The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 about a professional engineering firm reads like an ad. It has been tagged since 2008 for relying on primary sources (its own website). I could not find the nature and quantity of coverage needed to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small private company that's been around under this name only since 2006. They appear to have attracted close to zero independant writing. The page is, at best, an advertisement - Peripitus(Talk)21:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant third-party references. The two here are the company's web site and a directory of companies. Neither establishes notability. LaMona (talk) 21:49, 21 February 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 lacks enough content to identify the context of the article. It only says "Sobrang Monastery is a Buddhist monastery in Bhutan.", then a few stub tags, then nothing else. The article does also not cite any sources. ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Oh geez, it looks like the article has been expanded since I tagged this for deletion. Looks like I have to withdraw this, though I had to tag the article with ((one source)) since almost all of it is seem to rely on the same source (except on the Festivals section, where 3 sources are linked to in a row). Anyone else before I get to withdraw this? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a real place and apparently of some significance. There are even a couple of photos on Commons. As so often with this part of the world, the problem is primarily one of spelling; so many variations: Sobrang, Sombrang, Sumthrang ,etc. This seems to be the best source. Have expanded the article a little; more could be done if anyone feels so inclined. -Arb. (talk) 18:44, 24 February 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.
oops didn't notice that the article was only 10 minutes old when I put this up, I read the time wrong on it, well he does seem to be a unotable player but yeah. Wgolf (talk) 21:59, 20 February 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 - No notability outside of his group. Looks like this was created under his real name to try to stay under the radar because J-Hope has definitely been eliminated before. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:51, 27 February 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.
Article about a single church/congregation established this year, no third-party references. Perhaps the only interesting fact beyond what could be said with minor modification for any other church is that it serves a Chinese community and its services are in Chinese. (That "the church is notable for the upbeat worship music, focused setting and friendly congregation" doesn't come close to meeting the notability guidelines.) Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately. I looked in local newspaper indexes (Berkeley voice, SF Chronicle, and Oakland Tribune) and didn't find any references to this church. If there are articles in local Chinese language papers (which I am not able to search), then I might change my vote. LaMona (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill church, established only last month. My hunch is that they were setting up their social media sites and mistook Wikipedia for a social media site - not realizing that it is an international encyclopedia with inclusion standards. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 25 February 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.
Can't find any sources for this film, via its US title (Silent Warnings) or apparent other title (Warnings). Does not appear to have been reviewed in any accessible publications. Sam Walton (talk) 20:55, 20 February 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. Why can't we let articles snowball anymore? Major concert tour by notable artist. Sure, it could use more references and expansion, but add the appropriate tags... ---Another Believer(Talk)00:31, 21 February 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.
G4 speedy declined.. as "it is significantly changed from the previous afd of about 18 months ago." Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Of the sources Nfitz has provided, the first two are essentially brief announcements / press releases with the fifth and sixth being routine match reports that do not cover the player in any details. The third and fourth could help assert GNG, but I cannot view them at the moment and anyway, I would need to see more than two interviews given that the player is 34 to satisfy GNG Fenix down (talk) 16:42, 23 February 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.
Unworkably vague list article. There are a vast number of accidents, inevitably many of which will have involved brake failure. However does this make an encyclopedic topic?
As to the practicalities of sourcing, then even this currently tiny article is failing that with only one reference (the recent Bath accident has no publicly identified cause as yet). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't figure out what the role of this list is; what purpose it serves. It isn't a list of notable topics, and it isn't a list of non-notable topics that fall under some other clear topic. And it's certain to be ever-expanding yet never close to comprehensive. So I don't see where it fits in WP:CSC. A comparison with List of hydroelectric power station failures is not apt. That list fulfills several list criteria, such as being short, complete, and containing notable topics. It's very similar to List of food contamination incidents, which is also of dubious merit. I could see keeping this if there were a clear statement as to what it's for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
as previously noted, it is so that people who are aware of similar accidents from personal knowledge can add them. It does not matter if it is ever expanding, generally users will be interested in the series of accidents near a hilly location to see what could be done to prevent recurrence.Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the UK during the last two months there have been two accidents where a runaway lorry has hit pedestrians: one in Glasgow, one in Bath; and both made the national news. There has yet to be a formal report on either which would confirm or deny brake failure as the primary cause, and I suspect that the article was created out of WP:RECENTISM. Road accidents happen every day. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no, lorries out of control due to overheating breaks or break failure killing people do not happen every day, but they happen with regularity in hill areas which have not been fitted with ameliorating measures eg escape lanes, restrictions etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
its not trivial, there have been at least 5 fatal accidents in Bath, over the last 30 years, yet there is no accesible place to find them. The same will apply to other hilly areas.Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
dont Delete
Yes it is recentism, but accounts of the lorry hooting the horn as a warning on the recent accident in Bath as he descended the hill implies brake failure due to incorrect driving technique or lack of maintenance on brakes - no doubt when the results come from police the item can be corrected or removed.
The topic is very specific and there aren't that many accidents in fact with such a cause nowadays because lorries are generally prohibited from using dangerous hills or roads are fitted with escape lanes for historic accident reasons.
In Bath, with its steep hills, there have been a number of previous fatalities caused by the topic in question, with lorries descending hills, and yet information on this is not readily obtainable - nor the specific brake related cause - (e.g. driving technique or failure of maintenance. Actual brake component failure is very rare ) - including 3 into the same hotel, Royal York, 1 at least fatal.
There have been others on the A46 into Bath descent also fatal, and this was one of the reasons for the A46 diversion now fitted with escape lanes but information on these is not easily available since internet research does not discover them although they definitely used to happen regularly until the road was diverted ( partially due to a little girl fatality)
The local paper no longer has an archivist and so this is no longer a source. This widespread loss of info from local newspapers, where you used to be able to call the archivist, is a direct information loss from the internet age and it behoves us to at least replace it.
Comparison with List of List of road accidentsEngineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC) where some of the ones I have used are gleaned shows that Brake Failure causes only a small proportion of accidents, and so the topic is much more specific than that articles' remit.
The article is only a beginning and can no doubt be improved over time - i'm not going to spend a lot of time on it now to improve to have it deleted - leave it and I will.
I think the list of food contamination events is an excellent article and draws this information together in a useful manner for those interested in this topic ( me for example). The hydro electric dam failure which I started was also criticised in a similar manner when it began for the same sort of reasons.
Brake failure on heavy vehicles is a very specific type of accident and I doubt from news reports if the Scottish one counts.
I would see this topic article over time being segregated into eg.
Accidents caused by brake fade on long hills during normal driving with correct maintenance and technique - very rare.
Accidents caused by lack of maintenance of brakes
Accidents caused by lack of proper driving practice eg premature pumping of brake to exhaust air reservoir prematurely, failure to engage low gear,Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Engineman (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Brake component failure ( very rare in fact)
etc
Thus the article will be useful guide to traffic engineers and those interested in public safetyEngineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs) 11:29, 22 February 2015Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list is very specific, it is about a) heavy vehicles ( ie no cars) b) brake failure causing a fatality.
The existing listList of road accidents is readily searchable even though lengthy and is therefore useful in its own right if you want to verify details of an accident that you can recall in general but lack specifics ie date. however, i have mined this long list for brake failure accidents and this has yielded the low number included here.Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The points is that for example in the recent Bath crash, which appears for various reasons to have been brake failure, i know from personal memory of at least 4 other fatal accidents all caused by brake failure, all ultimately due to the fact that Bath is approached by a number of long hills. Yes I could find no detailed record of these accidents. It is therefore definitely worth having an article so that the public and highway officials can assess the repeatability of such accidents and install necessary corrective measures eg escape lanes, restricted routes etc.What will happen, is that when a similar accident in some other hill location occurs, local journalists can search the web, and this time find a central compilation and add that accident to it, and other interested parties, eg like myself, can add examples that they know off from living in eg a hilly area. This cannot be done at the moment without this list.Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 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.
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. The claim that he has played for Burundi is not supported by reliable sources. PROD was contested by the article's creator, who is probably also the subject of the article given their username, without providing a reason, though the claim that he has played for Burundi has since been removed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 20 February 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.
These two people are simply the last two survivors of the PS General Slocum disaster. They did not have any significant role in the event and thus clearly fail WP:ONEEVENT. Note that both articles include one "fair use" image which should be deleted if these articles are deleted. They are both already mentioned at PS General Slocum#Survivors (where I found these articles).AHeneen (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online18:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. They were notable during three news cycles: 1) Surviving the Slocum in 1904 for which they were in the news as a survivors. 2) Then they were in the news as the oldest or second oldest survivor when interviewed by the New York Times in 1989 and 3) again in 2002 and 2004 when Catherine Uhlmyer (2002) and Adella Wotherspoon (2004) died with obituaries pulished for their deaths as the last or second to last survivors. See for instance the blue links at Last surviving United States war veterans, List of the verified oldest men, List of the verified oldest women, or Millvina Dean the last Titanic passenger to die. WP:ONEEVENT is for people who are in the news for one news cycle then disappear. These people are in the news through their lives with continued coverage until their deaths, and at their deaths get large obituaries in prominent newspapers, and magazines, and from news agencies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, ONEEVENT refers to a noteworthy event, not the newscycle. These individuals can be adequately covered by a paragraph each in PS General Slocum#Survivors. There is nothing significant to say about these individuals. The articles mostly contain biographical information unrelated to the incident. Naturally, there will be something to say about an individual in an obituary, but these two did not receive significant coverage during their lifetime. The existence of articles for other last survivors and oldest people does not imply that this article is worthy of inclusion. There are many articles on those lists that likely fail WP:BIO and should be included on list articles rather than have their own page. For example, many blue wikilinks of Americans on the List of oldest men/women link to the person's entry at List of supercentenarians from the United States.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An article on this company was deleted in Feb 2014 after WP:Articles for deletion/Edgeworth Economics. Recently new user Wikimikework (talk·contribs), correctly disclosing that he is a paid advocate for the company, approached The Bushranger as closing admin, asking permission to create an article. Learning that The Bushranger is currently inactive, he placed a new draft on the article talk page. I noticed it there, moved it to a Draft page, and advised him about COI and notability. He has now completed his version and asked me about posting it. I am doubtful about the depth of coverage in the references, but it could be argued that coverage of the work the company has done indicates importance. I believe that DRV would say "relist", so I have decided that the best course is to accept the article from Draft space, and bring it here for a community view on notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JohnCD. The first article was deleted because it primarily referenced promotional articles. I believe the revised entry addresses these concerns by referencing articles in the Wall Street Journal and other reputable, third-party sources. In terms of notability, I understand that there could be some debate. My argument - as JohnCD noted - is that Edgeworth Economics is notable based on the high-profile work that they do, and the high-profile media outlets that have featured Edgeworth in their coverage of these cases. If any reviewers would like more information or context, please do not hesitate to ask, and I will provide whatever I can. Thank you for your time. Wikimikework (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this company; fails wp:corp. None of the cited sources are about the company, and the references lean heavily on two areas that are specifically designated as trivial coverage in the wp:corp policy: "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." LaMona (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are many Reliable Sources cited in the references, they are all passing mentions, not significant coverage as required for WP:CORP. In a search I found passing mentions and press releases. Bottom line, this is the kind of company that works in the background and rarely gets significant coverage, thus rarely meets WP:CORP - so that an article is unlikely even in the future. I would like to compliment Wikimikework for doing the best they could to create a valid Wikipedia article, and for being upfront about their position as a paid editor. It meant we could focus on the article itself, without side-issue suspicion about whether the author had a COI. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 23 February 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.
Apart from this the band has also performed in multiple large venues in the Netherlands, performed on festivals in the Netherlands, Germany and Norway, Successfully held a crowdfunding campaign for a new EP, recorded with well known Dutch producers, and won a few well known national band contests. Antiabed (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2 Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
5 Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
I might be wrong but doesn't the WP:BAND article state 'may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:' meaning that not all criteria have to be met. The band does meet point 1, 4, 9, 11 and 12. Antiabed (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer fact that you have to start a fund raising campaign to make an EP is already a sign that your band is not important enough. Beside that, you sounds like the bands marketing employee but you did not declare a possible Conflict of Interest. The Bannertalk15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Banner, only one criteria needs to be met, and the crowdfunding is meaningless. Major bands and artists regularly crowdfund for albums, often because they don't want to deal with the paperwork/deadlines/creative control/licensing problems that comes with funding from a label. And in terms of coverage and reviews, crowdfunded albums are treated exactly the same by the music press as albums with private funding. Earflaps (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do honestly believe this band is worthy of a page on Wikipedia. It meets several of the required points on WP:BAND, and I am in the belief that if a band meets those points a page can be made for the band. I created this page not as a promo page but as an objective informational page. I'm not protecting anything related to the page, so everyone can edit it. I have not been paid to create this page. All I tried to do was create a page for a band that meets the requirements on WP:BAND Antiabed (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The English references are crap as is, but I'm not about to claim they aren't notable in The Netherlands. They seem to have a documented national tour, and got some radio play, so deletion seems pre-emptive until someone who speaks Dutch can go through the available references and assert the publications are reliable. Earflaps (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By now, the Dutch version of the article is removed as not-encyclopedic. The national concert tour was part of a serie of concerts not by Close Up, but by the "Herman Brood Academy" where the band was involved in, the foreign concerts were part of an international exchange with bands of several countries, the concert at Appelpop was won in a contest with ten bands what they won with about 300 casted votes. There is no evidence that Close Up was the main band at the "multiple large venues in the Netherlands". The Bannertalk21:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I change my vote to Delete. Would you mind doing the cross-outy thing on my vote earlier? Never figured out how to do a strikethrough. Earflaps (talk) 22:57, 20 February 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-well at the time the article was made he was unotable, so that was the problem there. Probably should withdraw but I will wait for other people also. Wgolf (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though what's the point for players who are recently signed to fully-professional leagues, nominating articles for deletion days before the season starts (or resumes after the months-long winter break in this case). This is a systemic problem, and we need to find a better way of dealing with this. We deleted another player on the same squad last week, and did a DRV as well, and now after all that, restored the article because he played in the same match. Nfitz (talk) 15:57, 22 February 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.
author of one non-notable book; extremely promotional article. The many references are either press releases or mere mentions. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the promo aspect can be cut out, but I had trouble finding any impressive looking reviews of the book. She is all over the web at seminars and such, though, so I don't feel comfortable voting as is, since there may be reputable publications/organizations that feature her that I'm just not familiar with. Would be easier if the page poster had formatted the references better. Earflaps (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the overly many references on this page, I don't find any that are about the person, and of the ones I checked at most I found mentions of her, and in some she was not mentioned at all. Other references are to blog posts, or to promotional sources like Instant Teleseminar which seems to be a form of webinar self-publishing. Her book, from 2014, shows as held in all of 8 libraries in WorldCat, which means that it is a quite minor publication. LaMona (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A fine example of ref bombing. I did not go through all the references, but checked only those that looked like there might be some substance. There wasn't. I skipped references such as the home page of the University of Virginia. If I was mistaken and there is indeed significant coverage about Elza Maalouf on the home page of this, or any of the other various home pages in this list of spurious references, then please let me know and I shall go through all 58 references in detail. -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 26 February 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 I am the admin who declined the speedy because it asserts he signed a record deal and that could be construed as asserting notability. However, it is not sourced and really doesn't pass the smell taste. My decline was out of an abundance of caution...maybe an overabundance. JodyBtalk18:16, 20 February 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.
Okay so there is a page in Chinese also that looks like it is under a speedy. Trying to find any notability here. (I had to do some edits on this page first as there were some odd text in a form of Chinese-which I don't know any version of it but I could tell what it was trying to say)
Either a userfy or a delete it seems. Wgolf (talk) 16:07, 13 February 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 researcher. Discussion of him I can find online consists entirely of papers he's authored, and a solitary news article on his company that mentions him by name once in the trailing commentary; I'm sure he's a fantastic researcher, but he doesn't pass our inclusion standards. Ironholds (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. H-index of 7; Google turns up no independent coverage despite an easy-to-search-for name. Article is an autobiography. Seems like his career is going fine but this is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 17 February 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.
Jessica Mila is a famous celebrity from Indonesia, you can check at google and other search engine :) Jagoganteng 19:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagoganteng (talk • contribs)
Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject is notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up only the standard PR fare sure to found for any actor no matter how unknown, pictures on the red carpet and stuff like that. Msnicki (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and other editors ought to remember not to WP:BITE. It is, in fact, up to us to go searching for information! We are not judging articles, but topics, and this topic is clearly notable as a cursory google search will demonstrate. I don't read Indonesian, but [8], [9] and [10] all look reliable and significant to me. Pburka (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These look like standard vapid red carpet and minor celebrity PR fluff to me. Here are the translated versions: 1, 2, 3. Please explain why you think these look significant to you because they certainly don't to me. Msnicki (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the impenetrable machine translations. Significant doesn't mean "serious" or "important." According to our policies, significant coverage means "that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." That you consider the material vapid does not make the coverage insignificant, and it seems pretty clear that, in addition to WP:GNG, the subject passes WP:NACTOR, as she has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. Pburka (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is poorly sourced, but subject has sustained enough of a locally notable career to become a TV commercial celebrity endorser for multiple products. Pax21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They look like blogs and unreliable tabloids to me. The first one is in English and reports only that the subject likes to stay in shape, the absolute essence of trivial reporting. Translated, the second [11] and third one [12] report that the son-in-law of the president said something about her in his blog (these are blogs about a blog). You may think this satisfies WP:GNG but I do not. I think they fail, per WP:NOTRELIABLE, as "websites and publications ... that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." Msnicki (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Jakarta Post is a daily broadsheet with circulation of 40,000 which won numerous awards for journalistic excellence. Perhaps topics like staying in shape, or who is dating who, or whether the president's son thinks a person is beautiful -- perhaps these topics may appear trivial but they are important to many people, particularly in certain industries such as fashion, film, entertainment. I do not see how this would lead anybody to the conclusion that these newspapers reported only "gossip" or untruths; for example, I believe that the president's son or son-in-law really commented publicly that he thought this actress was good looking, as reported. There is another source here. If you further examine this search, lots more articles turn up, although they are mostly in Indonesian (translators are not that good yet). Indonesia is an important country, and she gets lots of media attention there, clearly meeting the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think these newspapers reported only "gossip" or untruths. I'm looking at the content, not the publishers. It's quite possible that every one of these publishers has a sterling reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, exactly what we ask of a WP:RS. I just never got that far because I don't believe the content, no matter who published it, amounts to more than trivial gossip and red carpet coverage. WP:GNG demands "significant coverage" that addresses the topic "directly and in detail". This is just not it. I don't think we will agree and I'll tell you why. If you were !voting that the subject must be notable based on articles you couldn't read and hadn't attempted to translate, I don't think content matters to you the way it does to me. I totally respect that you're entitled to your view but I think WP:GNG offers more support for mine. Msnicki (talk) 16:19, 20 February 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.
Claim to fame is being mayor of a town of 20k people, which doesn't come close to meeting WP:NPOL. As far as WP:GNG goes, sources consist of an Angelfire site, genealogy sites, and a few mentions in Louisiana historical publications. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person is notable as a physician of fifty years. He was also a mayor of Sulphur, LA. The article has been on Wikipedia for four years. The principal source is from the Louisiana Historical Assn.:[1]Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being a physician, even if for 50 years, does not make one notable. Nor does having been a mayor of a very small time. Length of article on wikipedia does not show the person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The age of an article is not a measure of its quality or notability. This subject's medical career does not meet criteria for notability by extension from wp:PROF, and WP:NPOL #3 is pretty clear that local politicians don't meet criteria for notability unless they get significant coverage from independent sources. A mention on a historical website doesn't seem to meet that standard. BakerStMD T|C16:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources meet GNG. If the Louisiana Historical Association say he is notable enough for their encyclopedia, he meets GNG. The size of the city is a red herring. Sources determine notability, not population statistics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have not handed over the determination of Wikipedia notability to the Louisiana Historical Association. Entries in local biography compendia are not adequate to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NPOL.The online biographical dictionary has no explanation or criteria as to how the persons listed are chosen, or what qualifications a submitted biography would have to meet, so it appears to be an indiscriminate compendium. The collection of papers at Tulane are primarily those of other members of his family, and notability is not inherited. The site says "The papers primarily concern Arnaud, Pierre-Adolphe, Adolphe J., and Annie Lafargue." The fact that he was mayor of a town of 20k and a physician for 50 years are not adequate to justify a biography in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Louisiana Research Collection overview also contains a two paragraph biography of Alvan Lafargue that refers to Lafarge as, inter alia, "a noted physician, civic leader, and politician." Far from handing over determination of notability to Louisiana authorities, these authorities' biographies constitute WP:SIGCOV going to meet WP:BASIC, in combination with the other references in the article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography has an article on Dr. Alvan Lafargue; it does not have articles on Adolphe Lafargue (a state legislator and judge and Alvan's father) nor Malcolm Lafargue (a U.S. attorney and Alvan's nephew). But Adolphe and Malcolm have met the notability threshold for Wikipedia. I have looked for other sources for Dr. Lafargue. There is the 1981 book by Erbon W. Wise (a Sulphur author), Brimstone! The History of Sulphur, Louisiana, which has information on Dr. Lafargue. However, I don't have access to that book for the material there. It could be obtained through Inter-Library Loan; that would take some weeks to do, beyond the decision on whether this article stays. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:22, 22 February 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.
Almost entirely cited by self-published articles written by the subject.
Ignoring the self-published articles, it's difficult to see notability for this person. If anything, I think it would be more beneficial to have an article about their charity rather than the person themself. tommylommykins (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed that this conflict of interest problem has already been raised, but not in the context of AFD. The relevant discussion is here: User_talk:Tinacornely. The outcome of that discussion was that the author should be given extra time to establish notability. In the time since then, no new indication of notability has appeared in the article, and a web search does not indicate much other presence on the web that isn't self-published. tommylommykins (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A COI is never sufficient reason for deletion and here the article is neutral on top of it, so doesn't even need a COI tag. The Miami Herald article (ref #2) and the Huffington Post article (ref #4) are both quite extensive and biographical That should be sufficient to establish notability. Pinging @Bellerophon: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was accepted because the refs at the time of acceptance were sufficient to demonstrate that the subject had a fair claim of notability. The nominator here seems to be confusing the issues of COI and notability. While the username for the key contributor for this article is problematical (for purely policy reasons) and indicates a likely COI, this has no bearing on Cornely's notability. As Thaddeus notes, COI (as a deletion rationale) is almost never supported at AfD unless accompanied by rampant promotionalism, which is clearly not the case here. Bellerophontalk to me10:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have edited the article and removed most of the self-published sources as they seemed unnecessary padding. I have also expanded the article, tidied it up and placed citations at relevant junctures in the body text, rather than all piled together at the end. Bellerophontalk to me12:37, 25 February 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.
Unsourced article about a short-run soap opera. No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. I was only able to find a couple of very brief mentions. The article is full of original research and unsourced WP:BLP content. - MrX14:32, 20 February 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 WP:ORG. Created by a single purpose editor, the sources merely confirm people have performed there. Obvious this is an advert, given the creator has tried to add this to the Dubai article. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator): This is the only weekly comedy club in the United Arab Emirates. It has been featured in many publications and is growing in popularity. What would be achieved by deleting this page For anyone interested in comedy in the UAE or Dubai it is invaluable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonylemezma (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — Tonylemezma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@George8211 because the longest running free comedy club in the UAE is notable. It attracts international acts and gives local performers a chance to get on stage. Its not particularly well known that the UAE has an active comedy scene and this club is a largely responsible for that. Deleting this page would be like deleting the entry for the comedy store in London, had it been written on wikipedia after 2-3 years of operations. If people find this page it may change their perceptions of UAE comedy and it will also let them know that there is a place they can perform and where the public can watch emerging performers without charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonylemezma (talk • contribs) 19:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There isn't enough documentation of the comedy scene in Dubai. We need pages like these to record the history of what is happening, as it is being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonylemezma (talk • contribs)
Keep Dubai Laughing has given me repetitive opportunity to get on stage and exercise my talent as a stand up comedian. Not only that but they've also attracted international well known comedians that I had the opportunity to rub shoulders with, and shared the stage. They have been providing free comedy nights in a city like Dubai that's highly notable. They are trying to bring in a social change by using humor to bring in different cultures together. Must keep them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidakram83 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dubai laughing comedy club is the only place in Dubai that actually resembles a comedy club. Only venue in Dubai which have a weekly comedy night every Wednesday and that too free of charge. This is where part time comics like me retreat to after our regular day jobs and we try out new material. They've played a pivotal role in starting up a comedy scene in Dubai which used to be completely dead a few years ago. A lot of international comics have performed in this venue alongside local comedians, therefore has attracted a large fan following. Keeping this page will get the word further out there, that there is a an actual comedy scene in Dubai.Iceman53y (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional, Also per the fact all those are above are affiliated with this club and are clearly doing everything in there power to keep it ... they'll need a lot of luck!. –Davey2010Talk21:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be consistent. Why discriminate against this entry? The best referenced, most notable entry in its category. Tonylemezma (talk) 03:10, 21 February 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. Nomination is based on the flawed arguments that the article was "abandoned" (no, it's a WP:STUB, perfectly acceptable) and that the organisation no longer exists (so what?). This was the statutory public ambulance service for two counties with a total population of about 1.5 million people. Any emergency service covering a jurisdiction that size is notable. This nomination really doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the assessment provided by Necrothesp. Although the organisation was in existence for only a little over 10 years, it was a statutory provider and over that period of time there were a lot of changes to the way services were run. I have added some further information about the service to the article, supported by appropriate references. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These improvements probably mean it's worth keeping. But it seems unlikely that anyone will do any more work on it. It's quite difficult to find information about NHS organisations that have been abolished.Rathfelder (talk) 23:31, 25 February 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.
Firstly this article was mostly filled with copyrighted material taken word for word from
its website[13] which was deleted with this diff
[14].
It does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I was unable to find a reliable third-party source
or significant coverage of the university itself. According to WP:N and WP:ORG, if no reliable
third party sources are found then it should not have an article. If this does not appear to be the case,
do let me know and the deletion proposal will be withdrawn. Mbcap (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The nominator was quite right to remove the extensive apparent copyright violation from the article. But it is easy to confirm from independent sources that the institution exists and is an accredited university - and experience shows that there are always enough independent sources on such institutions to write an article giving at least the basic information about them, even if (particularly outside North America and Europe) it can sometimes take some effort to find the sources. PWilkinson (talk) 17:24, 22 February 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.
Redirect to one of BOZ's suggestions. Existence warrants a small mention, but not a separate article. And nothing special needing to merge beyond content already there. 野狼院ひさしu/t/c11:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Provided this is not kept, closer should note that several others entries at Cluedo#Games (the best redirect target, IMO) also have separate articles, and perhaps should be dealt with similarly even though not formally bundled into this AfD. Pax23:41, 12 February 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, czar⨹13:25, 20 February 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.
Note There is another Laura Lam who writes on Vietnam. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 13:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
Delete I would call this a case of slightly WP:TOOSOON. Found one source (other than book reviews) of her being signed to a publisher [15], yet a book would not be published by 2016. As of now, the article is suffering from lack of a claim of importance (i.e. what's special about her beyond being a writer and published some books), probably deletable by WP:A7. I would ask for no prejudice of recreation when her career really takes off. 野狼院ひさしu/t/c11:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree with the assessment that this article is slightly WP:TOOSOON. Her novel "Pantomime" did get publisher and is stocked in almost 300 libraries see World cat. She did get a "Teens book of the month" listing from the Scottish Book Trust [16]. She made an appearance at the 2014 Inverness Book Festival [17] which led to a mention of her name on the BBC News website. She also had a passing mention in a Guardian article about the best LGBT books for children, teenagers and young adults. She hasn't yet had the depth of coverage needed for WP:AUTHOR. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lam has won a number of awards, her works are seen as important in bringing intersex characters into the YA genre, she is noted enough to be a guest speaker at 2014 Worldcon. She is anthologised in Solaris Rising 3, she does book signings at Forbidden Planet. Her books are regularly listed by other authors Emma Carroll, Cindy Pon. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC).
You say "won a number of awards" but I cannot see any information to support this claim. Her book "Pantomime" has been selected on a number of promotional reading lists, including some that are specifically aimed at increasing awareness amongst teenagers. The only award I can see that she has received is from GLAAD, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media advocacy organization in the US; she picked up one of the 8 awards at their second Bisexual Book Awards, which had 60 books submitted to them. When you say "her books are regularly listed by other authors" this also doesn't seem to accurately reflect things. Of the two examples you quote: one author (promoting her own book) names "Pantomime" in her "top 10 children's books about the circus" and the second example is an interview with Young Adult fantasy author Cindy Pon, who when interviewed name-checked "Pantomime" part of a list of books that she was asked to recommend. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree that at this particular juncture, this is just a bit WP:TOOSOON. For a rarefied elite class of literary awards (e.g. the Pulitzer, the Booker, the Governor General's), a nomination is sufficient to demonstrate notability in and of itself, because those awards and their nominees get actively and extensively covered in gold-standard national news sources like the BBC or The New York Times — but for many genre or specialty awards which generate much more limited media coverage, such as the Bisexual Book Awards or the British Fantasy Society, even a win might not be enough in and of itself if the reliable sourcing ain't there to cover it. The quality of sourcing here, further, is very poor, relying almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources like WordPress blogs, examiner.com, BuzzFeed and the websites of the award organizations themselves — so the sourcing is not solid, reliable or independent enough to claim that she gets over WP:AUTHOR for the awards, or that she's garnered enough media coverage to pass WP:GNGinstead of WP:AUTHOR. It's important to understand that a deletion result right now does not mean that she can never have an article — lots of people have flunked an AFD at one particular point in time, but then later became eligible for a new article again because their basic notability claim, and/or the availability of reliable sourcing, had substantively improved in the intervening time. So this doesn't mean "never" — it just means "not yet". Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future when she can be sourced better than this (and no objection to sandboxing in draft or userspace.) Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 6 February 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, czar⨹13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's just barely enough here to warrant a keep in this instance, although it is a very close call and I can understand if the closing admin thinks that the consensus is to delete. What kind of pushes it for me is that she has been on the ALA list, has received a review from the Scottish Book Trust (along with being one of a book of the month), and she's received reviews from Booklist, MuggleNet, and from the British Fantasy Society (along with a nomination). That's just enough to where she could probably squeak by notability guidelines with the closest of shaves, although I generally prefer to have more stronger sourcing than this for articles. I also found a review by a publication named Vada Magazine and I'm not entirely sure if that's usable or not- they have a set amount of contributors and an editorial team (a fairly large one, actually) so that does make it a little more reliable than others. That it's written by one of the editors of the site does give it a little more legitimacy than others, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)04:43, 21 February 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 has been round for more than nine years but the only reference is to a local newspaper. I am a great fan of microbreweries and their products but unfortunately they are, almost by definition, very local things which cannot qualify for this encyclopedia. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 13:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepStrong Keep There has been coverage. Finding it may take some time. I don't have easy access to archival copies of the Detroit News, Macomb Daily and Detroit Free Press. Meanwhile, you and your fellow admins have deleted all the material that was on the page, and left the bowdlerized version. Which you now deem promotional and not sufficiently covered.
You deleted this without notice to any of the major contributors, and with instant deletion, if a notice was posted at all. It was restored. You immediately followed up with WP:PROD. Looking at the whole transaction, this is a self fullfilling prophecy and a kangaroo court. I will WP:AGF, and hope that this only looks bad, and that we can develop this article further.
Comment. I have just selected at random ten breweries whose brews were on sale at the Rochford Beer and Cider Festival 2014. the analysis is: 1 - too big to count as micro, 1 - has an article but it is hopelessly stubby and unreferenced (created by an experience editor who ought to know better!), 1 mentioned in the Beer in England article, 7 no article but I suspect that for any of them I could find references comparable to those offered for Dragonmead. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 14:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question to @RHaworth:: You're a very capable admin, with loads of experience in notability issues. Why do you think that the links presented by Yunshui are insufficient for passing WP:GNG (and thereby WP:V)? --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sourcing to establish notability under the GNG. Also a trouting is in order for an inappropriate use use speedy deletion by RHaworth - there were many past revisions without the slightest hint of promotionalism. Can I get any article I want speedy deleted by dumping promotional text into it now? Additionally, speedy deletion is only for unambiguous advertising, not mere promotional language, and the text and the time of deletion did not meet that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RH made a mistake; we all do from time to time. Let's focus here on the merits of keeping/deleting the article, rather than arguing whether the original CSD was justified or not. Yunshui雲水15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 36 references. Putting aside the procedural snafu, RHaworth may have been right about about the lack of sources when he unilaterally deleted it, but his analysis has no application to the article as presently constituted. WP:GNG and WP:V are amply fulfilled. WP:Snow and WP:Speedy keep in February? 7&6=thirteen (☎)22:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to more than adequately meet the hurdle of GNG. Some small local companies are more notable than others. If that's down to their promotional efforts, then kudos to their promotional efforts, but we can't take a view on that. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, though this is being turned into a truly dreadful, excessively detailed promotional article based largely on beer websites and 'stuff on the internet'. My initial reaction was a firm 'Delete' but, taking into account the few Detroit news articles and couple of book sources, the company probably squeaks over the notability line. Sionk (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are now 44 references and more than a dozen notes, including inter alia the Chicago Tribune. Lots of other references from around the country. I presume that this discussion will close in the next day or two. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎)21:40, 26 February 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 newspaper. The article itself acknowledges that its distribution is very limited. Google finds 52 hits for "deep south news", many of which aren't related, and none of which include substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deep South News is a small news company by definition. Having a presence on Wikipedia provides a sense of pride for our employees they have not experienced before. If Wikipedia cannot accept pages that define small businesses, that is disappointing. Is there additional information we can provide to have the page reconsidered? Thank you for the help. Lindsey.kim (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but in the interest of its value as a reference work, Wikipedia is restricted to notable topics. If anyone in the course of this discussion can provide evidence that the paper meets any of the applicable notability criteria, the article is welcome to stay. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:32, 15 February 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.
Well there is this, this and this for junior / minor tournaments organised by FIFA confederations. The issue with these, beyond WP:NOTSTATS, to my mind, is that players who play in these tournaments are not considered inherently notable per WP:NFOOTY so, as in this instance, you end up with a load of redlinks, many of which may never result in WP articles. As such, aside from simply being a data dump, the articles are not even particularly useful aids to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - It's generally common practice to have competitions organised by FIFA and confederations to have their squads listed on a stand-alone article. Those mentioned above (excluding the SAFF U16 Championship) should be reinstated (though I personally don't care about beach football). Ideally, we'd compile a list of all U17-U23 competitions organised by AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, OFC and UEFA and put their 'squads' article up for AFD. This way, we won't have these regular exchanges. Incidentally, the 2015 edition of this competition is now the Summer Olympics' qualification tournament. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The AfDs above illustrate consensus that non-senior tournaments do not need their own squad articles. The argument that others should be reinstated is not relevant to this. What guidelines / consensus are you using to support your opinion? Fenix down (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add referances: Notable tournament which can benefit from having the squads listed out. No other squad list has been singled out for failing WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and I can't see how this fails either. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:11, 22 February 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.
true. If he really was award winning, then info would be out there. Could it be that there is info out there but you have to search sources in languages spoken in India, Pakistan, and other countries in the region? Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:53, 14 February 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 rivalry, hence they don't schedule one another. Looks like maybe a handful of interesting games, and yes there's the recent national championship game, but even then one does not remember even marketing exploiting some semblance of a rivalry. No mention of the rivalry on the FSU Seminoles page. The only mention of it is on Auburn's page. "Rivalries with Clemson, Georgia Tech, Tulane and Florida State were more prominent during Auburn's membership in the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the Southern Conference, and the early days of the Southeastern Conference." Well FSU was never in any of those conferences, and you're stretching early days of the SEC to say Auburn ever played FSU then. Compare this "rivalry"'s beginnings with either of Clemson, Tech, or Tulane. Perhaps UF and FSU were confused. The only mention of the rivalry I find, is of it never coming to be Auburn ends football rivalry vs. Florida State. Cake (talk) 09:21, 13 February 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.
Unable to locate any independent sources (only social media and press releases found). Company sources (facebook and company website) indicate founded by Émile Delahaye, but he died (without heirs) either 6 or 41 years before the company was supposedly founded by him. Fails WP:NCORP. Tgeairn (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm scratching my head on this one. The company apparently exists, but their company history doesn't add up. Even their own history is self-contradictory (see Facebook where they simultaneously say founded in 1911 and 1946, or their DELSEY USA Facebook page which is an apparent duplicate, but does not mention 1911). --Tgeairn (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Appears in the Encyclopedia of American Industries, "Delsey is considered to be France's largest luggage manufacturer and among the top three worldwide...". The 1911/1946 dates are explained right at the start of the article, "In 1911, the Etablissements Delahaye specialised in the manufacture of cases for cameras and covered cases for typewriters and record players. Mr. Delahaye and the Seynhaeve brothers joined forces in 1946 to create Delsey." This indicates that the nominator hasn't actually read the article. Andrew D. (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew: Contrary to your assertion, I have actually read the article and spent a couple hours going through poorly translated French articles and lists. The passage you quoted in no way explains how Mr. Delahaye joined forces with anyone in 1946, given that he died in 1905 with no heirs. I explained this concern in the nomination. Tgeairn (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Établissements Delahaye was obviously a business which continued long after the founder died. It merged in 1946 with the Seynhaeves and the name of the new business was derived from the combination of their names - DEL + SEY. It seems easy to find more sources in French which confirm this — for example, see De Mémoire de Marques. All that's needed here is some improvement of the article per our editing policy. If an issue of this sort is found in an article then a cleanup tag such as ((contradict)) should be used. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, if you have sources that demonstrate meeting WP:NCORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH, please provide them. Bad-faith assumptions that the nominator did not read the article or did not follow WP:BEFORE do not address the notability concerns. Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite - the article is terrible, full of NPOV violations and badly-written COI self-promotion and very light on resources, but Delsey is a household name, market-leading company with worldwide which easily satisfies WP:NCORP if someone can be bothered to put some sources in. Just a couple of quick Google searches for "Delsey luggage", "Delsey market leader", "Delsey household name", etc. bring up dozens of hits from newspapers, magazines, travel websites and trade journals. The issue over the dates of founding of the company is an irrelevant red herring when determining whether the subject of this article satisfies WP:CORP, where I'd say it obviously does. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤15:30, 20 February 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.
Artist is the subject of a brief article in a local paper. I was not able to find any info in other RSes. She does not otherwise meet the requirements in WP:ARTIST. The article reads like an autobiography and much of the info is unverifiable. Note that another person with the same name appears in other news articles. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the lack of notability, the text is highly subjective and spammy. The second paragraph, for example has no factual content and is pure self-promotion Jimfbleak - talk to me?09:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An artist going about the normal endeavours of exhibitions and entries, but at best WP:TOOSOON; no evidence of attained notability to the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
What truth beyond false-light libel? Let's say we had an article with Anthony Appleyard, a school teacher, lives alone in a neighborhood where children were molested by one or more persons. One of the children lived next to Appleyard. A neighbor reported seeing the child enter Appleyard's home on a day a molestation was reported but other neighbors disputed those accounts. One of possibly many other child molesters, and an acquaintance Appleyard knew from PTA meetings, was charged and convicted of aggravated child sexual assault. Appleyard said he didn't molest the child next door and said he was asleep when the neighbor said the child visited. No one was able to corroborate the sleeping alibi. Appleyard works for the local school district. He has not been charged with a crime. See what I did there? I created an entirely negative article which would be trivial to source given very simple facts about employments and a criminal act Anthony Appleseed has not been charged with, let alone convicted. How long would you like an article like that around simply because every statement is true and sourced? It's not acceptable and it's why we prohibit attack pages and have a BLP policy. This person is not notable enough to retain only false light association to a crime without any other information about him. Attack page, BLP1E and NN says this biography article needs to go. --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLP1E, while the death of Manadel al-Jamadi has received persistent coverage in both news and books, the individual who is alleged to cause the death have only received coverage in reliable sources only in connect to the death of the aforementioned individual. Therefore, the individual is not as notable as the event, and the article should redirect to the death. Furthermore Manadel al-Jamadi has not received significant coverage beyond their death; therefore the article Manadel al-Jamadi should be moved to Death of Manadel al-Jamadi. The event passes notability requirements per WP:EVENT, but neither individual has received in-depth coverage outside of the event.
That being said, here are major BLP issues as the subject of this AfD is accused, and not convicted, and the article should not disparage the individual or presume guilt.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 23 February 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 keep. Deletion rationale applied, Community still want it kept, By the looks of it this will be staying for a very long time so renominating again and again really is just a waste of time. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk14:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. [My redirect of this article was reverted, which was reasonable per BRD, but it was then nominated for deletion by the same editor who reverted me with no deletion rationale.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits08:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous afd was overwhelmingly keep, and nothing has changed. Closing admin even wrote "I suggest you don't renominate this judging by the comments below". Not sure why this user has such a vendetta against a perfectly reasonable page. Personman (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article has been improved markedly since its previous nomination. The novel, by one of the leading Australian authors of children's books, has been widely reviewed in notable publications. It has been adapted as a stage play which has been performed internationally and for the BBC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as a disruptive nomination, this was closed less than a day ago as "Keep". You don't get to just keep relisting pages you don't like until those who disagree aren't paying attention and the discussion is ended. Lankiveil(speak to me)12:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment It's not a "get out of jail free card", but equally the consensus was overwhelmingly keep (with a note from the closing user to that effect), rather than it having been a speedy NAC on procedural grounds before any replies were received. To claim that evident consensus was solely based on a technicality that made the nomination ineligible is not correct. The condescending tone and italics don't really show a great deal of good faith. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤14:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Lankiveil - Have you seen the academic and media sources I've been adding to the article? I really do think the article shows its notability now. :) --110.20.234.69 (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would understand the argument that the previous nomination did not have a deletion rationale, but gosh how it missed the four whole words of this one. Given the improvements to the article, I am curious as to whether the nominator still thinks this fails WP:NBOOK, which by my reading it passes fairly easily. Frickeg (talk) 13:12, 20 February 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.
At first glance it looked like there was enough in the publications to be meet the inclusion requirements, but on digging the books turned out to be self published or vanity press. All coverage appears to be from primary sources - I couldn't find anything significant in secondary sources. Bilby (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, initially looks good but the sources are either poor or inappropriately cited, and the books are clearly non-notable; fails WP:N ✤ Fosse 8 ✤14:56, 20 February 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 keep as the redirect it is. There was really no need for this discussion, as the redirect is correct. I'd just close it if there weren't already a delete vote, although I am guessing that is for the list article to which this page points. LadyofShalott19:01, 21 February 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. While Clark hosts a notable podcast, I don't see any evidence that Clark is notable in and of himself. As Cwobeel noted, he fails GNG: there is not substantial coverage of Clark. (There are articles about the podcast, but they only discuss Clark in passing.) Further, SYSK is the only bright spot on his career; the rest isn't significant enough for an article. Clark doesn't warrant an article. I don't think we need to keep the title around at all, but I wouldn't protest if this page were redirected to Stuff You Should Know. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. For the same reasons as the deletion of Bryant's article. Information on the hosts should be included in a separate paragraph in the article on the podcast. Not enough notability and content for individual articles. --Tuluqaruk (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuluqaruk (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. He is the co-host of a podcast that is downloaded more than 1 million times per week and is consistently on iTunes’ Top 10 podcast rankings. He may not have a profile in GQ, but that doesn't mean the coverage of him and his podcast is not notable.--Briancua (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage of him? I haven't seen anything at an independent source that talks about him (not the podcast, but him) for more than a paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with possibilities per C.Fred above. There is no evidence presented that the hosts of SYSK are independently notable yet, but given the possibility, I think we want to keep the history. BLAR seems the most sensible option. De Guerre (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced, not only to articles about the program, but to profiles of its creators (profiled as a pair, but, still, profiled) in reliable newspapers including the Toronto Star.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 27 February 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.
Are industry portals not good enough secondary sources to provide reliable information on the subject? What can I do to improve? Chodznadswider (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Chodznadswider[reply]
In which part of the above I am wrong? Or maybe there is something I missed. Chodznadswider (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes link is to their blog section ([23]), which doesn't seem much more reliable than what most blog offer. Your second link is to adexchanger - the name already sounds like a PR site. Sorry, but I am not seeing any significant coverage by mainstream sources, which is required here. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here21:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Online advertising is not mainstream and will probably never be. However globally adexchanger is one of the leading sources of information on this topic, though niche or even PR it may sound to people who don't deal with it (By the way "Adexchange" is actually a stock exchange of online ads, where particular ad impressions are bought and sold in real time. There is a number of competing institutions of this kind). So is the case with blogs of people who write about it, which are often the only sources on the topic. Should those more niche branches of knowledge be excluded from Wikipedia, because they never find their way to the mainstream? Why then are there any articles on online advertising in the Wikipedia? By the way - the notability guideline does not say sources should be "mainstream".Chodznadswider (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm trying to prove a point. It's not mainstream so most of what it's about will not be mentioned in the mass media - that's my definition of "not mainstream", depends on what you think. Of course, companies which earn on advertising do appear in the mass media, but usually for other reasons than online advertising. My point is that it's barely possible for a niche topic to get reliable "mainstream" coverage, and that what I understand was needed (as Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus mentioned). By the way if forbes.com is not mainstream then what is?Chodznadswider (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr explained what's wrong with forbes ref: the key wikipedia requirement violated in this case is the cited reference must have an independent, neutral authorship. Yes, niche topic don't have mainstream media coverage, and that's exactly why they usually don't have wikipedia coverage. Notice I wrote "usually": "mainstream" is not the only allowable kind of sources per wikipedia rules, but absence thereof is a good indicator that the subject is nonnotable. Therefore Piotrus merely stated that he tried to find something usable and failed, so he concluded nonnotability. It is your job, not his, to prove notability. If you will be convincing, he even can change his mind. Please read our policy about admissible sources; I am not going to repeat all of it here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand it better. I'll try to provide some more sources to prove notability.Chodznadswider (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the sources now added establish notability but the article is written in a very promotional tone and needs a rewrite to avert potential NPOV and COI issues. Nonetheless the subject appears to be sufficiently notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤15:01, 20 February 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.
Obvious delete. A First-year Ph.D. student, far too soon to have accumulated any academic notability per WP:PROF. Student awards such as he lists are explicitly discounted by WP:PROF, and there is no other evidence of notability. Note: there are other people with almost the same name, making it very difficult to search for publications by the subject, but it's not a good sign that his web page's "publications" sub-page is empty. Searching Google scholar for mobile "texture streaming" as suggested above does turn up three pubs, but they all have single-digit citations, far far below the threshold for notability in a high-citation subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 22 February 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 page appears to have been created and maintained by its subject for purposes of self-promotion. Little of its content is sourced, and seven of its nine reference sites are database-generated, even when housed at notable publications' websites. No articles on Wikipedia link to this one.
Delete per nom. The creator of this article, Sarahent, has only edited this and Carl Jackson Entertainment (deleted as spam), has an obvious COI and greets deletion with accusations of bad faith, including racism. the article should be considered on its merits, but the intention of its editor is clear Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (There is no unambiguous advertising or promotion on this page: there is evidence of independent sources and notability which was why the first page was deleted. I followed the guidlines to a tee by using this page as my example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia_Pictures Finally someone under the name anonymous keeps flagging these pages. I feel this person is bias. They went as far as adding this in the catogory of the United States Of America- related deleted discussions. Wiki clearly states: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. After disregarding all the puppetry, recruited votes, and other nonsense (this is the first AfD I can remember where oversight had to step in), this came down to leaning towards delete. In the end, the detailed analysis by Fyddlestix is what swayed me. Jbhunley (JBH) made a cogent argument that if you were to go back in time, you could find a historical version of this article which was worth keeping. I give a lot of weight to people who change their minds in the middle of a discussion, because that shows they are actually thinking about the issues with an open mind, not just defending a position. But, the argument by Fyddlestix that even this historical version does not meet our requirements was persuasive, leading me to a delete consensus. -- RoySmith(talk)00:04, 5 March 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.
To boot, we have numerous fantastical claims, like being "His claim to the thrones of the Kingdoms of Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh comes from being the last of the House of Dogra not under obligation to serve or recive benifit from the Republic of India." [sic] The subject himself has clearly edited the article to a large extent, given such claims and self-created photographs.
My Dear Magog the Ogre, Thank for bringing up your concerns regarding the article. Though I believe that in this case you need not have concern.
There are I believe many articles and citation on the subject from different and independent sources. Some of these are even catalogued a website of the subject: http://www.ankitlove.org/nick-cannon/
–Here is a list of a just a few citations in the article itself of independent nature that pertain directly to the subject
Dastur-Arsiwala, Nicole (7 April 2013). "Beethoven with a Touch of Disco". Daily News and Analysis (Diligent Media Corporation). retrieved 30 June 2013.
Newstead, Sophie-Jane (23 November 2013). "Interview: ANKIT LOVE Editor-In-Chief of new Science / Fashion publication Mist Magazine". :Joyzine. Retrieved 21 January 2014.
Anderson, Emily (1 April 2013). "How I got here (page 98)". Spirit & Destiny (Yellow News).
–Apart from his own achievements the subject is also the son of a public and influential political and legal figure in India Kunwar Bhim Singh, and thus an ancestor of General Zorwar Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorawar_Singh_Kahluria of the Dogra Rajput dynasty, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogra_dynasty there are in links to these pages in the subject’s article too and their very own citations that support the notability of that history.
–Further, fantastical would be perhaps more a statement of opinion to some extent, and the claims maybe numerous but there are none the less made as claims. No where in the article does it suggest that they are anything other then just that claims, based of course on history, heritage and law, while these may not be so well known in the west as yet, there are none the less notable.
Further such claims are in fact common place and appropriate on wikipedia, are you aware of these pages:
–In addition some of the reasons calling for deletion are based on accusations of vanity and “non-neutral” point of view, I believe the accusations themselves are not justified, I find the article of reasonable and encyclopaedic quality (though do bear in mind for parts of it I was the editor). Yet you will still find that the guidelines Articles for deletion#How_to_contribute clearly states this in CAPS and more, "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion..." Even wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has commented on this problem. –Further I would like to add I have now painstakingly researched & updated the citations, and removed a few expired links. Yes, upon learning of the nature of these claims, I wanted to investigate deeper into veracity of the matter myself, and found the subject in London and personally took these photos. They are indeed taken by me, but they are not retouched and are of official legal passport documents with oral permission from the subject to release in public domain. If required, I can also obtain permission via email for confirmation of their release. Indeed, I too find these claims remarkable in nature, but lets us remember that quote from the Heritage Dictionary the 1st citation on notability of the subject "worthy of note or notice; remarkable." Once again I thank you for your time and deliberation. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are a lot of sources on this article now, but much of it seems like sourcing-for-the-sake-of-having sources. Many of the links don't mention Love at all, or if they do, mention him only in passing. Those that do focus specifically on him seem to be promotional pieces, screenshots of someone mentioning him on their blog which have been re-hosted on love's own site, fluff pieces in very low-circulation/promotional magazines, database profiles of his company, etc. I see no major third-party, reliable sources here and this whole page just reeks of self-promotion. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep - Puffery of the worst kind. Fails GNG. Fails WP:ENT. As to the claim of a famous father and even more so some great ancestor makes no difference. Notability is not inherited. That User:योजनबुद्ध thinks posting pictures of this persons passport on a public site is a problem in and of itself, particularly after the first upload was suppressed. JBH (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Why changed to keep: I reverted the article to a version prior to all the changes by User:योजनबुद्ध. That version seems OK. JBH (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP -
1. The events he has listed are verifiable. Low circulation of some sources doesn't make them untrue. That implies that only popular sources count. This is not how information works.
2. It is a fact that he claims to be Buddha or these titles. CLAIMS is the key word here. Whether or not you believe he is Buddha, you cannot prove that he is NOT and it is a FACT that he claims it. We don't have discussions on whether God is THE God in a factual framework.
3. To be frank, I am a former teacher of his at ACS. I have known him for 14 years and stayed in contact. These events are true, not that testimonials are reasons to keep an article. But based on logic, there is no logical reason to take this down. He has cited his sources on the events that are verifiable by nature and the word choices (such as claims) make the unverifiable ones true in their representation. This is a factual representation of who he is. Maybe you don't like the writing style of this, but it has nothing to do with the verifiability of it all. That is the goal of Wikipedia. Isn't it?
Dear esteemed Editors, once again thank you for bringing up concerns, I really do appreciate and value them and your time and efforts, but please allow me to reassure you that there is actually no need for concern. —I don’t feel it’s an advertisement as the subject has given away all his intellectual property and copyright, any one can reuse it with out paying a fee, you can see that declaration here: http://www.ankitlove.org/foundation/about/ —Some would even say it may this may bring ridicule to the subject. —Perhaps its the claim to buddhahood that may bother the most, but once again on wikipedia this is also common, only after this was added was the article put up for deletion it had been here for years before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddha_claimants —By my check of the 109 sources at the moment in this article 85 directly focus on Love, 11 focus on works made by Love, 5 focus on his family or associates, 19 give sourcing for background and happenings concerning Love’s life and places and events. Further many of the sources are independent thrid-party including DNA India perhaps not known in the West but a respected broadsheet in India with readership of approx. 500,000. Spirit & Destiny magazine is published by Bauer in the UK and has circulation of approx. 50,000. And of course MTV and VH1 are indeed well known. I have added a few links to older articles that have been archived on the the subject’s Foundation website, only as they were dead links now, things expire faster on the internet, so I think it’s unfair to use that as fuel for deletion. —I leave you with 3 points and I commend your efforts in keeping wiki a noble and safe place for knowledge, and pray you will see the light, and always wish you the best in your search for knowledge without prejudice. 1.)Articles for Deletion "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.” 2.) notability of the subject " "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.” 3.) Jimmy Wales, co-founder of wikipedia, once said, "it is extremely discourteous without absolute positive proof to speculate that the author of some non-notable biography is the subject himself or herself. Yes, it is often true, but there is zero gain to us from assuming this rather than assuming the opposite." योजनबुद्ध (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Things to watchoutयोजनबुद्ध is malicious person who is after Ankit love for some reasons, He has compromised love's account and uploaded private material on Wikipedia . He is totally involved in illegal criminal activities thus he should prosecuted and banned from this site. --Kindguru (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Kindguru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - My dear Kindguru, these is a very strong accusations indeed. I wonder about where your fears originate from. The subject is well aware of these edits, and even sent his blessing by email and has sent the photos to be uploaded releasing them in the public domain. I suppose he believes in his claims and wants them to be examined, after all the subject made the claims. I believe he would be happy were his page kept as such too. I pray there would be less fear and prejudice in the discussion of knowledge here and that it may be lighter in tone and feel, though I do understand where you were coming from and appreciate your concerns. There is indeed a great deal of fear of the truth in this day and age of reason. Here are a couple screenshots of what was sent by the subject which I would judge would signify approval of the edits thus far, even though by wiki standards the subjects approval is not required so long as there is a source. 1.) http://snag.gy/iKfVR.jpg 2.) http://snag.gy/FNL69.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by योजनबुद्ध (talk • contribs) 11:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note that those screen grabs are from a .org address. The original page, before your changes, show a .com address. JBH (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dear JBH, I feel it's very unfair to revert these edits, so I have reverted them back, a lot of work and sourcing has been put it to this now. Please the judgment of this page is on Friday. So lets wait till the judgement date and not rush to conclusions trying to erase the history please, I implore and request for us all to wait till Friday when the 7 days shall expire, and proper judgement can be given. I am not sure about what you mean about .org and .com you will find now the official Ankit Love Foundation website i now hosted at www.ankitlove.orgयोजनबुद्ध (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Still a Delete - I voted to delete earlier, and believe it is still a delete despite the fact that the article has now been returned to the state it was in before all of योजनबुद्ध's revisions, and before he and his socks were blocked. Reasons as follows:
I have just spent some time going through the sources on the article, and there is a lot less there than there initially appeared to be. The article claimed that Love had directed a film that premiered at Cannes, for example, but the only evidence of that (other than love's own statements/promotional material) was this IMDB Listing. You'd think if the film had actually played at Cannes I'd be able to confirm that with a more reliable source, but I can't find anything else that isn't promotional material or a puff-piece interview with Love. The article also claimed that he had a "hit" single with Beethoven Burst - but the only valid "charting" of the single that I can find is its appearance (at number 28) on this this FMBQ chart, which I'm not sure meets the criteria laid out in WP:CHART, let alone makes him notable. The claim to a VH1 or an MTV charting seems to have been based on it being the most-viewed video on the MTV Hive website for a single day or week (it's unclear which). The article suggested that he was a race-car driver, but the sources show he was competing at an amateur/entry level. It claims that he has won awards at a number of film festivals, but those festivals are small ones which, on closer inspection, seem to give out the same awards to numerous competitors in the same category/year (ie, it looks like most everyone gets an award at these festivals). This one even advertises itself as an "IMDB qualifying festival," suggesting that it exists for marketing purposes more than anything else.
As far as the GNG goes, these are the closest things to reliable, third party sources that I could find in the article: article one, two,three, four (see page 29), and five. I know they look flashy and well produced, but with the possible exception of the dna india article (number two), these all look like paid/promotional pieces if you look closely. There's no legit newspaper or magazine coverage of this guy, and most of the other sources in the article can either be traced back to his own statements, or seem to be obvious advertising.
I've already removed some of the most misleading and unsourced information from the article (you can check the history if you're curious) but the more I look at this guy the more I think we're looking at someone whose put in an a lot of effort and spent a lot of money to make themselves look notable, when in reality there's very little here to justify having a wiki article about him.Fyddlestix (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:योजनबुद्ध The things you edited on the Wikipedia page are based on a compromised Linkedin page, Emails screenshots produced are obviously fake. Its an strong accusation but you probably accessed his personal account illegally . Your quite an educated guy why you want to waste your time in defaming a renowned person. Its totally unclear what has interested you to edit his page as i can see you haven't edited any other pages. peace :).
Strong Keep: He is renowned artist. He has written beautiful songs such as Beethoven burst, people are my favorite thing, spill the milky way. There are thousands of references about the artists on google such as itunes, amazon, rhapsody etc. He has Produced movies, Doing non-profit charity work. Worth Keeping. The article should be reverted back to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ankit_Love&oldid=631020660. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindguru (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC) — Kindguru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment None of the sources you mention are reliable sources. To be a valid source for notability purposes on Wikipedia a source must be an independent third party source - completely unconnected to the subject - PR releases or advertorials, passing mentions, blogs or other user generated content, non-notable awards, all are not acceptable. Based on that there are no sources to support even that version. If the article is kept it will likely be stubbed. All of the sources have turned out to be part of a PR campaign. The only reason I have not changed my !vote to 'Delete' again is he has one song that on a chart that might let him pass WP:MUSICBIO. It looks like this guy spent a lot of time and money to raise his profile but the only was I see him qualifying for an article is on a technicality. Please read the blue links above as well as our policies on verifiability and general notability guidelines to see what qualifies for a Wikipedia article. JBH (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP:*** There are 11 (eleven) songs of Ankit Love on the Amazon.com site. [1] This guy has just got to be genuine and NOT what some of you are suggesting. Each of the songs has an audio button, as is customary on Amazon music pages. I've been listening to some of the songs and I think they are good, very good. I just don't understand why so many folks are gunning for him so viciously. People with weird name-tags like Magog the Ogre & Fyddlestix. Are you Administrators? Is there some top-secret reasons why has to be deleted? But to me he appears to be a really creative young talent. Certainly a "notable". And astonishingly versatile too - the quality of his writing is really top class. It took awhile but I was able to retrieve a link to the October 2013 issue of the online magazine Mistmag which carries a Letter From The Editor by Ankit Love. Please all, please just read it and then let's see if you still continue to accuse him of self-aggrandizement. Looks to me that we could be looking at a brilliant creative mind here. [2] ReefeSong (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)User:ReefeSong[reply]
Comment - I'm not setting anything in stone on what to do with this article, but I should point out that on the page of Rain Elwood mentions that Ankit Love brought her into mainstream attention. Elwood has since gone on to appear in productions like Rush (2013 film) and Strike Back (TV series). His five appearances in Google News should be of note. I'm leaning to keep right now but I'm going to look at this a bit more. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you've already noticed this Aerospeed, but I want to make sure. I don't fully understand how the article on Rain Elwood was created here (it looks like a move from Egija Zviedre, only that page has no history) but anyway, I think it's worth noting that the creator of both pages is currently blocked as a sock of योजनबुद्ध, who was heavily involved in this discussion and the person most responsible for the mess that this article was in before the deletion discussion started. The same user (Look4Light) also created the article under discussion.
I'm fine if this comes down on the "keep" side but I hope some of y'all will help me keep an eye on the page as someone seems very determined to puff this guy up. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
BLP with WP:V issues (fails verification, misleading sentences, promo), and several of the sources are interviews or his page so not fully independent. Yes there's some secondary sources. There's some WP:LOCAL to San Fran, with local sources.
Digging deeper it seems he's a business advisor/mentor.
May not pass WP:GNG, but what's he notable for? Doing promotion as an advisor is his claim of notability? (see WP:42).
delete - as noted in the article, several of the sources do not mention the subject at all, and the others are either primary sources or interviews with Mewawalla about projects he has been involved in. There is no coverage of the person, no articles about him, and so he does not meet WP:GNG. The fact that the article was created by a known paid shill doesn't exactly strengthen its case. --bonadeacontributionstalk10:24, 24 February 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 Both OR lists put together for who knows what reason. And it's not censorship. A store has the right to sell or not sell anything it wants. From Wiktionary: "Censorship The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated." Borock (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. There is merit in having something on Wikipedia about Wal-Mart's product selection and in fact we already have it at Criticism_of_Walmart#Product_selection, where this is covered in some depth. However I don't see where we actually need a listing of every CD that Wal-Mart has refused to carry because not only is that a little too indiscriminate, but it's also a little OR since we can't guarantee that the reasons given on the articles are actually the reasons the store decided not to carry them. Not only that, but using the term censorship is inaccurate for the reasons given by Borock. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)05:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made the Walmart page, but I don't understand how either one of those 2 lists are directly against Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.242.9 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2015
Keep BothWP:IINFO suggests that lists should be discriminate collections. Since both of these have targeted, specific collections of information, they should pass that standard, with admission that both - especially Walmart - need cleanup. 5minutes (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These articles would definitely fall under WP:LC. Lists such as these have little to no encyclopedic value at all since they are too trivial and specific. They are not of interest to many people at all and do not correspond closely with any other article on Wikipedia. Although the lists are targeted and specific, their very existence violates WP:IINFO and WP:LC. Eventhorizon51(talk)22:02, 21 February 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 This is one of the successors to the collapsed Scarborough F.C. There are obviously better alternatives to deletion such as merger with that club or the main article on the town. Note that the AFD was not set up correctly, as noted above. I have fixed the template on the article but am not sure what else might still be wrong. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:FOOTYN has never played in a national competition. No other achievements noted that have garnered sufficient, significant, reliable and non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Not sure I agree with merging, which would give significantly undue emphasis to this club in the original Scarborough article. Maybe a short paragraph at best as this was a short lived phoenix club. Fenix down (talk) 15:35, 13 February 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.
"Phantomjs" should redirect to "PhantomJS" which I was about to do but noticed the nomination for deletion. PhantomJS is widely used with millions of downloads, many dependent utilities, tools adhering to its APIs, and with many different use cases. I don't see how it is any less notable than software like Ember.js or Selenium (Software). Jsoverson (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am confident I can find any source that is required, but I wasn't sure what types of information should be included. There are videos recorded and books written about PhantomJS but I wasn't sure if those come off as promotional (none are by me). Large companies use phantom but it's often messages and comments by their employees that indicate it. Downloads, usage and activity are all high but i'm not sure how much should be added since that data is out of date as soon as it is included. Jsoverson (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria:
The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.
The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews,[3] written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability.
To comply with (3) I added a section with an article& books written about and referencing PhantomJS. I can mention my own book "Developing Web Components" which has a portion on unit testing web components with phantomjs but I expect that to be considered a conflict of interest. Jsoverson (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of verifiability/reliability, I don't completely trust O'Reilly published works, and I don't trust Packt. The Threatpost and Stanford references don't contain any depth on the software, just a mention. The current sources are ok for citing facts, but they don't establish notability. Is there any in depth coverage from more reliable sources (book from a major publisher, article/review in a reputable magazine/website, etc)? Are there multiple schools with classes on it, not just that use it? Deunanknute (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PhantomJS is the first of its kind that gained substantial usage and was the most viable, capable option for the past ~4 years. It has nearly 1m downloads last month from Npm_(software) alone (which isn't the primary download source, just the only number i could easily find). Other headless browsers targeting other rendering engines have come about (SlimerJS for Firefox/Gecko, TrifleJS for IE) and both have adhered to PhantomJS' api due to its fullness, popularity, and effectiveness. It is hard to find reviews of a piece of software that was the sole option for so long, and even when other headless browsers came about they were expected to be used in tandem alongside Phantom as a complement instead of an alternative. That those options also adhered to the exact same API in order to reuse existing scripts shows how notable PhantomJS was in its field. It's not the most exciting thing in the world, but it's very notable for web development testing alone. Add to that the malicious usage, server rendering, and web scraping and it's been a cornerstone in the rise of the web between 2011 & 2015. I'll be gathering more links and references and reaching out to others to do the same. Thanks for the responses so far! Jsoverson (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are the standards for notability applied? The List_of_web_browsers entry has an incredible number of browsers that are obscure[1], have no[2][3], few[4], single-source[5], or non-notable[6] references. PhantomJS has substantial more usage & more references to usage than many of those browsers, despite all being considered 'notable' as judged by the comment in the page source ("This is a list of NOTABLE browsers, as judged by the existence of articles on Wikipedia") even though many entries have substantially fewer resources (certainly no courses on the topic, no books, no print articles, etc). Jsoverson (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
notability is applied on a per case basis per WP:OTHERSTUFFXISTS. Basically, just because "Topic A" has an article, doesn't mean a similar "Topic B" should automatically have an article; and just because "Topic C" hasn't been deleted, doesn't mean it won't/can't be. Deunanknute (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PhantomJS is around 50th most popular software repository in GitHub with 13,000 developers having highlighted as favourite[7], this puts it in the same space as other projects such as Redis, Django, CoffeeScript and Leaflet. In addition, PhantomJS has given rise to a large ecosystem of related projects and several testing frameworks that depend on it[8]. There are probably hundreds of thousands of users out there. --Sdesalas (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please also refer to alternative headless browsers and note that PhantomJS is by far more popular than equivalent projects such as HtmlUnit who already have their own page. In other words, it is notable because it is significant in its specific field (headless browsers, and more specifically - automated testing of web applications). I'm a web developer and there are only two realistic options for automated testing of web applications, you either use Selenium Web Driver or PhantomJS, and only the latter is a true headless browser. Here are some other references from developers with similar experiences[9][10][11][12][13]. --Sdesalas (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick google check and there are indeed multiple printed third-party manuals on PhantomJS. There is Getting Started with PhantomJS (Packt Publishing, 2013)[14] and PhantomJS Cookbook (Packt Publishing, 2014)[15]. The latter one has 8 reviews. --Sdesalas (talk) 03:24, 23 February 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.
Absolutely no assertion of notability. Nothing historic mentioned in article. I am sure there are media accounts of fires they have fought but so what? A fire department fights fires. John from Idegon (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - My apologies. Upon clicking thru the research links above, all that came up were their website website and a couple directory listings. Very few fire departments are notable, this one even less than most. John from Idegon (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, selectively, per Northamerica1000, probably to White Marsh, Maryland. It can be mentioned in the same way a White Marsh Library is mentioned in that article. The "history" section of the current article is on the margin of perhaps too closely paraphrasing from its source (the history page of the fire station itself); the source is interesting enough and useful for supporting a mention in the White Marsh article. --doncram20:50, 12 February 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 WP:GNG. there is very limited relations between the countries. one very minor visa waiver agreement, a one off grant from South Korea. no embassies and no state visits. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in reliable secondary sources is limited. For instance, I see a mention in a small Grenada newspaper, a very brief IPS mention, and then some mentions in primary sources. This nowhere near enough. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a compromise would be to merge the S. Korea and N. Korea articles into Grenada-Korea relations, a topic that is definately (considered the turns around the Revolution in Grenada) notable. --Soman (talk) 17:30, 13 February 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 from Pierre Zarokian / Submit Express - I would like to offer my own thoughts on this deletion issue. We are one of the first SEO companies since 1998, with plenty of news coverage and notable references. I could share with you plenty of other pages that have less coverage than us that are in WIKI with no objections. I feel a few competitors are trying to take our page down. I ask that whoever have objections to list exact reasons for their objection. Please also note this page has been up since 2013 and once nominated for speedy deletion for lack of references, but it was declined. Please review all the references such as Forbes, Search Engine Journal, Search Engine Watch, LA Times, Wall Street Journal and NY Ttimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.181.29 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The purpose of WP:CORPDEPTH is to have enough material to write "more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." This article is more than that, and it's all supported by reliable sources, so I don't see what the problem is. (I don't really care who created it. I'm just looking at the article.) – Margin1522 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you only quote half of that sentence, yes. :P. That's an additional requirement. The full line is Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. ("and", not "or" or "thereby"). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope the fate of this article isn't going to depend on parsing the 20 meanings of "and". But since I think you were interested in the deletionist/inclusionist controversy, my thoughts on that. The problem with the first half of the sentence, like most of the other rules crafted by people who want to keep stuff out of the encyclopedia, is that it's open to arbitrary interpretation. How deep is deep, and how far beyond is well beyond? The danger is that no matter how deep it may be, it's never going to be deep enough. So the second half, coming after what I read as "and thereby", is an attempt to impose a constraint on this demand for unlimited depth. Deep means deep enough to write a non-trivial article. At least that's the only interpretation that makes sense to me. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The best source -- and it is indeed a good one -- is Forbes. That's the only one that looks to provide significant coverage in a reliable secondary source...which isn't a trade publication. Trade publications count, to be sure, but in the sense that a local paper counts vs. a national paper (important to some vs. important to a broad audience). There are some good industry sources to be acknowledged, like Visibility and Search Engine Journal. So it's borderline, but what pushes it over to delete for me is that all of the best sources are interviews, thus more about Zarokian than the company. That means they count for notability (though I think they make a stronger notability case for Zarokian himself), but are WP:PRIMARY for the purpose of building an article. It's not clear, and I'd be willing to change my !vote upon new sources turning up. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is to reiterate what I’ve written previously with regard to this article, on the Talk:Submit Express page: the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines and the article’s subject has extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources; it’s been used in the New York Times as The LA Times as a subject matter expert, and its CEO writes for Search Engine Watch and Sitepoint, which are important search engine media industry outlets. They have also been named by Inc. as one of its fastest growing companies in addition to Deloitte naming it one of its fast 5,000, in addition to its addition as a one of the LA Business Journal and the San Fernando Business Journal's Fastest Growing Companies. In addition, the CEO has been named, by ClickZ (an SEO industry media outlet, which its Wikipedia article describes as a resource for online advertising practitioners) as one if its "37 SEO Experts Those in the Know Follow" in 2014.[1]BlackFireCoffee99 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 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 A WP:SPA article on a company whose existence can be confirmed (a couple of listing entries in Vols 57 and 59 of "Shakespeare Survey", plus a production's inclusion in a composite Spectator review that I added as a reference) but I am not finding the coverage that would be needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 09:26, 21 February 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 result was no consensus. Whereas I see merit of the arguments of both sides, the consensus has not been reached in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reasoning behind this article. It's either crystal balling these people or absent just parroting the GRG, WP:OR with about what constitutes verified/not verified/complete/incomplete. The top three sections could be merged to Longevity claims but is already there. As for the content of the tables, incomplete, speculative claims should be merged into the working lists at the WikiProject page (complete or the incomplete cases list) rather than as an separate article from the actual "verified" claims. I'm aware that this was created specifically as a split from Longevity claims but the fact that people have made unmanageable tables of every possible person who is alleged to have lived a long time isn't a reason to keep all that content. There needs to be a line somewhere. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I always thought that this material was fanfluff of the most trivial kind which is one reason I split it from Longevity claims in the first place. I see no particular encyclopedic merit in moving this material into any other mainspace article. Moving them into any WP:WOP page would hardly detract from such pages as they have little encyclopedic merit anyway, adding another 70kB to them will just make them (more) bloated. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs)10:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So do you support deletion? I think it's fair to say that this information is trivial and not in line with WP:CSC, particularly the requirement that the list be reasonably short. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:TRIVIA and if it's unencyclopedic would be the grounds. I disapproved of keeping the WikiProject as a hosting page for speculation about people but that failed at MFD so it's here for now. I put that there because I suspect outright deletion will cause another uproar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Separating "complete" and "incomplete" is the original thought. Are these incomplete because no reliable source confirms it? Are these incomplete because one reliable source doesn't confirm it? The article claims to be people who "lack either a complete date of birth or date of death" but instead include people who do have a complete date of birth (e.g. James Olofintuy) but are said to be "unsupported (or insufficiently supported)" which again are either a crystal ball with no support or WP:OR on what is "sufficient" support that nevertheless is included here for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with that. The name of the article is an "editing" issue and not a "deletion" issue. If we can fix this by simply renaming the article, that's not deleting it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? How are ALL claims unverified? We have birth, marriage and death certificates and census information for most people born in the past 150 years in developed countries. We have several organizations that debunk age falsification by doing genealogy work. There is a list here somewhere of debunked longevity claims, if it has not been deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't explain that very well. What I mean is that everyone listed in longevity claims is unverified. No, not everyone claiming to be over 110 is unverified, but we typically don't refer to verified cases as "claims" (because it's more than just a claim, it's most likely a true assertion). My suggestion was to add a new section in longevity claims called "incomplete claims" which included claims without a full date of birth/death. -- Ollie231213 (User talk:Ollie231213) 22:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't debunked claims. These are claims that are called "unverified" because one organization, the Gerontology Research Group has not "verified" them. The title should really be "List of claims of longevity that hasn't been verified by the GRG" since no other sources are allowed to be used. That's my point, the entire splitting of this list is to treat one source as the word on these claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other organisations can be used as sources for longevity-related articles as long as they establish themselves as a reputable authority on the subject of supercentenarian verification. But as things stand, no organisation compares with the GRG, so they are used as the main point of reference when dealing with the verification status of various cases. It isn't because "no other sources are allowed". What's your alternative suggestion? Because relying on only one source that is reliable and reputable is better than relying on multiple sources that are unreliable. -- Ollie231213 (User talk:Ollie231213) 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name matters because what is defined as "incomplete". People say it's a complete list but it's not, it's a list of things that aren't a part of the complete list. It isn't like we're dealing with incomplete buildings or something, it's incomplete biographies with the birth and death dates unknown. It's basically a list of "people who allege to be very old but we don't have enough information to put them in the verified oldest people list." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 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 WP:ORG. declined prod with no reason. I could no indepth coverage for its Danish name ""Forsvars- og Garnisonsmuseum" only directory listings. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two of us have found and added references, including a news story I found through the German Wikipedia entry. I believe it now demonstrates notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:10, 20 February 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 - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect votes are fairly common at afd as an alternative to keep or delete. I've seen quite a few software articles closed as merge to the parent company, somewhat similar to merging AliEn to the larger experiment.Dialectric (talk) 13:16, 20 February 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.
Improve and Keep: As this article was being proposed for deletion, I wrote the following on its talk page: "I threw in a reference section and expanded the article to try to address the concerns. I think it is at least as notable as List of The West Wing episodes, for example, so I don't think we have to worry about notability. Each title is still linked to the page where it can be heard, however. This creates linkfarm concerns which could, I suppose, be gotten around with individual references for each, but this seems excessive." There are plenty of lists of episodes on Wikipedia. Why is this one not notable when the others are? --Briancua (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The West Wing is a critically acclaimed, award wining television series and its list article is abundantly sourced with independent reliable sources. It also doesn't consist almost entirely of a list of external links for downloading episodes, in violation of WP:ELNO.- MrX03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, WP:OTHERSTUFF is a fair point, but is your objection that The West Wing is a TV show and SYSK is a podcast? There are plenty of List of episodes on WP, so I'm not sure what the objection is to this one. Is it that each is linked? If so, we can delete the links without deleting the entire article. What if the links were moved to the numbers, a la List of Judge John Hodgman episodes? Would that satisfy you? --Briancua (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) PS - I have moved the links to the episode numbers in the 2015 season to give you an idea of what I am talking about. --Briancua (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add external link: We don't need this huge list of nothing but external links. We're being used as WP:PROMO at this rate. We can delete this article, and replace it with a link on the main article's page to the archive on their site. We don't need to archive it for them. They already have one.Tek022|Comments?21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I will suggest improve and keep. I've done some work to improve it, such as adding the lengths of episodes, and began a year by year table at the top. I would also like to add a summary cell for each episode in the tables, but I am hesitant to invest a lot of time and effort into it if it is just going to be deleted. I agree this list has issues currently, but I think it has potential. --Briancua (talk) 14:41, 20 February 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, from what I could find, there are insufficient reliable sources that give the subject in-depth or significant coverage. Therefore the subject appears to fail WP:GNG. Perhaps as the proposer says, it is WP:TOOSOON, and if a future editor can find reliable sources to show that the subject is notable than the article can be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:48, 21 February 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.
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are, with one exception, all WP:PRIMARY, all captive Microsoft sources. The one exception, an SDTimes article, isn't even really about this regional director program. Googling turned up nothing useful. In addition, though not by itself a reason to delete, I note that the article is overflowing with peacock language, e.g., describing the subject as "a vital link between Microsoft and the developer community". Msnicki (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you're right, they're not published by Microsoft. But the reality isn't any better. Neither is a WP:RELIABLE source as we use the term and thus, neither is helpful in establishing notability. From their About page, "DevPro is a large and established community of developers, delivering comprehensive, independent content covering the entire Microsoft stack as well as Open Source and Docker initiatives." And from his About page, "TheWindowsClub, is conceptualized, created & owned by Anand Khanse, a Microsoft MVP since 2006, and an end-user Windows enthusiast." Msnicki (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Here's what it says at WP:USERG: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." How does that support you? I think we can use an WP:SPS as reliable for some purposes, e.g., a USENET post to date when Bash was released, but we never use an SPS for establishing notability because the essence of notability is that others not connected to the subject took notice and that they did so in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. That's not what you have here. Msnicki (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really. The first source is not clearly a blog and you have selectively quoted WP:USERG leaving out, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." ~KvnG15:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you weren't offering them as just any experts, these are supposed to be established experts whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Since there are no articles on these experts, perhaps you can point me at their published work in reliable third-party publications. Then again, maybe you can't. Msnicki (talk) 06:55, 25 February 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.
This Korean business lacks sources in English confirming its notability. Korean websites (via google translate) confirm its existence but not its notability. Fluent Korean readers may be able to comment more fully Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 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.
Article is basically a minimized duplicate of Text-to-Pledge since that appears to be the only product offered by this company. Suggested that article simply be redirected to T-t-P article instead. Ironically, this is exactly how their own corporate websites work; Sophist.com (a redir from sophistproductions) is just a redirect to the T-t-P site. -- dsprc[talk]17:11, 6 February 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.
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals". Article dePRODded by article creator (who is director of the organisation providing online access for the journal). However, PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 6 February 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.
CSD contested. Article sounds spammy and lists many promotional refs (including self-published Apple Letter of Recommendation). He had some media appearances on social media but fails WP:CREATIVE. Dewritech (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance or promotional refs because
Mr. Croome is a public person and relevant in his industry, where he was one of the first (digital marketing) entrepreneurs more than 24 years ago.
He wrote and published several books and audio/video publications.
He regularly appears on public TV, in radio-shows and print-media, like magazine and newspapers.
He is consulted by public and private media, the German government and businesses for his expertise and opinion.
He is a lecturer for the acclaimed Mediadesign Hochschule in Munich, Steinbeis-Hochschule Berlin (HSB) and the University of the German Speakers Association.
Since more than 20 years he gives public speeches on digital marketing and new technologies trends.
Why does the article sound "spammy"? The self published Apple letter is an official signed Apple document. Mr. Croome has not "some media appearances in Social Media", but regular presence on public TV and radio.
Everything is referenced within the Wikipedia article and below…
We would be more than happy to change and fix any content, if it does not comply with the Wikipedia rules. Please stop deleting the entry.
Thank you very much!
His Klout-score (77) is showing his influence in social media.
Delete, notability per WP:N not proven by sources provided. There do not seem to be any independent sources confirming or even really hinting at his notability, or non-trivial coverage with Mr Croome as the primary subject. If there was an independent source stating clearly that he was a pioneer in his field, that he is recognised as one of the first digital marketing entrepreneur etc., that would be something, but I can't find any such thing. What we have here, based on the sources given, is a non-notable public speaker and social media personality. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am very reluctant not to accept WP articles for German subjects covered by articles in the German WP, a WP with generally higher standards than our own. The editing history of the article there is not reassuring, especially since most of their edits are by a user named "Croome"; I do not think this would, if he were in an English speaking country, meet our requirements. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 27 February 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.
Nothing in the few English language sources suggest that this subject is notable. I find nothing about his first short film when he was 18, that supposedly should have won a price in Rotterdam. The two shorts mentioned in the article apparently has not achieved anything. I'm interested to hear if there is something interesting in Turkish language sources. The few I ran through Google translate did not bode well. -- SamSing!20:17, 6 February 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.
I thought this might be an A7, until I looked at the complicated history. I think it should be deleted for combination of borderline notability and promotionalism, but there might be more usable material in the earlier version. I suggest looking at the talk p. before commenting here. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 6 February 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.
Strong Keep. While it's not the best article on Wikipedia, it's certainly a notable subject and has been edited over 1,000 times over the past 6 years by dozens of editors. This subject has not lost any notability since the last AFD. A lot of the sources listed in the article do not meet WP:RS, but at least two do. There are thousands of others available, too. For instance: The Guardian [26], US News & World Report [27], Esquire [28], Time Magazine [29], ABC News [30], The New York Times [31], and CNBC [32]...and those are just the tip of the iceberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about it is promotional? As I pointed out - it's been edited by dozens of editors over 1000 times in the past 6 years. So a couple of those ended up swinging a little more in the promotional realm...fix it. Deletion is not cleanup. --162.95.216.224 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to statistics, in the last 30 days this page has been viewed 18,144 times. I think that shows it is a page people find useful[1]. Alvbtalk21:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the IP. This is a notable workout program with enough coverage in independent sources. I cleaned the article up a bit and tried to reduce the promotional tone. It read like it was the P90x website.--NortyNort(Holla)00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Four keep arguments and the only delete argument is the nomination and it's not a valid one. Why does this keep getting relisted?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 came across this via an article that was up for speedy deletion (one of the re-creations of Ali Orokzai, the director's son). After looking at the article I noticed that there were no truly reliable sources in the article and despite the claims made in the article, I couldn't really find anything to back up any of the claims. A search for his film Loori (under "Loori" and Orokzai) doesn't bring up anything in a search either, despite the claims of winning multiple awards, nor does any of the claims of one of the director's films being burned by the Taliban. There may be coverage in another language, but a search in English brings up nothing to really show that the guy is all that notable. I know that English coverage is not the end and beginning of reliable sources, but it is usually pretty telling when a search brings up nothing to back up any of the claims. If anyone can find coverage I'm open to negotiations, but offhand the guy looks solidly non-notable. If this is deleted then I do recommend salting, as it appears that there have been multiple accounts and sockpuppets trying to re-create the article for his son Ali (I think that there have been at least 6 attempts at re-creation so far). Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there was an article that pre-dates this one at Said Worakzai, but it makes the same arguments for notability. Since the two are so similar in content ([33]) I've re-directed it to the current article and making a note of this here. I did perform a search under the different spelling, but nothing is coming up and I received more hits under the spelling of the current article than under Said Worakzai, so this new spelling does not do anything to improve notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)07:45, 5 February 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.
Sorry - had a search, and this page seems very promotional and only has weak sourcing. Main claim of fame is that she is the only fashion designer featured in an apparently non-notable publication with the only sources to said publication. Even the designer's press page looks a bit feeble. Happy to withdraw nom if sourcing can be found, but not sure she passes notability. Mabalu (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no different from any other fashion designer in Spain, Also this does seem promotional which doesn't help her case here, Anyway no evidence of notability so fails GNG –Davey2010Talk01:40, 20 February 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.
There may be sourcing in other languages but I really can't see how this person is notable. Basically a long-standing unsourced BLP. I've searhed for Mimi Durovic and Mirjana Durovic with little joy. It looks like other Veliki Brat winners (Saša Ćurčić, Miroslav "Miki" Đuričić, and Milan Marić) with articles all have far stronger evidence for notability (though unsure re: Milan)). Does her winning this show automatically render notability? I note that the regular season winners don't get an article of their own, but redirect to the regular season articles. Mabalu (talk) 12:36, 5 February 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.
Regional web comedy; sources are all articles on a website from the same region. No sign of notability outside of Portsmouth NH. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:07, 5 February 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.