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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Aman Mian Sharma[edit]

Syed Aman Mian Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable child YouTuber. Promotional article. Google search doesn't turn up enough to warrant an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as blatantly unsuitable and unconvincing for an article here and simply something that is best for Twitter or Facebook, nothing suggests otherwise since it's all only published by him. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Swister Twister. Also, zero RSes found. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

College of the Holy Spirit CDES[edit]

College of the Holy Spirit CDES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are several reasons why I think this page should be deleted.

• It looks like a blatant advertisement, and it was certainly written by a user closely connected to the subject (see article talk page for evidence).
• I can't find any secondary source that discuss this subject, so I can't establish its WP:Notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero coverage in secondary sources Spiderone 23:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article links to unesco.vg. I had a rather curious experience regarding that site and User:Taesulkim, author of this article, described at Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica#Third Opinion. I rather doubt the .vg mirror is a reliable source; UNESCO's website is at unesco.org, and WHED is at whed.net. WHED does not have an entry for this college. Carleton University's website does not mention "Daniel Odin", the President of CDES with whom Carleton University supposedly cooperates. If claims in the article turn out to be blatantly false, it's hard to see this as a valid article, as opposed to spam or even a scam. Huon (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do NOT DeleteOnce again Huon and Vanjagenije united to discredit my editions?
• @Huon: Wikipedia does not allow wp:original research. Unless you have some reliable source to prove that the domain CDES or his president, we shouldn't delete this article. Taesulkim (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by "to prove that the domain CDES or his president". You are right in noting that Wikipedia does not allow original research. Thus, the burden of evidence rests on the editor who wants to include content. At least two of the sources given in the article do not say what they are cited for, and at least one claim in the article is just plain wrong. How about addressing that? Huon (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been updated, and reliable sources published, also link within wiki were also placed. Taesulkim (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:SPAM South Nashua (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what a complete unmitigated mess. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Klariza Clayton[edit]

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

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

Non notable actress, Google brings up mentions but nothing substantial, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Had recurring role in major TV series Skins of which I remember well enough to search for her in the first place! IMDB also suggests she had a recurring 4 year role in another major children's TV series Dani's House amounting to 49 episodes. A brief glance through her wiki page suggests this article should never have been put forward for deletion. Sails past WP: NACTOR Englishrose (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• She's been in notable programmes but as DGG notes below one one small role in 1 series isn't enough - Most of her roles haven't been long term at all but regardless of that the article still fails GNG, For someone who's been acting for 9 years there should be tons of sources here .... but there's not ... they're all just mentions which are useless here. –Davey2010^Talk 03:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• She had a major role in Dani's House, a notable Childrens TV show. She was a lead character for 4 years and appeared in 46 episodes. She had a major role in House of Anubis, she was in it for 2 years and starred in 99 episodes. Englishrose (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies you're right she has!, Well okay she seems to meet NACTOR however she still fails GNG which is the biggest issue here. –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• GNG: "This page in a nutshell: For an actor, missing out on meeting the GNG is not the final nail in the coffin." To quote ' DGG on the GNG talkpage "We ought more lenient in the nature of the sources for actors in fields where mainstream sources are not customarily available, as for other subjects where that is the case" - she's prodimantly a children's tv actress which makes it difficult to meet GNG as children's tv is not held up in the same regards as mainstream drama. It's a jugement call but I don't believe GNG should be the sole reason for deletion and as it's now been established it's the sole reason, I still say keep. Englishrose (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. no major roles. A minor recurrent role in one series is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• She's had two major roles in two other major shows, spanning multiple series. Dani's House (3 series, 46 episodes), House of Anubis (3 series, 99 peisodes) Englishrose (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot pretend to know these series, but from the WP article the role in Dani's house is quite subsidiary. From the WP aticle on House of Anubos, I can't figure out the plot, so I have no comment except that apparently she disappears in or before the first episode. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Had major roles in two major TV series in both the UK and the US. Also had a large recurring role in a further series. In addition, to this has made several appearances in other TV programmes, and a few minor roles in films. Meets Nactor; there's enough here to keep. Somethingwickedly (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet there's nothing at all to confirm any of the programmes she's been in, Two-bit mentions aren't good enough - I don't expet tons and tons of substantial sources however I do expect atleast 2 substantial which as far as I can see there isn't, As I've said if you can find any then I'll happily withdraw but until that time comes then there's no valid reason for keeping. –Davey2010^Talk 15:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought IMDB would be sufficient? Englishrose (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope IMDB isn't a rs per wp:imdb. –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a guideline or policy and actually supports the use of IMDB in these way it is used. "The IMDb should be used only as a tertiary source for hard data on released films." - which is what it is being used for. Englishrose (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB isn't a reliable source as it's exactly like this website - User-submitted, (Citing IMDB would be like simply citing an article if that makes sense) and although Wikipedia:Citing IMDb isn't policy it's still strongly adhered too, You can ask any editor and that'd tell you the exact same thing, Unfortunately all of the sources you've added are mentions. –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no sources have been presented at this AfD (nor available in the article) that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A technical pass of an SNG (if this is indeed the case here, of which I am not convinced) does not exempt the article from demonstrating the notability via reliable independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You might be mistaken. In the relatively shorter term period, SNG does allow the same (that is, exempting the article from demonstrating GNG via reliable independent sources), and that is the reason it exists. The reason NACTOR exists is to allow such cases to be kept in initial Afds, so that editors can search for reliable sources to push the subject over time towards BASIC or GNG. Of course, if this article were to come up for deletion after a few months and there were to be still no sources supporting this said push, my !vote would be delete. But right now, it is keep. Thanks. Lourdes 06:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's enough here to suggest that she is a notable. Maybe another source would be good, but there's definitely enough here to keep it. Cindlevet (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You do realize both sources are dead on't you?... –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've sorted that and updated the links for you. Englishrose (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks but unfortunately she's still non notable - We don't use pictures as cites, The database is simply a mention (and the source you've added is again only a mention) so again all in all they're still nn. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As you said earlier she meets Wiki: NACTOR, which sets out ways to define whether an actor or actress is notable. Englishrose (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NACTOR doesn't require sources to discuss the appearance in depth; NACTOR only requires that there is evidence provided that the subject has appeared in those roles. Sources have been provided that proves the same. I have myself added two more sources (one a book by John Blake publishing and the other a Hearst Magazines' publication), both confirming her having appeared in 99 episodes of one serial and in considerable seasons of Skins. Having said that, a plain reading of NACTOR signifies that the guideline is only to ensure that subjects, who may probably later qualify on GNG and for whom sources may later be obtained, may not be deleted instantaneously; which is what is being requested here by the editors like Englishrose. DGG has clearly said he has no idea of what the serials are; and his reference to WP as a source of his knowledge leads to low confidence in his Delete comment.

Coffman and Davey2010 have given the right arguments for GNG; but they are mistaken in the analysis of NACTOR, especially of the requirement of gng sources and the depth of discussion thereon. NACTOR says, and I quote: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I repeat, the requirement is not for GNG sources (which would anyway defeat the purpose of NACTOR, wouldn't it) but for sources that confirm such roles. I would suggest to the closing editor that if this Afd is closed as Keep, it should be closed with no prejudice against an early deletion nomination, should sources in due course not be added that push the subject towards either BASIC or GNG. Thanks. Lourdes 07:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding those sources - For the record I never expect tons of substantial sources however I do try & get substantial stuff or as close I can too that, The NACTOR aswell as the renomination in the future are both I strongly disagree with however I won't moan over it - You've provided sources which I'm happy with (If these were found early on we wouldn't be here now), Anyway thanks for finding and adding sources :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the gracious reply. Look forward to interacting with you in the future. Lourdes 02:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn - Unfortunately because of the Deletes here I can't close myself however sources have been added which I'm happy with so this should probably be closed as No Consensus, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• With your withdrawal, and with a majority of keep comments post the re-list, this Afd might be closed as a Keep rather than a no consensus. Thanks for withdrawing. See you around. Lourdes 13:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO arguments were strong on both sides but my main push for NC was so that it could be renominated (by another editor) if they're not happy but obviously I have no objections to Keep, No worries & see you around :) –Davey2010^Talk 14:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artenol[edit]

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

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

This article is written by one of the members of the magazine's staff, so there are no reliable independent sources. The magazine is brand new, so notability is a question. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep -- here's additional coverage from PRI: link, plus the NYT and New Yorker sources already in the article. Not much to go on, but I think worth keeping to see if more coverage comes in. If not, renominate in about six months. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker source is dated 1991, and is not relevant to notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per very good sources found. However, before this article is kept, it needs a whole of editing. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  Userfy on request.  Fails WP:SUSTAINED.  The few sources are from the time of the debut of the magazine in Summer 2015, an event which as an event fails WP:NOTNEWS.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This kickstarter page shows that they raised $8200 for their Spring 2016 edition, which was above their goal of $7500.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rostro de México 2012[edit]

Rostro de México 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Did not meet notability guidelines. The pageant has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. Richie Campbell (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- unsourced WP:PROMO and a vanity page. These types of pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article, Rostro de México was already deleted.--Richie Campbell (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and per coffman. Lourdes 05:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fillip Williams[edit]

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

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

Article about a singer only known for appearing on a TV talent show and currently sourced only to his website. Generally we only create articles about TV talent show participants if they win, or otherwise remarkable, or meet WP:NMUSIC via a successful career. Thus guy seems to fit none of these criteria. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found two sources, both of them brief notices in a tabloid about him being voted out of the talent show, so no sign of notability. I can't find anything in reliable sources about his career; the sv.wikipedia article about him contains nothing that indicates that he could meet WP:NMUSIC, WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. His website appears to have gone offline (archive.org shows that the domain had expired two years ago, and archived versions from 2013 show that the site had not been updated since 2006), and the unsourced text about the "upcoming documentary" has been in the article since it was created over 10 years ago. --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we sometimes keep singers who "place" in an Idol contest, but not usually. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embraer MFT-LF[edit]

Embraer MFT-LF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources to attest to veracity or notability BilCat (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - without sources it doesn't meet WP:N. If sources can be found it might be better to just mention it in the manufacturer article since nothing ever came of the project. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visible factor number[edit]

Visible factor number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This sequence is not discussed in other independent reliable sources under either this name or another one, so lacks significant notability in the literature. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article contains two references, one using this name, so the nomination statement is clearly incorrect. Notability may be in doubt, but we need a truthful rationale for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The page in its current state does not bring anything to the table compared to OEIS; and this seems to be one of the less interesting sequences on there. Unless we really need a stub for each sequence on OEIS, I don't see the point. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sequence being in OEIS is a minimal requirement, but that's basically all we have here. It's in OEIS without a name, and in J. Rec. Math., presumably with a name and possibly some characteristics. If it were mentioned, by name, in a paper not by the same author, it might be suitable. As it is, I don't see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A single title-only non-OEIS reference is not good enough for WP:GNG. One more published journal paper by someone else on the same main subject might be enoughm but we don't even have that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poking around on google suggests that once in a while someone turns this concept into a math competition problem for young students, and that otherwise it has never received any attention in reliable sources. --JBL (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt-a-whirl gutbuster[edit]

Tilt-a-whirl gutbuster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prodded several months ago, removed without explanation. Has remained uncited for several months. No evidence of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a very minor neologism with no references. Looking for sources, I'm finding nearly nothing that mentions this term outside of this article itself. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per source searches, fails WP:N. It exists, but no significant coverage in reliable sources appears to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT - the first real WP:VANITYSPAMCRUFT I've seen in months. This is a waste of time even to comment on deleting it. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to [[]]. Non notable middle school Redirected to Sanwer, India#Education per standard procedure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati Gyan Mandir School[edit]

Saraswati Gyan Mandir School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus route 7[edit]

West Midlands bus route 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I originally nominated this for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham bus routes 2 & 3 however I had forgot to add the AFD templates to each AFD, I had hoped the original closer would reopen and save everyones time being wasted but it wasn't to be so here we are for another week!, Same rationale as the prev one - All non notable routes all fail GNG

–Davey2010^Talk 19:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the prev AFD !voters - JMWt, Jeni, Class455, Charlesdrakew. –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All templates have now been added - I apologize for wasting time for another week - I had asked for it to be reopened where I could then add the templates and even relist it myself[1] however it was declined. –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Per the last AfD. Class455 (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous AfD had 5 keep !votes and closed as "No consensus".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unscintillating - When he says per the last AFD he means Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham bus routes 2 & 3 which technically is the last AFD as this AFD is exactly same as that one, This is precisely why I wanted the other AFD reopened so it wouldn't be one big clusterfuck but anyway I hope I've cleared that up, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Looks like most of these have not been updated in years and never showed any sources to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering how often articles must be updated to avoid being deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If "most" "never showed any sources to meet WP:GNG", it may be that some do.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that I can see.Charles (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - I can't see any reason why these bus routes can be considered notable. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. JMWt (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Without evidence of a problem that needs AfD, WP:AGF applies.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, again shame common sense wasn't applied when closing the last one! Jeni ^(talk) 13:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Last AfD had five keep !votes and closed at "No consensus".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See reply above. –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—per all of my past !votes noting that other than in exceptional cases, bus routes are typically too ephemeral to warrant articles. Imzadi 1979 → 14:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?  Please cite references for the standard for emphera.  This AfD is for specific articles, so an argument for "typical" articles may or may not apply.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete majority but I can see that West Midlands bus route 8 has a connection with a musical created around that specific route, with appropriate source. I also noted Davey2010 you have appeared to have duplicated a number of entries above, probably by mistake. Nordic Nightfury 15:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah I hadn't spotted so have removed 8, I've also removed the duplicates, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, I have removed another duplicate entry you missed. Nordic Nightfury 08:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a fun nomination this is turning out to be lol, Thanks again :), –Davey2010^Talk 12:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At best I'd say redirect to Birmingham Repertory Theatre as the musical doesn't have an article. Mkdw^talk 01:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete under WP:NOTTRAVEL. Some of this information could be transwikied to Wikivoyage. Mkdw^talk 01:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Travel guide doesn't seem to apply.  Here is the text for WP:NOTTRAVEL

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal Shortcut WP:NOTTRAVEL Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like: . . . 2.  Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.

Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Previous AfDs were not correctly documented in the nomination:

• Question to nominator.  Are you aware that there have been no Find sources templates for most of the articles listed here for the last seven days?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't need to add the "find sources template" to every single one here, It shouldn't take a genius to search for instance "West Midlands bus route 303", I've been doing bulks since 2013/2014 and have never once added the "find sources" template to each one and in the 4 years of being here it's never once been suggested so they don't need to be added. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 02:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unscintillating - I'm not having a go but is there any reason as to why you've replied to every single person here?, It might be better if you actually !voted instead of replying and nitpicking over everyones comments here, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 15:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Davey2010, !votes here are scattered across many different variations of WP:ATA, where the "just pointing to a policy" varies between WP:DEL8 and WP:DEL14.  The nominator has characterized this as a "fun" AfD.  Do you agree that every !vote in this discussion is of a form from WP:ATA?  Do you think that closers should vote-count arguments from WP:ATA in disregard of the WP:Guide to deletion that says, "Always explain your reasoning."?  The section on "Rough concensus" from WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators states,

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

Or maybe this is Wikipedia today, where blood-letting of content contributions is now so debased that process is an inconvenience?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Back to the point at hand, which of the four points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies? 

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Shortcut WP:INDISCRIMINATE . . . To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be: Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats works of fiction and art in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) § Plot summaries. Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage. Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1922 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion. Excessive listings of statistics. Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context. Long recitations of statistics reduce readability and may be confusing. Where large quantities of statistics are appropriate (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012) consider placing them in tables to enhance readability; where large quantities are not appropriate (e.g. the main article United States presidential election, 2012) omit excess statistics and summarize. Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.

Unscintillating (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing over it but I simply thought !voting was far more productive than nitpicking over everyones comments but hey if you'd prefer to nitpick over the slightest of things then knock yourself out. –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponyms of stadiums[edit]

List of eponyms of stadiums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I agree with the tag placed on this article in 2012; it doesn't meet the criteria for a stand-alone list; pure WP:LISTCRUFT; not a single source provided to justify notability of this topic.

I am also nominating the following related page:

List of eponyms of stadiums in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spiderone 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivia. Also topic subject as a whole isn't sourced. Prevan (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Mountains[edit]

The Five Mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable promotion. Sources include Amazon, eBay etc. Probably a COI article. The user possibly be connected with Calvin Bowers. Mar11 (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wish the author well, but this just doesn't pass notability guidelines. I hope that they don't take this personally since it isn't meant to make them feel bad, just that it's really, really hard to pass NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:Notability Reads like an advertisement. Appears that article creator is connected in some way to subject. Zero sufficient coverage from any media source. CBS527^Talk 02:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability and article is purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Studio[edit]

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

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

Non-notable promotional article. WP:TOOSOON. The article contain no source. Mar11 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find nothing to show that this is a notable company. I get the impression that the person who made this is a young person and most likely connected with this somehow, so I'd like to tell them that none of their article deletions should be taken personally - it's really, really difficult to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayorkun[edit]

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

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO; search results of the subject basically bring up download links and press release of his record contract. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nomination, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Cant find a reliable source. --Music Boy50 (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Ross (Travel Author)[edit]

David Ross (Travel Author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a prolific user on a small travel website. Does not appear to meet the general notability requirements or the more specific ones for biographies. Pichpich (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If people outside of the wanderlust website had taken note of him we might have a chance for an article, but that has not occured, so we have no choice but to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of football stadiums in Scandinavia[edit]

List of football stadiums in Scandinavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The material is covered adequately in the articles for the individual nations already (e.g. see List of football stadiums in Sweden); this is therefore a redundant article; see WP:LISTCRUFT also. Spiderone 17:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of football stadiums in Scandinavia and link to these list articles with adequate coverage that you say exist. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appropriate content can be moved to List of football stadiums in Norway List of football stadiums in Sweden and List of football stadiums in Denmark. We don't need an extra article for all three combined.Ajf773 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:LISTN; no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Furthermore, not sure I see the need for this aggregation when there are already appropriate country-level lists. Fenix down (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warning Tour[edit]

Global Warning Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete See here, here and here. Clearly already established as not notable, therefore G4 applies. 101.182.161.253 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep it has references and had ninth largest crowd ever and its the biggest thing Professional wrestling or WWE has ever done in Australia 08:32, 16 November 2016‎ User:Pidzz

Prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.27.47.150 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE (speedy) DELETE and SALT This has been deleted numerous times and we should never have this discussion again. Please also salt Global Warning Tour (WWE), Global Warning (WWE), Global Warning (professional wrestling) and any other possible title you can think of. This wasn't a PPV, wasn't notable and never will be.LM2000 (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there were plenty of notable individual pro wrestling events which weren't offered on pay-per-view, especially considering that supercards predate PPV by many decades. This particular controversy appears to be an outgrowth of longstanding OWN/POV issues perpetuated by certain editors at Professional wrestling in Australia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An event doesn't have to be on PPV to pass WP:GNG but it does have to pass GNG to get an article. This event happens to have not been on PPV and it also happens to not to pass GNG.LM2000 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and salt This has been deleted multiple times, so therefore WP:G4 is applied. Also, please salt every article listed above. Nickag989^talk 17:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of football stadiums in Yugoslavia[edit]

List of football stadiums in Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We don't need this for the same reason why we don't need List of football stadiums in the Ottoman Empire; there doesn't appear to be a demand for a list of stadiums in countries that no longer exist. The stadiums are adequately covered in the articles for the individual nations so this list is redundant in any case. Spiderone 16:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "Other stuff doesnt't exist" is not a valid argument, this is not a discussion about stadiums in Ottoman Empire, but in Yugoslavia. As for notability, Yugoslav league was in 1991 according to UEFA ranking top10 league in Europe, infratructure of such league is certainly notable. History can't be ignored, I'm not interested in nationalist arguments. The topic is not adequately covered in the articles for the individual quasi nations as the infrastucture changed drastically since then due to introduction of all seating stadiums. Linhart (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Linhart: but this article is misleading. To someone that didn't know better, they would think that these stadiums in this list are actually in a current country called Yugoslavia. The whole point of WP:GNG is that there needs to be evidence of reliable sources covering the subject. You say that no other articles cover this adequately. Well, why does it need to be covered adequately? Spiderone 20:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we came to important questions. I think it need to be covered adequately because i think it is about a notable subject. As I said it is about the infrastructure in a globally very strong league (in the most popular sport in that country). If someone thinks it's misledaing I can edit it gladly. Of course I can also provide many sources for numbers in the article if needed.Linhart (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far all you've stated is that you think that the subject is notable. I can't see any evidence for this yet but I'm happy to be proved wrong if evidence does come out. I completely agree with what Wölf below is saying in that the article is incredibly unclear as to which version of Yugoslavia we are even discussing. Spiderone 21:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and so far all you stated is that it's not. For me it is, for the autors of "Encyclopedia of Yugoslav Football" it was, for others it's not.Linhart (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The scope of this article is ill-defined. Which Yugoslavia are we talking about: the kingdom, FPRY, SFRY, FRY? From which year is the situation we're quoting in the article? And after that is decided, why is the situation in that particular year notable? If the topic is not adequately covered in the lists of stadiums of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, etc., then I think it would be better to improve those articles instead of forking the content here. Perhaps we could merge it into Football in Yugoslavia as a section which portrays the stadium statistics from the time before the standing seats were abolished, but I'd definitely need more evidence to believe this can work as a standalone list. Daß Wölf 21:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information is from 1991/1992, if you would click on a link in the first sentence of the article, eg Yugoslavia, you would see that it covers a country that existed untill 1992. If you have problem with clarity of that, feel free to discuss there [[2]] (it allready was discussed and that was the consensus). Information about possible stadiums that existed only in Kingdom of Yugoslavia and were demolished before 1991 is not included, because I don't have relevant sources. If someone has them, he/she is free to add them.Linhart (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The year should be mentioned in the article. Why is the stadium situation in 1991 notable enough to warrant a standalone article? Daß Wölf 22:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because country collapsed in war afterwards. :o The situation was practicely unchanged from 1970s until 1991, any year could be used. Look, I don't really care, do whatever you want...Linhart (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:LISTN; no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Fenix down (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nanae Katō[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Previous AFD closed as no consensus with WP:NPASR. Hence I'm renominating this article for deletion. Repeating previous arguments of the subject only having voiced as leads in Princess Tutu (Ahiru), the titular character of Croket (non-notable), and the completely non-notable titular character of Noramimi as reasons for the subject being non-notable. Let's try to reach a consensus this time. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - My argument stands from last time around, in addition this passes WP:NACTOR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable works. WP:NACTOR requires that the person has played major roles in works that are notable, not that the individual characters are notable enough for articles. Calathan (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She is notable enough that she went to an anime convention in the US to promote Princess Tutu. [3] Croket is notable as it has a page here; it has 78 episodes and spawned a series of video games. As the title character this would probably fit in her infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per all of the above, and also for procedural reasons.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural reasons my foot, Sephy. Read what WP:NPASR is before you go spouting your ignorance. Looks like nobody wants this article deleted. I'm withdrawing. I just wanted a proper consensus, that's all. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of football stadiums in India. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Super League stadiums[edit]

List of Indian Super League stadiums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Redundant list; all info already covered adequately in List of football stadiums in India. Spiderone 16:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I disagree that all the info is adequately covered in List of football stadiums in India. That just makes me assume you looked at both article titles and thought they must be the same and therefore lets put one on AfD. If you look at the stadiums used in the Indian Super League you will see that not all of them are football stadiums but were made into ones temporarily for the ISL, being the "mega event" it is. Stadiums such as the DY Patil Stadium for instance. That stadium is mainly used for cricket, can be used for football but is not really a football ground (shouldn't be listed in the "football stadiums" article) Same for the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (Kochi). I also created this list for the same reason List of Major League Soccer stadiums exists which is that both leagues are franchise leagues which operate with no promotion/relegation between them. The stadiums used in the ISL are specific only to the ISL, which in my opinion, makes them unique in that aspect. There is also additional information in it such as stadiums which used to be used for the ISL, which stadiums are currently temporarily out of use, and all with proper referencing and dates which would not be seen on "List of football stadiums in India". You also have capacities listed which are unique only to the ISL (artificially lowered for ISL purposes only due to the league adding VIP boxes and temporary scoreboards). I know these are not super strong arguments here but they at least are good enough when such articles already exist for other leagues. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ArsenalFan700: The article List of football stadiums in India has a specific section dedicated to the ISL stadiums. I see no reason why the two articles couldn't be at least merged. I can't see any independent notability. Spiderone 17:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read how there are also grounds not used for football in the ISL? Again, why should they be added in the List of football stadiums in India article? There was a tiny section added, as well as the U17 World Cup one for some reason and both should be removed. The List of football stadiums in India article is for all stadiums used for football in India... from the ISL, the I-League, I-League 2nd Division, and various state and regional leagues. The ISL article is for the ISL, it includes stadiums that are not even football stadiums. I don't see why they can't be separate articles. The independent notability comes from how the ISL is basically a separate entity from the rest of the football fraternity in India. These stadiums are again for ISL specifically, some not even football stadiums, some with different capacities for ISL specifically (Sarobar Stadium seats 25,000, 10,000 for ISL), and some listed as not being used for ISL anymore or temporarily out of use. I also believe there is more interest in stadiums in ISL specifically then there is in football stadiums in India overall. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is still essentially confusing. Why can't they go in the main India article? There is no difference between a stadium used for football and a stadium used for ISL. Just because a stadium is also used for cricket doesn't exclude it from being a football stadium. Spiderone 20:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cause they are not football stadiums? DY Patil Stadium for example was only used for football cause ISL is a "mega event", it never hosts football, at any level. It's a cricket ground, simple as that. Also, if that is our line of reasoning then why do we need the List of football stadiums then if we can just have List of stadiums in India? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be primarily a cricket ground but it doesn't mean that it can't be a football stadium too. The two are not mutually exclusive. Even the article DY Patil Stadium clearly names it as a football stadium and mentions that it is due to host an under-17 World Cup next year. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of merging all stadium lists for each country into just one main list. With so many multi-purpose stadiums being built now, I hardly see the point in doing separate lists for football stadiums, cricket grounds, rugby stadiums, badminton arenas etc. Spiderone 16:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The football part was added by an IP on 14 April 2015 and it is only hosting the U17 World Cup cause India honestly just does not have many proper stadiums capable of hosting a World Cup type event so, like with the ISL, they are forcing the DY into a football ground temporarily. It is like how Yankee Stadium is not a football ground but has been used for it while New York City FC plays there. I personally wouldn't mind the merging then but only if it encompassed all stadiums in India and other countries. I want things to be unified across all countries and not just on India. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of football stadiums in India as a plausible search term. Agree that a separate page isn't needed, but this is something that someone might reasonably search for, so we need a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to agree with a redirect Spiderone 11:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that is something I can agree to as well and maybe I can refurbish the page and see where it goes. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - per Smartyllama. Not sure I see the need for a fork like this. Fenix down (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin - I'm happy to change my general stance to redirect to List of football stadiums in India (as opposed to delete) as it appears that ArsenalFan, the sole person in favour of keep initially, is happy with the outcome also. Spiderone 19:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of football stadiums in Algeria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 stadiums[edit]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 stadiums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Redundant list; everything already adequately covered in List of football stadiums in Algeria Spiderone 16:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of football stadiums in Algeria as a plausible search term. A separate page isn't necessary, but this is something that is likely to be searched for, so we should have a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest Console Video Games: 1977–1987[edit]

The 100 Greatest Console Video Games: 1977–1987 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a non-notable book written in a promotional tone. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, and the short/sycophantic "reviews" in HG101/Retro Gamer (#137, p. 14, three sentences) together do not have enough depth to write a detailed article on the subject, to prove the book's significance in the field by any measure, or to compose significant coverage. Outside the field, Boing Boing is a little longer but too has little depth and is more of an announcement, and PopMatters is longer but is peripheral to the field (for what it's worth, it's also negative about the book's contribution, unlike what the WP article reflects). Usually we require sizable reviews to constitute significant coverage as proof that multiple reviewers take the book seriously and have something to say about it (you know, analysis). These brief reviews indicate that major outlets received press copies, but not that the book was significant. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 15:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a WP:PROMO page with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is not a significant book. The only review is from "Retro Gamer", which itself lacks a citation. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Kawakubo[edit]

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

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

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

Only reliable source in the article is the subject's 81 Produce profile. No secondary news sources found. Main roles include Simon Wright from Captain Future (the Japanese anime), and Samia Don from Onegai Samia Don. Samia Don in particular is non-notable, and the subject does not even have a passing mention in the Capture Future article. Pietro Rossi, whom is a role from 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother mentioned in the previous AFD, is that of the supporting cast. Again, the subject is not even vaguely mentioned. Grosspoliner (also mentioned in the previous AFD), from Silent Mobius, is ALSO a supporting character. Limited significant roles lay the grounds for deletion. The keep camp from the previous AFD were overly sympathetic with the article's creator (she was a novice at the time) rather than basing their arguments on facts. We don't need sympathy in an AFD. We only need unbiased votes to reach a clear consensus. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:ENT significant roles in multiple productions, all of these have wikipedia articles:
  • Captain Future - Simon Wright - Main
  • Onegai! Samia-don - Samia-don - Main
  • 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother - Pietro, main character's father - Main - note that with ANN they only highlight the main character himself as the only main, which is not true.
  • Zoom the White Dolphin - Michael - Main
  • Bubblegum Crisis OAV - Quincy - Main antagonist

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, out of all the shows you've mentioned, the subject has only been listed in the characters list of Bubblegum Crisis. It should be noted that because none of the aforementioned shows (except Bubblegum Crisis) are really all that notable, nobody bothered to write a more detailed article for any of them. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lack of a good article here about a topic doesn't mean it's not notable. Please get that idea out of your mind. All it means (on this entirely volunteer site) is that no one has had the time (or perhaps the resources) to create the article. He was also a main character in Salaryman Kintarō (plays Morinosuke Yamato, a main character throughout much of the series). He is the Japanese-dub voice of David Niven for almost all films. He is one of the narrators for the long-running Asadora series. He is very prolific in a lot of different areas, and he's been in the business since the mid-60s. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs closed as keep due to sympathetic votes need to be renominated, especially when there's no progress on expansion at all in 8 years, not even a basic Expand Japanese template. Honestly, people need to focus more on the SUBJECT rather than the article creator, and in the previous AFD, the participants focused on the latter instead. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that applies to my comments how? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main reasons why I've renominated the article is due to how the previous AFD ended. There are more keep votes than delete votes, sure, but quite a decent portion of the keep camp are sympathetic to either the subject or the article creator, rather than the ACTUAL NOTABILITY of the subject himself. Additionally, it should also be noted that the article creator threw several hissy fits over getting offended that her article was nominated for deletion. I really loathe contributors like her. Kitty has also admitted that the article has yet to be completed with sufficient sources before publication. Unacceptable. That's not how AFDs work, nor is it how one should go about writing an article. Which is why I'm hoping that in this second nomination, people could instead focus on the subject, and only the subject with an unbiased view. Comments like these are definitely biased:

"Keep: Because Kitty53 is an honest editor who needs our support and guidance. The article can be improved but does not warrant deletion"

"Keep: What, we're deleting totally random articles on real people now? I say keep this since its deletion wouldn't actually contribute anything to the project's credibility, weight issues, manual of style or any of that."

And these were actually keep votes. Outrageous.

But as far as this AFD is concerned? So far, so good. I'll throw in an Expand Japanese template if I see one more keep vote. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone making those kinds of arguments here, so bringing the past discussions up is irrelevant to this discussion. Here, only items indicating notability have been discussed (except for your comments here). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This one looks like it passes WP:ENT, I have not heard any convincing arguments from the nominator. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only keep !vote ignored the reasons provided for deletion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of stadiums in Nordic countries[edit]

List of stadiums in Nordic countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The separate lists for the individual nations are sufficient; there is no need nor demand for a Nordic grouping. Spiderone 14:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football stadiums in Scandinavia. Ajf773 (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is not a book with an limited amount of pages.--Snaevar (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this can be a valid reason for keeping an article that clearly fails WP:GNG. By that argument, it would be okay for me to make an article about myself and my friends. Spiderone 18:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snaevar. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with notability criteria for lists. Ajf773 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atsushi Kakehashi[edit]

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

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

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

Article is almost completely unsourced. Subject's career mostly comprises of extras and various minor characters, with only Susumu Miyanomori and Axel, from Hanayaka Nari Waga Ichizoku: Kinetograph and Ozmafia respectively as his main roles; both productions are also non-notable. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any notable roles or anything I can write above a dictionary definition WP:WHYN JA Wikipedia article is an empty credits list dump as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unable to find anything to support keeping. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails GNG and has RS sourcing problems, as well. Kierzek (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Prince of Tennis characters#Takashi Kawamura. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naru Kawamoto[edit]

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

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

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

Subject's only main role is that of Takashi Kawamura from the long running Prince of Tennis series. I suggest redirecting to the Prince of Tennis page. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Takashi Kawamura (The Prince of Tennis) his only notable role. There's not enough to write any decent biography of the person. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is a redirect to List of The Prince of Tennis characters#Takashi Kawamura. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoto Energy[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. No independent sources. Beagel (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Searched Lexis and Newsbank world; Found no coverage for Kyoto Energy, but Kyoto Box had a decent amount of coverage (although possibly falls afoul of single event coverage). However, it is important to note that none of the hits on Kyoto Box mentioned the Kyoto Energy corporation. So: Fails GNG and CORP as noted by nom. No merge to Kyoto Box is necessary as all content from this page is already on that article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:V. Even if it's all true, it's clearly not a major player in the huge energy field. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  WP:DEL7 with WP:IAR, as it is not AfD's role to do complete rewrites of articles where the article creator provided nothing verifiable.  Company website is returning 404 errors, so an internet rumor that they went bankrupt is credible.  This does not end this story for Wikipedia, as there may still be books written.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as quite honestly A7, barely any actual significance, let alone substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the later provided uncontested keep !votes Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masura Parvin[edit]

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

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

See previous AfD; selected for senior team but no evidence that she actually played; clear failure of WP:GNG besides. Spiderone 14:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:BASIC. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. A few sample references to start:

1. The Daily Star
2. Dhaka Tribune
3. Bangladesh Chronicle

Also, Metafootball indicates she has 4 caps at the senior level in November 2014. Hmlarson (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per as Hmlarson. Also pass WP:NFOOTBALL as she played for senior national side. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes not only WP:NFOOTY as has played senior international football, but also seems to pass GNG based on the sources above. Fenix down (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY by playing for a full senior side. Smartyllama (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanoko Hatamiya[edit]

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

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

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

Notable roles are nil. The article's claim on the subject being famous for her limited roles is unsourced. Reliable sources on the subject are also close to none, with Atelier Peach being the only reliable source. Subject is non-notable in any means of the word. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment she's in a bunch of adult video games according to VADB, but it may not mean she is notable. Adding delsort to video games. [4] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Which is why I've nominated the subject for deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, not enough coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no notable roles, fails WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mashinky (video game)[edit]

Mashinky (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic has no coverage whatsoever from reliable secondary sources. 0 hits from reliable video game source search. The1337gamer (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, article history indicates that, at the very least, there are WP:COI issues, but article reads very promotional as well. Canadian Paul 14:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I found old information (wrong game name) on list of game developers and fix it, than I also fill some at least minimal info about myself as a user and game developer and about the game Mashinky I am working on. My profil was "speedy deleted" and now also info about game Mashinky? It is not promotional, it is just very basic info for those who are looking for it. The page about me was just about me, nothing promotional or whatever (I've used page about another well known game developer as a template), but I don't care any more, just delete everything I've fixed or inserted including my profile, I will quit from wikipedia either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanZeleny (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We only write articles on games that have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Those links will tell you more about the WP notability guidelines. Hope to see you back in the future, but our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines encourage you to edit articles with other subjects. czar 15:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON, no coverage to be found outside of forums. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My favored search engine turned up no relevant results outside of mashinky.com. I suspect that we'll need to wait at least until the game is released before we see sufficient reliable sources to justify an article on it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's very difficult for independent games to get any coverage pre-release, and I don't see any. The article can be recreated once it receives a few reviews in reliable sources, such as IGN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This basically comes down to WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS against WP:N. BLP1E and NOTNEWS are policies which document circumstances where meeting the guideline WP:N is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion. Therefore the delete camp has the stronger argument in policy, and also has the numerical advantage.

The comment about previous AfDs is a) irrelevant and b) incorrect. This article did not pass two AfDs. The first was no consensus and the second was withdrawn after noticing the existence of the first. SpinningSpark 18:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Samarin[edit]

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

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

Article subject is pure BLP1E, which is a "bright line" policy. All coverage is directly related to his 2016 arrest. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is clearly one-event. The fact that it was odd enough to get some local press coverage does not overcome the fact that it is still one event, and not at a level to establish that it meets the guidelines for including criminals and their actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's literally nothing here but attention for those trivial events, therefore there's nothing to suggest we should see this any other way. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BLP1E is outweighed by the independent coverage here. The fact that this passed two earlier AFDs also weighs in. South Nashua (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was a 2nd round of publicity [5] at the time of his guilty plea in August, 2016. Far too much RS coverage [6] to make deletion plausible. Coverage was not confined to local;it has been national and international.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BLP1E is indeed outweighed by the independent coverage here. artcle quality and size is also irrelevant in comparison to the mentioned factors. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no indications why this should be in an encyclopedia. I don't see any long-term societal impact; merely being sensationalised in the media. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG. WP:1 & WP:NOTNEWS also applicable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sourcing Ongoing, intense, in-depth coverage across 2 continents. It's what makes a scam artist WP:NOTABLE. New round of coverage this week because of sentencing. Here's yesterday's The Daily Telegraph, "Ukrainian man jailed after posing as child and attending high school ," [7], one of many articles on both sides of the pond in the latest round of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NOTNEWS applies. Just one of these weird human interest news stories that the media like to pass around for clicks or to fill their pages; no lasting importance to anybody except those involved.  Sandstein  15:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - BLP1E is NOT outweighed simply by the number of articles that cover the one event, no matter how far apart they appear on a timeline. Arguing otherwise shows a profound misunderstanding of the Biography of Living Persons policy. And the results of prior AfDs have little to no bearing on THIS one where BLP1E is concerned. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (Qualified) Keep - Clearly this is a person notable for one event. What I think the other keep !votes are getting at is that per BIO1E (as opposed to BLP1E) this would more appropriately be an article about the event rather than the person. There is ample sourcing to show notability, so no problem there. And frankly, the article as it stands now is not a biography anyway, so little more would be needed than a name change to something like Asher Potts Incident. Then the article could focus the same things to sources do - trial proceedings, analysis of how he came to be in the country, remedial step considered by the school system, etc. However I do not advocate keeping this as a biography. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classical NOTNEWS, BLP1E. --Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per BLP1E -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Interesting information, but not the type of material that merits its own encyclopedia article. We also don't have articles for every fireman that rescued a cat stuck in a tree.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the definition of notability is something that has received significant coverage from independent sources; if CNN, Fox, ABC, Huffington Post, Washington Post all covered the topic, I say it meets that definition to a T. Icebob99 (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True but overridden by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody except the page's creator wants to keep this, so it's a clear case despite the disruptive walls of text.  Sandstein  10:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GunDB[edit]

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

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

Non-notable product. The article has listed a lot of references but *none* of the references meet the criteria for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The editor Tmobii has a WP:COI and created this page in response to failing to gain concensus for including his product at Graph database. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are UCLA, Forbes, WSJ, AllThingsD, hackernews, angel.co, BoostVC, reddit, and others not independent sources? Many of those sources are used elsewhere in Wikipedia to establish significance. Could you please justify and back your claims rather than personally attacking me? Two separate admins have rejected your request to ban me, and I have spent a lot of effort to find credible and significant sources that even match your requirements (you have given no reason why they are not other than just stating they are not) - in order to have a civil discussion you have to actually let me present a case. The current consensus count is 4 pro and 4 con in the graph talk thread (I encourage others to read it), so please do not act like you have consensus when you don't - your statements need to be backed by evidence, not opinion alone.Tmobii (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• — Note to closing admin: Tmobii (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Tmobii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, creators of the article should be notified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion) "But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you." There is nothing wrong with me defending the article. Tmobii (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sources listed in the article are:

• Hacker news from ycombinator (twice) - a discussion created by the CEO Mark Nadal.
• allthingsd.com startupucla wsj video forbes prweb dailybruin.com ucla.edu - sources not connected with the topic, gundb, but with "accelsor", a previous company connected with Mark Nadal
• codenewbie.org - podcast by Mark Nadal
• boost.vc - shows the gundb logo among a group of 32 logos as "Wild Cards"
• angel.co - promotional page on gundb with description and list of people who have invested
• GitHub - GitHub page for GunDB. Related RfC at Talk:Graph database which this user is trying to get recognition of GunDB as a source of notability for open source products
• NPM - download and installation page for GunDB
• reddit - a reddit page discussing gundb

And please stop saying I tried to have you banned. Here was when you were IP hopping and warned about WP:3RR and here was when you continued to insert your product without engaging in discussion. Many editors including me have repeatedly pointed out why your sources fail as they do not qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per WP:GNG but you just keep repeating the same sources and the same arguments over and over without adding anything new and without referring to policies. Creating this article is a sign of disruptive editing and not getting it. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, thank you for going through the sources mostly 1 by 1 - that is the exact sort of discussion I was looking to have! Cheers to you.

- Many projects emerge from R&D at previous companies and is common in the tech industry, and for startups this happens so often they coined a term for it "pivot". Kafka came from LinkedIn, as a nice big corporate example. The recent PokemonGo hype is another example: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-to-spin-out-game-maker-niantic-labs-as-independent-company/ . This leaves us with two logical options: (A) you have to justify why Kafka, PokemonGo, and others also should be disregarded or why they are different in their migration/pivot/spin-out or (B) My counter argument does bring up a valid point as to why your argument is non-unique.

- Additionally, if all you care about is Mark Nadal, then policy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source ) states that the writer/creator/author can count too. So there is no reason to dismiss sources because they are about the author of the system (with the exception perhaps if it is completely irrelevant, but that is not the case with GunDB).

- GitHub is peer review, and you have avoided replying to this countless times, and you have provided no citation, policy, or evidence against this. Claiming that GitHub's rating system is "user generated" is false because GitHub stars are not self report, they are peer vetted. You still need to address the fact that GunDB, Cayley, and ArangoDB are almost as popular as Neo4j.

- NPM tracks downloads yes, and if you noticed what the current report is: 4,500+ downloads in this last month and that is being reported by the independent source of NPM which matches verifiability requirements.

- Angel.co / BoostVC are not self report, the billionaire investors actually had to approve of their listing. You still are not explaining why that is not notable, fund raises are a big deal in the technology industry.

- Your claim is factually false and can easily be checked by going to CodeNewbie's site, it is not by Mark Nadal but an interview of him, CodeNewbie is a well established podcast in the industry having interviewed 100+ others, and has an audience of over 17,000+ developers.

- You again ignore the fact that both HackerNews and Reddit are vetted news sites. Your claim might be relevant if those postings had no upvotes, but they both were significant enough by others (not the author) to land them in the top news. (Unrelated note: You finally let me add ArangoDB back in to the Graph list, which I am thankful for. According to your own requirements though, it has less significant sources and even cites HackerNews. This suggest to me that either those are qualified enough sources, or you are purposefully targeting GunDB.)

Summary: You keep on committing a strawman fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman) in order to avoid the important significances. You then discredit extraordinarily recognizable sources like UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, etc. in a double standard way.

Note: An independent reviewer, No1lakersfan, has already approved of this page. At this point in the discussion having independent third party reviewers is important, because you have unilaterally dismissed this entire page because of your deletionist agenda on the graph page - so much to the point you claim I have provided no new sources even though you responded to them! Neutral perspectives are needed.

Maybe we are from different cultures, but if you do not want people thinking you are threatening to ban (correction: block, thank you for clarifying that, I am wrong on saying ban then) them don't say things like (in the link you posted) "...this will not end well for you and you will probably end up with a block. Not a threat, ..." because people will interpret that as a threat especially when you take action on it as you have. Likewise, many other editors also sided to include GunDB, such as D3x0r, me, an unsigned user and now a few independent reviewers that see no problem with it: No1lakersfan and Levlev32. Finally, you accuse me of disruptive editing but all I am trying to do is follow requests including what Michaelmalak himself said: "To re-add, establish notability by either linking to a dedicated Wikipedia article about the database" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F). I hope you can see how people might feel scammed, because we've made every attempt to comply with your standards and then you accuse us of being disruptive when we do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. (A) & (B) No. I don't have to justify Kafka or Pokemon Go unless you provide links as to what precisely your counter-argument is. If you are trying to claim that Kafka or PokemonGo should not have an article, then you clearly (still) haven't read WP:GNG and you don't grasp what is required to denote notability. If you are trying to claim that your product is the same as Kafka or PoGo then I'll repear - you obviously have not read or understood WP:GNG (Hint: They all have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You should also understand the definitions of each of the bolded terms before you grasp the requirements for notability.)
2. I don't give a hoot about Mark Nadal although I do think he has lovely hair in his photographs. You say that authors can be considered sources and this is true - but with a qualification. You need to read the rest of that guidelines where you'll find that the qualification for authors is 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. Self published sources are largely not acceptable. Can you provide a reference that shows Mark Nadal is a recognised expert in this field whose work has been published by a reliable third-party publication?
3. You keep referring to GitHub as being peer-reviewed and therfore acceptable. Again (and on the same page you pointed out yourself), it states that questionable sources are those with no editorial oversight and user-generated content from websites are generally unacceptable. It uses the example of IMDb and other collablratively created websites. GitHub falls into this category. The exceptions are where the content is authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff. GitHub does not fall into the exceptions.
4. NPM does not qualify since the criteria is "notability" and not "number of times it has been downloaded". Refer to WP:GNG.
5. Angel.co and BoostVC are not "independent" sources as they are investors and therefore WP:BIASED and not neutral (assuming they want their investment to succeed ... with investors sometimes you can never tell!).
6. codenewbie .. OK - I stand corrected - it is an interview of Mark Nadal and not a poscast by Mark Nadal. As a source, codenewbie would not be regarded as being a reliable source since it is a "community" grown out of a weekly TwitterChat. Leaving that aside - content produced by Mark Nadal is not independent.
7. Hackernews and Reddit - the links you provide are user-generated content and so unacceptable. (Aside:- I didn't "allow" you to add ArangoDB back in. I edited that ArangoDB article to add in a reference to a book (see! ... a reliable source that was independent of the subject!) and that (in my opinion) was enough to denote notability.
8. Nope, I point you to the policies and guidelines and encourage you to read them. For example, in your response you've pointed to WP:RS, plucked out a sentence that appears to support your adopted position, but its pretty obvious to the rest of us that you've ignored everything else (and especially the bit that shows that the bit you're trying to rely on has a qualification on "author" that you've ignored).
9. You ask - Maybe we are from different cultures? This sort of comment is condescending in the extreme and distasteful.
10. You appear to be making a habit of plucking parts of sentences out of context and wrapping them in one possible interpretation to bolster the position you adopt. For the benefit of others, the entire comment reads as follows:

OK, you asked for a point-by-point response, which I provide. You then fail to respond with any argument based on policy or address any points I've raised - and then revert the article anyway. That isn't how we do things here. I'm going to request that the article is protected from editing by IP addresses and revert the article once more. I predict that if you want to edit-war rather than discuss, this will not end well for you and you will probably end up with a block. Not a threat, just reciting what I've learned through experience.

I don't actually believe that you really thought this was a threat to have you banned/blocked and I believe you have chosen to portay my comment in this way to cast me in a bad light. This is more of a reflection on you than me. You've proclaimed that you were threatened in 4 or 5 difference places including the Talk pages of at least two admins. That kind of behaviour can sometimes backfire.

Some final notes, it isn't the number of people that "side" with you that counts but policy first, then consensus. I see no contributions from No1lakersfan - please provide links/diffs. Levlev32 has made 3 edits (one of which was to add GunDB to Graph database in December 2015 - a year ago) and is irrelevant unless (s)he decides to get involved now. This isn't a contest to count !votes. Arguments must be based on policies and guidelines and the closing admin will use that criteria to decide. Finally - disruptive editing - read WP:WAR and especially WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. You continued to insert your product details into the article despite the effores of three of four other editors (including me) to remove it and discuss at the Talk page. If there is a dispute, it gets settled on the Talk page and only then does an article reflect the decision reached. The consensus on the Talk page was to remove GunDB as it was WP:TOOEARLY. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough reply! I am going to reset the indention level because it is getting hard for me to read anything on my laptop's screen because all the text is squished in such a narrow column:

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG (bold added below to focus discussion on policy) Tmobii (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Are UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD Independent? Yes. They are not controlled by GunDB or any of its team.

- Are UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD Secondary Sources? Yes. They are multiple different outlets and publications.

- Were UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD articles Significant? Yes. They went into detail about the people, events, software, demos, things covered.

- Are UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD Reliable? Yes. They are all institutions that do fact checking and verification to maintain the integrity of their institutions.

- Are other databases and their vendors accepted on Wikipedia? Yes. Then inclusion of GUN is Presumed to not be a random collection of information.

- Kafka and PokemonGo are both companies/projects that spun out from a previous company, same with Gun, there is no policy or argument against this.

Policy is great, just because you quote it does not mean others are violating it. As an example, if I quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recentism at you, that does not mean I suddenly have a super power to judge you about how short sighted what you say is. Next time, please try to provide reasons why and not just quote.

2. The author of GunDB does not work for UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD - these are not self published. He is not being quoted as an expert, instead there has been significant media coverages of him as a founder and his work, published by multiple independent and reliable sources.

3. Other editors disagree with you on this. A neutral third party editor answered the RfC saying that GitHub's rating system is 'yes ish' qualified "Yes, GitHub is suitable source for the purposes of indications on what is "notable" enough to go into the list." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graph_database#RfC_about_Open_Source_software_notability) As far as this page (which is not the Graph list), the GitHub references are about events (like the Open Source MIT/ZLIB/Apache2 license decision), not as qualifiers.

- GitHub's ranking system is not self report. GitHub's ranking system is separate from the self-published user-generated content on GitHub.

- Editor Markbassett's list is a great resource, I'm going to repost it (which is for table/list inclusion) here "Supporting examples of GitHub data use ..."

Measuring programming language popularity Wikipedia already mentions GitHub as indicator

Arxiv On the popularity of GitHubs applications]

UC Davis - StackOverflow and GitHub: Associations Between Software Development and Crowdsourced Knowledge

InfoWorld GitHub's top 10 rock-star projects

RedMonk Programming Language Rankings (using GitHub)

Wired - How GitHub Conquered...

Fossbytes - Top Programming Languages on Github

Data Just Right: Introduction to Large-Scale Data & Analytics (book)

IEEE use of GitHub

4. You are correct that NPM is not an established outlet like UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD. NPM is an independent secondary source to verify download counts and the popularity of GunDB. It is much better to cite a source than for the Wikipedia article to just state "GunDB has X downloads", especially since downloads change all the time. For this, NPM is reliable.

5. Angel.co is not an investor, it is an independent secondary source that allows people to verify a company's claims of investment because it requires the approval of Billionaires like Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce. Of course they are biased, but that is not what is being discussed here, it is about verifying that they are investors. If somebody were to claim "Bill Gates gave me a million dollars" you would want them to back that up right?

6. Which is better, for the article to just claim that the author said those things, or reference the actual podcast where he said those things?

7. Simple question: Is it true or false that GunDB was launched on HackerNews and was on the homepage?

- Second question: Is it true or false that the upvoting system is authored by the admins of the site?

- Third question: If the editorial staff and credentialed members who run site do not think the voting algorithm is generating good results onto their homepage, is it or is it not in their best interest to modify the algorithm to prevent abuse or gamification? (If you are curious how they deal with this, check out https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, I am sure Reddit has its own)

To conclude, while you are correct that adding stories is user generated, the ranking system is not. And on community news sites that are as popular as HackerNews and Reddit, achieving a high upvote is a sign that the algorithm authored by the editorial staff views it as being notable (which is separate from Wikipedia's rules for notability). But that does not dismiss the fact that those user-generated additions of news stories were notable on those platforms, they are, and so was GunDB's.

(On the aside: Thanks for editing that reference to ArangoDB. Why did you leave the HackerNews comment though, which is UGC, if you think HackerNews is unacceptable for GunDB? Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArangoDB#cite_note-3)

8. Please see my policy comment in (1). You claim "obvious to the rest of us" but do not cite anybody else - if other people agree with you, they can comment themselves.

9. You seem offended by my question if we are from different cultures, I am sorry about that (it is not something I would have thought is offensive, so please accept my apology). I'm from the USA, and it looks like you are from Ireland?

10. This is very much off subject, but I am fine with discussing it - so apologies to others that the following remarks are going to be written in a very personal and emotional tone rather than what I try my best (and probably fail often) as being a logical one. Yes, I was offended, and no, you are not entitled to "I don't actually believe that you really thought". I am glad you posted your full remarks because it lets me point out more of the pieces that personally offended me (note: it might not others). When you say "That isn't how we do things here" that is a very ostracizing/excluding/otherizing comment when I know for fact that Wikipedia founded on the idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles) of openness and inclusivity.

11. Could you quote policy on why other editors' historical contributions do not count? Not everybody has unlimited time (like it seems I do) to engage, but that should not be held against them unless there is policy.

12. Given that Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB had consensus on the Graph list since 2015 (see edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&oldid=693524343, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=725428050&oldid=725139748 had an invalid reason, and then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=744210160&oldid=744035674), evidence shows that an anonymous IP started the revert war of deleting that you then continued when other members of the community (like D3x0r) tried to restore the list to its original long standing consensus. Also given that Cayley and ArangoDB have been added back in, it looks like the original long standing consensus was correct and disagrees with your deletionist (like you are trying to do to this GunDB page entry) agendas.

Do not let this stop you from trying to make your points though, they ought be heard. Cheers to open discussion and debate for all! Tmobii (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As explained at Forbes#Forbes.com, it now uses a contributor model. Indeed, the Forbes ref on the article expressly states: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." By Forbes' own admission, it has not be subject to any editorial review. It may well be challenged as a reliable source on that basis, per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is acceptable and backed by an explanation. If you would like to discard "Forbes" that seems reasonable, but given that multiple sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG) have covered the events relating to the article, this is not a reason for deleting the article as a whole. As far as the Forbes article itself, the author has been published in "Fast Company, The New York Observer, The Next Web and VentureBeat" which may be okay since WP:SELFPUBLISH states "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Tmobii (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE The nominator has very patiently and thoroughly made the case that there are insufficient reliable sources -- that is to say, source which are not user-generated. And I remind everyone that a Google News search reveals absolutely nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA/WSJ/AllThingsD are not user-generated. Further, notability requirements (Significant, Reliable, Multiple Sources, Independent, and Presumed, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG) have been explained as being met in the previous (1) point, could you please explain why those are invalid reasons? Discussion and reasons are important, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion .

Also nominator did not follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BEFORE (C) guidelines of offering suggestions for improvement first on new articles, they immediately rushed for deletion. Having other editors review and improve the article would be a great start first before hand.Tmobii (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go again....incorrectly attributing actions to me. You've done it so many times that I believe you're doing it on purpose so please stop. First of all, WP:BEFORE is a guideline and not a policy, so it doesn't *have* to be followed. Nevertheless, I believe in this circumstance and given the discussions that had already taken place at Talk:Graph database and how you'd failed to produce a single source in order to include your produce in a List - which is a much lower bar than having its own article, I don't think there are any grounds for criticising this AfD. On the other hand I believe your attempted creation of this article can be criticised on that basis alone - and you have a clear conflict of interest. You really should consider dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the dead horse. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. I already said it was a guideline. Your response seems like I said it was a policy? As far as whether you are the nominator for this page's deletion, that is easy to check (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GunDB&diff=750112258&oldid=749113463) which indicates that you are - is this wrong? I'm not trying to misattribute you.

2. Sources provided (to refute your claim that I did not provide a single source): UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, The Kauffman Foundation, HighScalability, GitHub, Angel.co, HackerNews, BoostVC, Reddit, NPM, a page to their tradeoffs (https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/CAP-Theorem), an actual user story "Distributed Machine Learning with GunDB" http://myrighttocode.org/blog/artificial%20intelligence/particle%20swarm/genetic%20algorithm/collective%20knowledge/machine%20learning/gun-db-artificial-knowledge-sharing, and another actual user story https://medium.com/a-weekend-with/a-weekend-with-gun-a61fdcb8cc5d . All of these sources have been found in order to comply with the requests outlined here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F . Could you please explain your claim that "you'd failed to produce a single source"? I've provided evidence to disprove this claim.

3. I have advocated for Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB, all of which had long standing consensus since 2015 before you and others started deleting them (see point 12 above for links/evidence of this).

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encourage_full_discussions , saying "You really should consider dropping the stick and backing slowly away" is a misappropriate usage of WP:STICK when this page is not even closed yet! I would much rather you continue the discussion and make arguments for why you are correct rather than simply stating "I believe" 3 times in the previous paragraph - we obviously have different opinions, and I would love to hear why you believe what you do. Thanks! (Edit: format/numbering) Tmobii (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Tmobii (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons

Please compare against the other Open Source graph database pages that have been accepted for Wikipedia:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArangoDB
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo4j
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrientDB

Tmobii (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These articles were already proposed for deletion (by the same nominator as here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArangoDB&diff=737874348&oldid=737850961) and their deletion was overruled. This should be an indication of precedence and meeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG requirements of being "Presumed". If you could explain why these are invalid comparisons, that would help contribute to the discussion per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFDEQ . I look forward to hearing your responses (also recommendations on how to improve the article versus just deleting it)! Thank you. Tmobii (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tmobii, at this stage it appears to me that you are deliberately misquoting me or attributing actions to me that have nothing to do with me. Is there a reason why? This is the 4th/5th/6th/? time you've done this. I have not nominated any of those articles for deletion. I PRODed ArangoDB, there's a difference. I can see lots of crap references in those articles but to understand why they have been accepted as notable topics, you have to realise that there must be *at least* one reference that meets the criteria in WP:RS (and be aware that lots of articles are deleted if they only have one reference since a single source does not qualify as "significant coverage" - but it doesn't seem to get enforced all the time). If you check those articles you will probably find at least one source. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is the difference between "proposed for deletion" (what I claimed you did in the previous paragraph) and "Proposing article for deletion" (what you said you did in this edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArangoDB&diff=737874348&oldid=737850961)? You agree yourself that you "PRODed" it, how is that misquoting or misattributing?

2. More important, you did not counter the argument for "Presumed" precedence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG) of Wikipedia on the subject of databases - do you have one?

3. Several sources I have found provide significant coverage of the people/events/things discussed. What https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion could be done that satisfied the other database's significance but wasn't here?

As always, waiting to hear your input and thankful for your time! Tmobii (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why is it that you have such difficulty in paying attention to what is said and discussed? Why is it that you have such difficulty in reading simple sentences? Why is it that you always ask open-ended questions rather than answering specific points using specific policies and guidelines (and links)? Why is it that you're trying to weasel out of your last salvo of incorrect allegations and your misattributing of actions to me. Why is it that you maintain your allegation that the nominator of this AfD (me) had previously nominated *3* articles and the "deletion was overruled" (which doesn't apply to PRODs) and don't apologise and withdraw your remark but rather try to adopt a position that you are correct all along?

2. Why is it that you think you have the right to continue to disrupt these pages with incomprehensible arguments that have no bearing on policy and guidelines? Why is it that you fail, over and over and over, to read WP:RS and understand that the references you provided *all* fail and therefore your product has *zero* coverage that we can rely on to establish notability? Why is it that you fail to address the abject failure of the sources you have put forward as reliable sources? Why is it that you fail to address any of the policy/guideline arguments put forward and instead change tack and try a different argument?

3. Why is it that after all this discussion here and on other pages, you still maintain that you have provided "significant" coverage? Why is it that you have such difficulty in reading the analysis of your sources (above) and accepting that they fail for the reasons specificied? Why is it that you haven't found other sources that don't fail if this topic is not notable? Why is it that others can't find any sources either? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, I see your point, 1 you did and 2 you did not - you are correct, I apologize (I just checked the other histories). According to WP:PRODS an admin decides, and according to (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArangoDB&diff=746918873&oldid=737874348), an admin removed the deletion, thus overruling your PROD.

1. It would be nice if you did not attack me though, saying that I am "weaseling" or "have such difficulty" or am "incomprehensible" (or at least, why and where am I being incomprehensible?) are personal claims against my character and intelligence that goes against WP:AFDEQ and WP:Civility. We have different views, but that does not make either of us ignorant, instead we have the right to defend them with reasonable and thorough arguments backed by evidence - and I encourage that discussion.

2. 3. Citing WP:RS without replying to (1) (further above now) where it is explained that every WP:GNG has been met of reliable, independent, verifiable multiple secondary sources that have significant coverage, and dealing with an already presumed subject (which I expanded on in this section, about the already established precedence - which you have not replied to or denied), winds up being counteractive to WP:DISCUSSAFD and WP:CLOSEAFD where it states "..on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." and "Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion."

I would love to carry the discussion forward there. Cheers to you and looking forward to the debate! Tmobii (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding to the mystery around this company and its tireless advocate on this page is that the company's website and email seem to indicate it's located in the British Indian Ocean Territory, a tiny chain of atolls described as having no commercial activities. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you are talking about? When I go to their website I don't see anything about that? When I follow links through to their investor profile it says "San Mateo" which goes to https://angel.co/san-mateo of California. I'm not sure why this is relevant as a reason for why the page should be deleted? Tmobii (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, well, the .io suffix used on the corporate website and corporate email corresponds, I'm told, to British Indian Ocean Territory. Whatever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Yeah, `.io` is popular in the tech startup world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io#Startups. Tmobii (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was unable to find in-depth independent reliable sources for this database; the closest to such is [8], but this is part of a blog and is considered unreliable according to WP:RS. WSJ is generally a reliable source, but the video was a primary source. A number of sources were pointed out above, but I agree that all had problems. It seems that it is WP:TOOSOON for this product to have gained multiple independent RS. Given the semi-biographical nature of the article irrelevant to the software, I think it likely that there are COI issues as well. But the main problem is lack of notability of the database according to WP:GNG and given the article's emphasis on the founders and company marketing it, WP:CORPDEPTH as well. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your respectful and policy based input! I really appreciate it, and here are some rebuttals to your points:

1. Your point about [1] is good, and I believe you are correct that it is not from an established source. Note however [1] is not cited as a source in the GunDB article! So this has already been taken care of (and thus not a reason for deletion as a whole). [1] was originally used in the Graph Talk discussion to comply with admin EdJohnston's and editor Michaelmalak's list inclusion requirements of "preferably an article that either interviews actual users of the database" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F), and is not being used here.

2. The WSJ source's was published by an Associate Editor (https://www.linkedin.com/in/withdrake), which according to WP:PRIMARY states that it is policy "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care". So I think there is still a good argument that this citation ought be considered.

3. For the sake of being able to defend any claim, could you please go into more detail on your "I agree that all had problems" such that WP:CLOSEAFD, WP:DISCUSSAFD can be promoted, and this does not turn into a "I agree" poll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion)? Thank you, I appreciate how kind and explanatory you have been in your involvement so far!

4. Could you explain how the fund raising from many notable sources, including UCLA, Billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce, and others as cited in the article are "too soon"?

5. None of the items listed in WP:CORPDEPTH ("meeting times", "announcement of mergers or sales", etc.) apply to the citations given, what WP:CORPDEPTH does state "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" which has been done already (granted by the fact that your arguments are addressing multiple sources). If you could expand on your argument here, I think it would be beneficial.

6. I've been advocating for Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB not just GunDB, so please don't claim I'm COI when all Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB had long standing consensus since 2015 (links of proof of this are listed in (12) above) and I/others have gotten all except GunDB to be restored on the Graph page - I'm simply trying to finish restoring GunDB by complying with requirements (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F).

7. Evidence of every WP:GNG requirement has been given elsewhere, particularly (1) previously. Would love to hear your response against these.

Thanks so much for jumping in! Looking forward to your response, thanks for being respectful and bringing up good/valid arguments. Tmobii (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  Startups have little interest to Wikipedia.  See WP:SUSTAINED, which says that WP:GNG coverage is not sufficient for a startup's notability.  If a product has potential, we can wait.  Once the topic has WP:DUE weight on another page, a redirect is then appropriate.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful points, here are some responses that address your points:

1. WP:SUSTAINED is met because there has been ongoing coverage since 2011, including notable fund raising from billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce (see evidence above). Again, WP:GNG presumed exists because numerous other databases are included on Wikipedia (see the comparison section) which survived deletion proposals. Others have replied to this argument but offered no rebuttal.

2. I am glad you bring up WP:weight because GunDB had previously been included on the GraphDB page with long standing consensus since 2015 (see point 12 above). I was told to create an article so I found WP:GNG sources for this page (I would not be opposed to a redirect, but then the citations establishing WP:GNG might be lost - so this would need to be done carefully and with approval), to then connect with the GraphDB page and other databases.

3. Also given that WP:DUE states "Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." and reliable sources have been found (UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD/Kauffman Foundation, etc., see point 1 in a previous section above), therefore WP:INSIGNIFICANCE does not have weight here (especially since it is not policy).

Thank you for bringing up these points! Would love to hear your response to the above analysis. Tmobii (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Tmobii (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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