital era, when it was not as easy to self-promote--long after the moths ate many of the pictures and newspaper articles that may now be forever lost--and, by the way, there was a lot more competition from other bands back then. Wiki needs to establish a set of guidelines for dealing with certain kinds of historical acts of specialist interest. While I shouldn't pretend to speak for anyone else, I think I remember User: Ghmyrtle, a Master III editor, on his talk page coming to the defense of User: TheGracefulSlick on this very same issue, and I would be glad to enlist his and several other top editors' opinions on this matter as well. Let me emphasize that there is no consensus to delete this article: I am firmly against doing so (and I am confident that other editors will feel the same way). Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Garagepunk66. When you consider all the bands that have formed over the years, any of them that are still in the public eye decades later should be considered notable. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This level of material available just on AllMusic for a band that existed for so short a time so long ago merits inclusion in the encyclopedia as part of music history. §FreeRangeFrogcroak21:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - example of how GNG can be abused. Pre-internet band is still generating discussion, indicative that the band is notable and likely received sufficient media coverage at the time. In a quick search, I found the following reference [10], which added to the AllMusic entry should make the subject pass GNG. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)02:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great find on the reference. If someone could translate, I would love to include it when the article stays. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:13, 25 April 2015
Keep - in addition to Allmusic, I, like 78.26, found the above source. In addition, searching "'Twentieth century zoo' band" in Google Books turns up some other mentions in reliable source, some foreign language. This indicates that there probably are more print source out there that discuss the band. Archives of these sources might be available in library databases.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (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.
Keep - He is notable as a Lebanese designer who achieved international recognition. The New York Times article in the references is a very strong source. When he died, a Google News search ran quite a number of obituaries in the international press. I also see an article on Highbeam which lists him among the significant Lebanese fashion designers of the time. There is also an article on him in L'Officiel from 2007 that is viewable as a snippet here. There's clear evidence that sources exist. This article needs improvement, not deletion. Mabalu (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep stock the mini bar with it - This article is not promotional in nature. the author has no more need to promote Basil Soda. than, he does to promote Cilantro Fizz.. The subject was a noted designer who showed his designs on catwalks allover the world which were in turn worn by many notable women..... This is being promoted for deletion for the point of gaining points for an exclusion. Boy I feel like Dr. Mehmet Oz OY! Masterknighted (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger keep. There are reliable sources provided to establish notability. Could use some expansion if possible, but this is definitely a notable designer. Tinton5 (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2015 (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.
Excuse me if I have made any mistakes, this is my first time submitting a page for deletion.
The page is without adequate sources (relying entirely on primary sources, as other users have pointed out). I looked into this, and found that it was virtually impossible to find any that establish the school's notability, making it naturally unworthy of a Wikipedia page. The skill with which the article was written seems indicative of someone aged 3-13, and perhaps this is why the tone of the document seems closer to an advertisement, far removed from the impartial tone expected of Wikipedia. 16:23, 21 April 2015 (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.
Article appears to fail notability— see WP:FILMNOT. Most references turn out to be either dead links or have failed to verify. Remaining ones are not independent of the subject or are vanity refs. Bronze Telly awards are probably not reliable evidence of notability. Previous deletion discussion was inconclusive, but given current haziness of notability, deletion now seems appropriate. KDS4444Talk16:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per interesting discussion at earlier AFD that resulted in no consensus. Notability is weak due to the film's target audience, but I will note though that for its genre it has more awards than just "some", and for a specialized documentary about youth wrestling that fact is surprising. Even weak notability is none-the-less, still a notability. As small-budget independent documentaries never have the distribution and press of the big budget studio blockbusters, we look instead to what the film is, and what organization felt it was worth awarding, and why. Awards are simply one of the criteria I am looking at. And while the Tellys do not have quite the same industry coverage as the Academy Awards certainly, they do have some decent and sourcable history and coverage of their own.[11] I am okay with the Acolade Competition [12] for its own coverage,[13] and the Aegis Video & Film Production Awards [14] for its history.[15] The last nominator wrote "it seems as if dozens of films are given an award each year, in categories so specific that it seems there cannot be much competition", and he could just as easily been describing the Oscars or Golden Globes, for no matter which one you look at... Oscars, Golden Globes, Aegis, Accolades, Tellys, etc... the competition now-a-days is pretty stiff. All film awards, from such as the Oscars (voted on by members of the not independent Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences themselves) to Golden Globes (voted on by the independent Hollywood Foreign Press Association), can all in some sense be seen as vanity and back-slapping mutual admiration (chuckle), we judge their notability through the coverage each has, as there has never been any other standard established to define what is a major award or how it might be itself notable.[16] We may find DVD reviews or evidence that it screened 5 years after initial release, but abetted by the awards, the reviews from Dove Foundation,[17]School Library Journal,[18] and the Julian Radbourne areview on X-Headlines (link found though wayback machine) push it just over the edge for me for this independentdocumentary film. Schmidt, Michael Q.03:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you have copied and pasted most of that text from the last deletion discussion. I do not want to copy and paste the responses it got because we are trying to have a new discussion, not replay the old one. Can you give a brief new summary of your Keep vote reasoning? Thanks. With regard to the awards, however: the Aegis award itself does not appear to be a notable award, and the page you found listing winners (thanks for finding it) looks like has nearly 200 recipients in 2006 alone (also, from the Aegis web site: "To win an Aegis Award is an outstanding achievement -- worthy of getting the attention of clients and employers."— to me, this translates to, "Pay us some money and we will make you look like you won something"... That is not winning an award, that is just purchasing attention); the New York festival awards have been heavily criticized for their own lax entry requirements and $300 entry fee (i.e., it is a profit-generator for its producers, not a genuinely competitive award); The Accolade award article has no sources in it other than a link to the official website and looks like it may also have no genuine notability of its own. The non-competitive nature of the Tellys was discussed in the last AfD discussion. I would be happy to see one source/ award from a verifiably notable organization at the national or international level that was clearly competitive in nature. Instead, what I am seeing are awards from non-notable organizations, or awards that are not competitive, which makes a notability claim appear rather thin to me, and there does not appear to be coverage of the film elsewhere other than routine reviews (again, these are discussed in the last AfD). KDS4444Talk13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.... rather than have another back-and-forth bandying like that last AFD, I copied and modified my still-valid arguments. However, back and forth bantering seems fated. I was interested that rather than correct through regular editing, you chose to report the addressable dead links and lack of verifiability as part of his deletion rationale... though certainly not to negatively color this discussion with invalid reationals, so is allowable. Schmidt, Michael Q.05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some follow-up: the Aegis awards apparently were taking in around $90,000 a year in application fees, and the winners of these awards, selected by a never-named panel of industry specialists, receives... a certificate. And if they want to pay more money, a trophy. And the recognition, of course. (Aegis has since closed down.) I could find nothing about the video industry's emphasis on the value of these awards, which further increases my suspicion that they are not considered important. The Accolade awards run along the same lines: pay us a fee and we will give you an award. The Accolades aren't even competitive awards: they are assigned based on the merits of each submission. Winning one isn't exactly evidence of notability. KDS4444Talk16:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Winning is only an indicator that coverage may exist. Who assigns an "award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" is not a deletion criteria... it a attribute to encourage source searching. Diligence shows it has coverage, so WP:NF is met. Is the notability as overwhelming and extreme as a big-budget major-studio blockbuster? Nope. Is it notable enough for inclusion herein? Yes. Schmidt, Michael Q.05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NF tells us us "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow,
and then WP:NF#General principles expands "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list".
WP:OEN clarifies that "Other evidence of notability" are not mandates, but are "are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist".
So, and no matter who gave them, verifiably winning an "award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" was an indicator that sources "might" exist.
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.
Article fails WP:BLP and WP:BIO. There are no independent reliable sources provided. The only source is (now was) a self-published blurb on merinews which is signed by the same person who created this article. A search finds only mirrors of WP and the Merinews source. (NOTE:This article has been prodded but creator removed prod as well as the refs, then changed their name at merinews page. Therefore, I decided to bring this to AFD for consensus rather than go back and forth with another BLPProd.) — CactusWriter (talk)15:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see now that it is same source Nom found. Article's creator seems to have created a string of poorly sourced articles. Useless without sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2015 (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 flagging of this piece for "Notability" has escalated into a situation at AN/I. The way to decide the matter is to put it up to dispassionate debate. I have no strong opinions one way or the other about whether the piece should stand or go but leave it to the community for decision. Be aware that there is a more fulsome version of the article in the edit history and that the current version has been stubbed out due to apparently COI-driven unsourced content. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i thought about that but there are really no sources for biographical information (i looked, checked lexisnexus, etc). most of the content is about how the company performed under Jr.'s leadership. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No comment here as I was original editor (and I respect the changes that other editors have made to the article) but there is a disconnect between the subject and the company's performance during his tenure. As CEO, isn't this person responsible for the company's exceptional performance? Simply giving credit where credit is due? FMIArchive (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, I suspect that, based on the editorial similarities (identical grammar, syntax, tone, you name it), subject preferences, familiarity with Wikipedia policy and culture, and their political posturing, the connection is that FMIArchive is a sock of Tolinjr, created specifically so that he can write his own Wikipedia entry. Sad. I'll raise an SPI when I get chance to document all this. Pyrope18:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Olin, Jr. states he thinks it is a family member that started the article on him as a tribute, so we should be careful that the SPI doesn't assume more than it should. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2015 (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 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.
Delete, and qualified for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G11. It isn't just an essay, it's an essay pushing a particular idea (the very title espouses its agenda), which G11 expressly covers. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2015 (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 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.
Keep. Clearly exists and is a degree-awarding institution, which we keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. I've cleaned it up and added a link to its website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (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.
Comment: Pre-internet Pakistani films are difficult to source, and no real point doing anything to fix this as a sock of a banned user just about confirms deletion... but if any non-sock regular-editor wishes to bring this back to life, I'd say sure. Schmidt, Michael Q.06:04, 23 April 2015 (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.
No independent reliable sources for this BLP: linked sources only passing mentions, primary sources, user content (Trip Advisor), or not mentioned at all. Searches reveal more of a Bollywood personality Vipin Sharma. 野狼院ひさしu/t/c10:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually moved the page to a better disambiguation should it be kept, but I agree this does not have the reliable sources to back up anything notable about this person. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (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.
This person fails WP:BLP and WP:V, and does not appear notable. There are only 2 credible, non-dead sources given, 1 of which doesn't provide the information it's spurced next to. Does not appear that many reliable sources exist on the person; most sources I could found were self-published or selling websites (e.g. Amazon) Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I refrained from taking this to AfD in case the subject is notable (in the US) but the promo article and lack of sourcing were hiding it. As a BLP unless sources are produced quickly agree this fails GNG / V / BLP. Further this page is a promo / COI / vandalism car-crash that's attracted much vandalism, overprotection and WP:OWN from the COI SPA driving it. Widefox; talk09:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The SPA involved in this has been blocked. If there is substantial US coverage, can someone in the US find it. From my perspective (in the UK), there isn't any real coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked Factiva for possible sources and this was the only substantial coverage unearthed. There was no trace of the claimed coverage in NYT. Unless more sources come to light, WP:BIO is a long way from being met. SmartSE (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I thought sourcing this would be a snap, after all 80,000+ twitter followers. I found only [27], [28], plus a million mentions where things are sourced to him as a very active online promulgator of info. Not enough coverage of him to source an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. There must be tens of thousands of persons of similar background in the US alone, and, but for a few exceptions, almost all equally unnotable. This is not one of the exceptions. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2015 (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.
Yet another Windows freeware site, with no indication of notability per WP:WEB. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. One of the references (a Trustpilot review) was evidently written by the article's creator, who keeps trying to remove authors from the references. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Speedily speedy delete this speedy advertising of RockyBytes per the speedy deletion criteria under G11, which speedily gives out speedy irrefutable proof this article may and must be speedily deedily deleted. And be speedy with it.Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2015 (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.
Delete. Agree with nom, seems like a promotional page thrown together for their one product. Little independent coverage. Most cites are standard investment snapshots, which we haven't counted as significant secondary coverage in the past. BakerStMD00:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - We don't judge notability based on accomplishments, but rather based on coverage. The company is listed on the NASDAQ, which doesn't make it "automatically notable" but which does virtually guarantee tons of reliable source coverage. Not surprisingly, a quick search verifies such coverage exists. Pinging @Oo7565: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question I wonder if others agree that the significant market-related coverage that Tamdem has been getting as cited by ThaddeusB above represents significant secondary coverage. While there are certainly multiple independent sources mentioning it, they aren't really analyzing the company so much as providing the same short bio of the company to accompany a discussion of the fluctuations in stock price. This coverage seems less notable to me, but I am happy to be persuaded otherwise. BakerStMD16:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will refer you to WP:LISTED: "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." (bold added) In other words, the consensus-based guideline says the analysis of financials is just as valid for establishing notability as reports of business activity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG(No WP:INDEPENDENTWP:RS) and WP:NCORP. I may have stopped looking too early, but all the articles I saw in ThaddeusB's search were either press releases, coverage of an insider trader employed by the company, or routine coverage of stock price activity. Stock price activity exists for any company on the market. ThaddeusB, could you maybe point us to a reliable independent secondary source providing significant coverage of the company? ―Padenton|✉03:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First you have to be kidding when you claim that there are no reliable, independent sources. You can try to claim they are "routine", but to say they aren't independent and/or reliable is nonsense.
As to whether the sources are routine, let me again point out that guidelines specifically say analyst reports are valid sources to establish notability. They are very carefully researched and given extensive information on the business activities of a business. This makes perfect sense as people rely on them to make investment decisions. I would suggest they are much better sources than media reports on average. I am not sure why you (and Bakerstmd) which to discount such sources, but there is absolutely no policy-based justification for doing so. Wikipedia cares only that a source is reliable, not why it was produced.
It occurs to me that maybe people are unfamiliar with what an analyst report entails. Here is a sample report. As you can see it provides investment info, yes, but also provides extensive background information about the company. Now, these reports are not normally free so I can't link to one for Tandem, but I can show you dozens exist. Your local library probably subscribes to some of the major ones if you really insist on verifying they cover Tandem in detail. I assure you they do. These are the sources that really establish notability. The news link was offered as a convenience to show an abundance of coverage exists. That people can still think a company no-notable in the face of 1000+ news articles baffles me.
Keeping in mind that analysis is not normally free: Here is some analyis on the IPO. Here is Bloomberg's extensive write-up of the company. Here is Reuters. Those alone easily establish notability - all are reliable and extensive. There are plenty of news sources too, like those on FDA approval of products, that aren't routine.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
San Diego-based Tandem Diabetes Care filed Monday for an initial public offering of up to $100 million. The insulin pump maker plans to sell on Nasdaq under the ticker TNDM.
The number of shares to be offered and the price have yet to be determined, Tandem said in a statement. Tandem's flagship product is the t:slim insulin pump.'
For the six months ended June 30, the company lost $25.5 million, or $75.42 per share. For the same period of 2013, the company lost $17 million, or $56.33 per share. As of June 30, the company reported having $30.1 million in cash.
Tandem Diabetes Care Inc. has raised $36.4 million in equity financing, according to a filing Tuesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Tandem sells insulin pumps, designed to give diabetics better control over their insulin doses. Its new t.slim pump resembles a smartphone and has the "footprint" of a credit card, the company says.
The company is run by prominent San Diego biomedical veterans. They include president and CEO Kim Blickenstaff, formerly co-founder of Biosite Inc.; and director Howard (Ted) Greene, co-founder of Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc.
San Diego medical device developer Tandem Diabetes Care will launch its first commercial product, a compact insulin pump, in the first half of 2012, the privately owned company said Wednesday.
The announcement followed approval of the t:slim pump by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
...
The t:slim has been under development since 2007, the company said.
Tandem raised $52.3 million from investors in 2009, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Another $12 million was raised earlier this year through loans and stock options and warrants, according to an Aug. 18 filing.
The company was created in 2006. It has 90 employees mostly located at its Sorrento Valley facility.
Tandem Diabetes Care jumped 12% as the company got an analyst upgrade. Interestingly, the analyst actually reduced its price target on the stock, but the recommendation came after a 40% decline in shares of the diabetes medical-device specialist over the past two months. Whether Tandem Diabetes Care will be able to realize its goal of creating diabetes-monitoring equipment that can dramatically increase the quality of life for those suffering from the disease is uncertain at this point. Yet with the incidence of diabetes on the rise across the nation, companies like Tandem Diabetes Care have a golden opportunity to make money and make a real difference for diabetes sufferers.
Delete. All of the citations in the article are press releases or routine coverage in industry publications. I also looked at the references found by Cunard. These are all just routine coverage of routine financial announcements. Any funding announcement by anybody is going to get picked up by the financial outlets. Ditto for an IPO announcement. That doesn't make them notable. -- RoySmith(talk)13:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you too ignore the NUMEROUS analyst reports which notability guidelines specifically list as valid sources. Additionally, "routine" business coverage, as defined by the guidelines refers to quality (brief, no analysis), not the reason for the coverage. In depth coverage ALWAYS establishes notability, regardless of the reason for the coverage. We judge notability based on the length and quality of the sources, not our personal opinion of whether a company deserved coverage or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2015 (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.
Delete at most a promotional piece without verifiabilty. The 2001 Jesse H. Neal National Business Journalism Award was won by the Newport Communications Group, for a story on which Lockridge was a "contributing editor". The 2000 ASBPE award was a "bronze" regional editorial award for papers with circulation under 80,000 in the category "single news article", not a significant award. No other bass for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2015 (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 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 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.
TV show with questionable notability. There was a ref there but sent me to a spam site (which thankfully it is a dead link now but I could tell by the domain it is)
The only refs I could find on google were basically to Youtube. Wgolf (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2015 (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.
Again, I don't think he meets any additional criteria found in WP:ANYBIO and I don't see that he has done anything else that is noteworthy enough for inclusion. AHeneen (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good many of the articles listed here are now dead links. The ones that remain are general business news (company gets new CEO, company considers IPO). I don't find any substantial articles about him. LaMona (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2015 (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 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.
Both of the onlinesources are rather dubious, but more to the point, they don't mention the article subject at all. The third, and principal, source for the article is "Irina Pop de Negreşti Archive", presumably an unpublished collection of documents. Since this encyclopedia relies on published works, and since no published works appear to mention the subject, we should delete. - BiruitorulTalk04:11, 6 April 2015 (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.
This article does not meet the Wikipedia general notability guidelines. I was unable to find any secondary sources; this person seems to be a blogger. The article looks like it was created by her partner and the content is self-promotional in nature. Rhombus (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on a side note ... is it possible that someone removed all comments from here. I know I saved a response on here, but can't find it in the page history. -- IamM1rv (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any third-party coverage. Being a published journalist isn't enough for notability - you typically need e.g. reviews of your work, a major award (Pulitzer etc), substantial involvement in a major news event (not just covering a major story), published profiles/biographies in independent sources, or other substantial media coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2015 (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 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 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.
Non notable album-creator keeps on putting odd categories on these to make it look like they are people when they are not and removing the tags Wgolf (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a note-tons of these albums by this artist are currently up for prods/afds, one of them I moved back to a redirect that someone changed. Wgolf (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2015 (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 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.
Note to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted again (if no clear consensus has emerged) rather than close as no consensus based mainly on poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2015 (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.
Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Has never played a Major League game. Page at MLB here [32]. there is some news coverage, but it all appears to be trivial mentions in routine sports coverage. Nothing more than any other minor league player, and Baseball/N implies that most solely-minor league players fail notability. ―Padenton|✉04:42, 21 April 2015 (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.
Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Has never played a Major League game. Page at MLB here [33]. there is some news coverage, but it all appears to be trivial mentions in routine sports coverage. Nothing more than any other minor league player, and Baseball/N implies that most solely-minor league players fail notability. ―Padenton|✉04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of players make it to Triple-A without playing in the majors. Alex's logic would say we should create a blurb on every minor league page for every Triple-A player, 24 per team, 30 teams in all. That's nonsense. This player doesn't have sourcing to establish even the smallest bit of notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2015 (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.
Excessively detailed and unencyclopedic information. We're talking about fictional gangs from a TV show, with no sources to indicate that this is in any way important enough to pass the GNG. There is no doubt that some TV guide listing will mention these things--but what is needed for the topic to be encyclopedic is extensive, in-depth discussion of the topic in reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTPLOT, articles that consist of only plot summaries don't belong on Wikipedia. This is more applicable to Wikia. If we had some out-of-universe details to discuss, such as the influences for the creation of each gang, that would be different. Mostly what I see in reliable sources are comparisons that invoke the name of the show, such as "these guys are the real life version of Sons of Anarchy". Maybe someone can find better results than me. I gave up a bit earlier than I usually do when researching a topic on Google, as I was swamped with irrelevant hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2015 (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.
Delete This person was not (or is not) a pornographic actress as far as I can see, so she fails WP:PORNBIO. Previous AFDs have argued that she was a porn actress that received general coverage, but neither is true. She was just a nude model mentioned in three articles (as far as I can tell), so she also fails WP:GNG. Paired with the fact that no one apparently knows whether she is alive or dead, or how she died, this is a BLP issue as well. let's just nuke it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak02:20, 21 April 2015 (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.
Dictionary deff. It does seem that this was started as a redirect 9 years ago. Not sure what happened. But either turn back into a redirect or delete would be my choices. Wgolf (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the Redirect. Seems like the logical result to me. I guess deletion is alright, too. It's currently nothing more than a dictionary definition. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2015 (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.
Other then the fact that they were the baby stars of the film Junior they seem to have no notability going for them at all! Wgolf (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep' - Fact check, there were other notable works, not a lot ... I'm not sure where being notable for being, "...that baby twins..." rates in the scale of celebrities. [34] -- IamM1rv (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. There isn't really a good redirect target, either. A handful of minor roles listed on the IMDb is not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2015 (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. Discounting the sockpuppet disruption, there is a clear consensus to delete the article and start again from scratch. Nakon01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Blow it up and start over The amount of SPAs and possible socks in this AfD is highly suspicious as well as the article's creation by a SPA. This attempt to pressure DGG to withdraw the nomination is equally unsettling. This article was clearly created with the intent to promote the subject and should be deleted appropriately. I would also request that future versions of this article be required to pass through AfC to minimize the possibility of another promotional version cropping through. Additionally I ask that DGG not withdraw this AfD so that a fair consensus can be reached. Winner 42Talk to me!13:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what AfD is supposed to be used for? Taking your nomination statement at face value, the appropriate course of action is to speedy the article, or blank 90% of it and ask for assistance rebuilding it on the talk page. Heck, you can re-write the article from scratch. This is not a technical subject. 24.193.38.8 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No answer, so I repeat: You, DGG, in your nomination statement said the subject is notable. The subject therefore ipso facto warrants an article. Your choices are to improve the article yourself, which you can certainly do because the subject is not technical, or to speedy the article if it is not redeemable. AfD is not called for.
Keep unchaged I have just read through the article and also went through the references, which are impressive to be honest. I haven't got the feeling that this article is too promotional, but rather correctly mentioning awards and recognitions. They belong into articles, as long as they are backed up by reputable references, which they all are. The article has no significant string of quotations. Withdraw Afd notice— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haine Wilson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC) — Haine Wilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and stick to the article. Not users. Since when is wikipedia about how the users use their accounts linked to the quality of the content of the article? "Being suspicious" is purely off-topic and not related to why the article was placed to Afd. Going back to where we started: Either improve the article or withdraw the Afd, as subject is notableAlan Fillings (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This calls for harsh measures and some less COI. The level of refbombing is just amazing. If someone not connected to the subject believes he is notable then eventually the article will be created. For now I'd even recommend salting it given what has been going on in this AFD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak03:24, 28 April 2015 (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.
Not a notable figure. Known for something "Twice Written" not sure what is it!! Sourced with facebook page. No secondary source. No contribution whatsoever. Educationtemple (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My presumption would be that a full professor at the Tata Institute would be notable, but of course that's not a policy-based argument. And it's a little hard to search because there are other people named "K. Sridhar" with highly-cited publications. But I'm seeing Google scholar citation counts of 276 ("Quarkonium production in hadronic collisions"), 187 ("New LEP bounds on B-violating scalar couplings"), 167 ("Fragmentation contribution to quarkonium production"), 156 ("New LEP constraints on some supersymmetric Yukawa interactions"), 114 ("Getting to the top with extra dimensions"), 108 ("Next-to-leading order QCD corrections"), etc., which should be good enough for WP:PROF#C1 even in a high-citation field. In addition, the major-newspaper reviews of his novel (thanks for adding these, EricEnfermero; they weren't in the article as nominated) could also give him notability under WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. It seems that there was some confusion over what Twice Written was. However - from the original version of this entry (2011) to the version sent to AFD to the present version - Twice Written has always been clearly described as a work of literary fiction or a novel. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:17, 19 April 2015 (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.
Completely unsupported. Only one external link, that is also dead. Talk about some miracle technology of gene transfer that has revolutionized the science but he probably missed the Nobel prize for this discovery! Educationtemple (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1. Fellowship in the Linnean society is, judging from their web site, not a significant honor. This could go either way for me but what turns me against it is the lack of sources in the article and my inability to find sources that cover the subject in nontrivial detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (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 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.
Outwith my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish its notability. Neither has anyone else in the 7 years it has been tagged for notability; hopefully at AfD we can get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I've read it through twice but can’t make sense of it. There are ways to do what it’s trying to do, interpolate between more than two quaternions, but it doesn’t seem to get close to any of them, or anything that I can make sense of.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds01:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the (single) reference online: [35]. The whole thing looks borderline WP:NOTESSAY and complete gibberish. I first tried to understand what this article is about without the reference with my smattering of elemental mathematics, and frankly the most basic things are not correctly explained. Some basic and probably incorrect summary of the reference follows with as little jargon as possible:
The main problem is to measure a 3d rotation. We have multiple measurements with uncertainty attached to each of them and we want to take a guess of what the real value is. Notice this "value" is a three-parameter thing, for instance axis of rotation (2 degrees of freedom) and angle (1 DoF), so it can be represented by a unit vector of the quaternion space (if you forget about compositions of rotations, that's equivalent to a 3-sphere).
The "naive" way to look at the problem is to use some weighted average of the measurements (it is already not that easy if measurements have inconsistent error bars). But the thing is, that average is not easy to define, for instance the average of a set of unit vectors is not a unit vector, so you cannot find a straightforward geometrical definition for "average" here, because there are additional constraints on our objects (they must fit on a sphere). The article then proceeds to describe an algorithm that supposedly finds a good solution to the problem for a reason I do not quite see.
Even if the article was rewritten into a clear, concise and correct summary of that reference, I am still not seeing how this could possibly be considered notable. Tigraan (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The goal is to find a unit quaternion m such that preimages of the points under the exponential map sum to zero in the tangent space to the unit sphere at m (with weights ). The point(s) m solving this problem is/are the same as the Karcher mean on the three-sphere. So the subject of the article is not nonsense, in my opinion. Whether it has enough sense to keep, I defer to others' judgement, although I lean slightly towards "keep and improve" myself. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2015 (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 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.
Seems to be a long and largely unverified CV of this social media oriented video producer. Article hasn't been improved in 2 years. I can't find anything apart from IMDb, press release and YouTube links online about this guy. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject has had some success as evidenced by news stories that mention he directed video X. However, none of the sources provided or found by me seem to cover the person in any depth. Thus, there is nothing to write an article with. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2015 (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.
Meets notability criteria at WP:POLITICIAN as major local political figure. (1) She has led a local authority for the majority of the last 11 years and has garnered significant press attention as a consequence (e.g. 40 mentions on BBC News website). (2) Candidacy for national office does not confer notability BUT her status is also borne out by selection as Labour's candidate for that particular seat: Blackburn. She is virtually guaranteed to be a member of parliament in less than a month(!) Lilywhites74 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (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.