< 4 November	6 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 11:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Prim[edit]

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

Some articles of County Sheriffs exist on Wikipedia, but Bill Prim does not appear notable enough to have his own article here. He appears to fail WP:GNG. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found the following articles, among more on Google News. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, every source except the first one is from the Northwest Herald, which is the local McHenry County newspaper. It is normal for a local paper to frequently talk about local candidates or officials, and that coverage does not warrant a Wikipedia article. So, I would say that the NW Herald sources are not "valid" in this case because of that. The Chicago Tribune source is much better in this case, but it is also in the same general area. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[6], [7], [8]. Google search: "Bill Prim" -nwherald.com. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just being a county sheriff is not enough to make someone notable, and that is all this article says about Prim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a county sheriff is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and local sourcing in local media is not enough to get him over the GNG bar — local coverage in local media always exists for local sheriffs, so to make a sheriff notable enough for inclusion the coverage has to go significantly above and beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - chief law enforcement officer of a county of over 1/3 million residents. I'd like to see sources added to the stub, please. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. A county sheriff must pass GNG. Insufficient coverage indicated. I looked at other in the category Illinois Sheriffs and almost all were notable due to having later served in a higher political office. MB 01:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 22 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Richie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

She is simply one model among the throng who model at runway shows and in print fashion spreads. She was a complete unknown until she evidently began dating Justin Bieber. Neither the Bieber connection nor her father being Lionel Richie is sufficient notability, which is not inherited. Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the consensus in the first AfD, nothing has changed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No improvement from the first version; to be fair it's less gossipy-sourced than the original version, but being in a minor version of Vogue and a music magazine's odd fashion issue isn't the cover of the main Vouge, and the Yeezy runway show was charitably described in the press as "a disaster". Relative notability doesn't clinch either. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look at how bone dry this article is. Just 3 sentences! She is currently only famous for being Lionel Richie's daughter and Nicole Richie's sister and no one even bothered to create an "Early life" section where she clearly gets her so-called notability from. Secondly she is only famous for her fling with Justin Bieber. Being in the Yeezy Season 3 show is not notable, there were more unknown models than famous models in that show anyway. Delete this and remake it when she actually has something substantial to put here like Nicole does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:102:34E8:A881:6677:F386:9F3D (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of how this person meets WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:45, 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 merge to Vecheslav Zagonek. Sandstein 10:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zagonek[edit]

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

A more complete Wiki page for Zagonek exists under Vecheslav Zagonek. I was trying to de-orphan this page, but deletion seems a better option. Yorkshiresoul (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if there are any good references on this new page, a WP:MERGE can be performed and, assuming there are no other Zagoneks around, we can change this page to a redirect. Vecheslav Zagonek is a fairly poorly written article, looks like a translation, so it could do with improvement from this material.Triptothecottage (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vecheslav Zagonek. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 8 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Cooper (Write-In Presidential Candidate)[edit]

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

As a potential write-in candidate, the subject did get some news coverage but Wikipedia is not news and in the end, I don't think he quite meets the notability criteria for politicians. Pichpich (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blythwood (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally people who are actually on the balot for even marginally established parties in the US presidential race will be notable. However being allowed write-in candidate I do not think cuts it, and the sourcing suggests no better hope of coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal coverage, not on the ballot. If this was kept, then there'd have to be an article for every write-in candidate. I think that threshold is too low. South Nashua (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage to merit a standalone article; not even sure if it belongs on the 2016 election page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:46, 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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Individual development plan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged since July 2008. The article was previously deprodded by Andrew Davidson. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that the topic is not notable is absurd. These things are a standard feature of corporate life and there is plenty written about them in management and HR literature. Andrew D. (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't really add much to what Andrew Davidson said above, apart from pointing to the book search automatically linked by the nomination process. I get the impression that many deletion nominators have not actually had any experience of being employees. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If "there is plenty written about them in management and HR literature" maybe some of those sources need to be added to the page? As I read it, without prior knowledge of the phrase and its connotations in upper middle management discussions, its a vague topic with one source to verify its relevance. But what do I know? According to the post above, since I've never heard this phrase uttered before, I probably have never been an employee of any employer ever in the whole wide world, and what I say should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And did you try clicking on the word "books" in the searches linked above before writing that? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep possible merge with Evaluation (workplace). Certainly a well-known topic; shouldn't be hard to expand. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Evaluation (workplace). Aspect of that topic, should be developed there first and rewritten competently before being spun off again. Sandstein 10:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Maybe there is scope for merging with something, but not with that article. Evaluation is concerned with what an employee does for an employer, but an individual development plan should concern itself at least as much with what the employer can do for an employee, or what an employee can do for her- or himself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. This is a standard practice in secondary and higher education as well as the workplace and employment law. It is distinct from an evaluation. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ticketgoose[edit]

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

Advertisement for an Indian company whose local news companies are notorious for republishing their own interviewed company advertisements and quotes, and it shows the fact every single source lists information about their own business plans, thoughts and actions, something only the company would know and, given the circumstances, advertise about it. The history itself shows the account "Satish vp" to be clearly an advertising-only account, therefore we cannot begin to start questioning of making compromises given such blatancy, including when the listed information is only what they would use for advertising, "TicketGoose now covers more than 3000 destinations pan India, aggregate 700+ bus operators with 10,000+ buses plying on 20,000+ routes, and a network of 6000+ on-site agents" (followed by 4 literal press releases). This was accepted 2 years ago but it should not have been given the clear advertising motivations and intentions here, and they have still been continuing (account was last active earlier this year). SwisterTwister talk 19:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as typical "startup spam" on a company with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as business promo. Quis separabit? 14:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fastest growing =/= notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and reads SPAM. Anup [Talk] 00:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Startup spam.Fails Notability criterion.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 18:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable business, one of thousands of non-notable "portals." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:49, 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 no consensus. This has been open for 19 days without comment and the nominator has since been blocked for socking, so I think the best thing is to close as no consensus with NPASR. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blow-Up (DJ duo)[edit]

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

Lacking notability and does not cite any sources. Fails several WP policies such as WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BLP, WP:Verifiability - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of sets of four countries that border one another[edit]

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

Not sure what the significance is of having four countries that border each other. Hopeless WP:OR trivia with no real-word notabilty. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This seems to be a rather arbitrary subject to make a list about, and with no real sources for most of the information, it comes off as complete OR. When I try to look around to see if there have been any actual sources that talk about this concept in any meaningful way, all I'm finding are mirrors of this article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems trivial and not a subject that has garnered sufficient notability per WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiation Club[edit]

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

WP:PROMO article for student club with no indication of meeting WP:ORG; PROD endorsed by User:TonyBallioni but removed by page creator with no explanation given. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does a good job of explaining what the club is and what it represents, but without secondary sources covering the subject its hard to say the club is notable enough for its own page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student organization without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG (lacks independent coverage). Anup [Talk] 00:48, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Ruth[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He indeed fails WP:NHOCKEY. He only played in college and secondary leagues. His AHL and Junior Championships appearences are not enough for him to pass the threshold. RS sources which cover him independently are very meager. Some routine mentions in match and draft reports and thats basically it. No significant independent coverage focused on him as person. He therefore fails WP:GNG too. He is now retired anyway, so it is unlikely he will become notable per his ice hockey achievements in the future. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmuda Akter[edit]

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

No senior games played and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Spiderone 17:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:09, 5 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) 19:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know why but most of the players in the Bangladesh women's national under-17 football team have articles. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those articles were created by one person, and are up for deletion for the same reasons as this one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, quite a number of them were shown in the recent AfD I noted below to either have met GNG or NFOOTY through senior international appearances despite their young age. Fenix down (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per this recent AfD. This was a complicated AfD, but there was clear consensus that Taslima met neither GNG nor NFOOTY, despite a number of her teammates doing so and there seems to have been an error in the non-admin closure. Fenix down (talk) 16:33, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lavin[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable ice hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Chapman[edit]

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

This article has one source, virtually nothing else exists of the man. I scrolled through search engines trying to find him, he only comes up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner (talk • contribs) 03:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Completed nomination on behalf of above user--above text was copied from the edit summary. As for my own view, the provided source (considered the most reliable one for cricket statistics) shows that he did indeed play first-class cricket and therefore meets the notability standards for cricketers at WP:CRIN, although an argument could be made the other way for WP:GNG reasons. Seems fine in its current state as a likely permanent stub. --Finngall ^talk 16:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:NCRIC as a first-class cricketer. The nominator seems unaware of the cricket notability guidelines. St Anselm (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep meets WP:NCRIC as he has played first-class cricket. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment currently it would be debatable if this would pass the GNG. Sources could, however, be found - Leicestershire may well have some and there might well be newspaper references and the like or references in specific written sources about the early Leicestershire seasons or about Australian tours and so on. It seems reasonable then that sources could be found which would lead to this meeting the GNG - as an example, compare this version of the article on Keith Barlow with the current one - and his having played first-class cricket would then convey the sort of notability which might mean that he would meet the GNG. So I'd suggest keeping as an immediate course of action. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:25, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ryan (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only played 69 total games in the AHL, far short of the required 200 to meet NHOCKEY, and doesn't appear to be active anymore. Insufficient coverage to meet GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player who appears to be retired.18abruce (talk) 23:18, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Phi Gamma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable organisation. Wikipedia article is a promotional piece. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shorta SC–Al-Talaba SC rivalry[edit]

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

See WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable. No evidence of WP:GNG. Spiderone 16:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the biggest rivalries in Iraqi football. Any source that talks about Iraqi club football will mention the rivalries between these two clubs as well as Al-Zawraa and Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya. What do I have to do to ensure page doesn't get deleted? Do I have to provide sources which show this is a big rivalry? I can do so if necessary. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hashim-afc: yes, some sources are required. They must also be independent so not just the official club websites of either club. I couldn't find any from an English-language Google search. The ones provided in the article, at the moment, are just a collection of match results and this is not enough to prove notability. Spiderone 15:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. I will provide sources tomorrow when I have time. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 16:29, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zaiqa TFC[edit]

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

No indication of WP:GNG. Previously deleted page. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any indication that it was previously deleted. Can you provide a link? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Shawn in Montreal: It was speedied A7 a year ago. Wikishovel (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find anything for this channel. I'm also not sure of any suitable redirect target. Anup [Talk] 13:56, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Cosmopolitan Beauty Pageant[edit]

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

I cannot find any indication of notability. In fact I could not even find evidence of existence. There is an unrelated Miss Cosmopolitan World pageant that gets a couple of Google News hits; none of the dozen or so sources I checked mentioned this pageant, and the article's lone reference does not, either. Huon (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. It may even be a hoax, so I'm going to reduce it to a stub right now. Also, there is a small sock farm creating these articles. Miss Cosmopolitan has already been salted.- Mr X 14:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt - This article is one sentence long, has no content, and appears to be a hoax. It is definitely not notable and is a duplicate of a salted article. I think it should be speedied. RafChem (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete looking for references I find this http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/51386466 for a competition in 1974. And there does seem to be a Miss Cosmopolitan World both nothing to do with what is written here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taslima (footballer)[edit]

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

No caps above under-14 level (has been called up to under-17 but yet to debut); lack of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Spiderone 14:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per this recent AfD. Cavarrone please be more careful with your closures. This was a complicated AfD, but there was clear consensus that Taslima met neither GNG nor NFOOTY, despite a number of her teammates doing so. Fenix down (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since she has not played in a fully pro league or in a senior international match, this article fails WP:NSPORT, nor has she received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 9 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SimpliVity[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

A typical promotional article. covered by Forbes for recruitment and typical investment press. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Light2021 (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an advertisement, non-notable, and although I recognize the article must have looked much better before this discussion, I would even speedy G11 it. RafChem (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
leaning Delete per nom - provided sources are mostly funding rounds and blogs, lacking in WP:CORPDEPTH. Basic WP:BEFORE turns up mostly press releases and stories based on those press releases for me, nothing actually about the company and little evidence it's ever been organically newsworthy - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORGDEPTH. No indication the company is notable for anything other than getting funding. At best WP:TOOSOON at worst SEO/PROMO. Jbh ^Talk 14:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs provided do not get close to establishing notability. A recent "improvement" to the techno-babble, didn't improve things Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources, with those sources verifying this company is "a pioneer" and "well-known" in its market. Some starter samples:

Computer Weekly:

+ Simplivity debuts all-flash CN-5400-F hyper-converged product - quote: "SimpliVity was a pioneer – along with Nutanix – of so-called hyper-converged infrastructure, which combines compute, storage and networking in one box."

+ Theme park company rides with Simplivity hyper-converged

The Register:

+ SimpliVity sheds staff, rattles tin for another $100m from investors

+ Simplivity delivers storage quadruplets: Meet all-flashery and better DR

+ Sweating Springpath fails to defuse SimpliVity's patent bomb

+ SimpliVity slips Hyper-V into its hyper-converged party

EWeek:

+ How SimpliVity Became Model for 'Silicon Valley' TV Startup

+ SimpliVity Adds All-Flash System to Hyperconverged Lineup

Wall Street Journal:

+ Cisco Broadens Moves in Cloud, ‘Hyperconverged’ Systems By Don Clark, Assistant news editor - A minor mention, but does support the more substational sources - quote: "Another well-known early entrant is SimpliVity Corp., which also reached a private valuation of $1 billion."

I'm not seeing anything relevant from the delete !votes so far, beyond WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues. Now the personal-view based CHURNALSIM! CHURNALSIM! [sic] cries can start -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to comment about others. Keep your argument to the topic. as per references, did you really read them or got copy and paste from whatever big media links you found? have you really gone to what actually they have covered? are you actually building a case or going to every article of AfD with keep votes and commenting on others working style? your way of analyzing and discussing I am unable to understand. Pardon me if I said something wrong here. some of them are :

Antony Adshead only write about this company in Computer weekly, where they cover tech related blogs or PR in huge quantity. SimpliVity sheds staff, rattles tin for another $100m from investors Simplivity delivers storage quadruplets: Meet all-flashery and better DR " This article reads like product description" Chris Mellor : Covers all article for this company Sweating Springpath fails to defuse SimpliVity's patent bomb Cisco Broadens Moves in Cloud, ‘Hyperconverged’ Systems : is it really about this one? Specialized media coverage and non-notable discussions are nothing but promotional and intentional by company and no one else.

Or should be keep all those article as Wikipedia? are you defending Wikipedia or want to make it another PR company. This definitely not a news paper, where they covers daily operations or launch or ti-ips or funding. Can you write the " The most significant, impactful, and life changing aspect of this company" by your own analysis, or is it just another company related to technology? there are thousands of tech company in every nation in the world. there are already a directory for them, or local coverage. Why the Wikipedia article is needed to such company if they are not even Encyclopedic notable?Light2021 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing anything to make me reconsider my keep !vote. If you have some specific evidence for your currently unsupported claims, then please do provide it here! Without any evidence it is extremely hard to take your case seriously. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not even reading what I am writing or others are writing. There are no proof of notability we can find for this one, as I wrote above if you have found something, can you mention as you have the confidence that this is notable. "The most significant impact, and life changing aspect of this company" You need to give the evidence. Merely presence of article is not proof. or you can keep writing the same thing without even giving any substantial writing. That is what we are discussing here!Light2021 (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as both still questionable for the needing convincing and then PR advertising concerns. The sources above are still in fact advertising what the company would say about itself, such as the fact the headers are not only company quotes, but so is the information (literally every listed source is, including the one which is apparently labeled as the best, actually then goes to company specifics and its services which also then states its history!), therefore now moving to the company-supplied information such as literally the specifics about its services and company, shows the PR alone. Simply stating that the company was "a pioneer and known" is still not convincing if the article would only be an advertisement, something we should take seriously. Another note is literally the fact the article is currently still a thin and unconvincing advertisement along with the fact several quickly coming and going accounts have been involved with this one article, which shows and confirms the fact the company is avid about PR. Therefore there are still in fact signs of churnalism, no matter what is mentioned, because of the blatant fact of company PR information being casually added to these supposed "news". Continuing with the article history here and here, seriously, it shows the sheerness of advertising being added then removed, only to have a few "apparently new" accounts come and add it again, removed and then added again, it's a damn advertisement and a blatantly persistent one at that therefore we make no compromises of simply "a pioneer and known". SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild delete. There might be enough eventually (if one looks hard enough) barely to make a notability case, but what is in the article so far is clearly not enough. In particular, using words like solution, infrastructure, and especially hyper-converged infrastructure set off my marketing detector when the company does none of those in English. Might be beyond rescue. Too many self-proclaimed Unicorns now days. W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- one of the sources listed above states that the company might plan an IPO for 2017 and that it had "$95m in sales in its 2016 financial year, double that from the previous 12 months. The company was founded in 2009 and launched its first product in 2012." This is not really significant for a 7-yo company, and the IPO does not look certain at this moment. The end result is this is a page on an unremarkable private tech company, where nothing stands out. Thus, I recommend deleting at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Comments for this Article to not be Deleted -- I came across this Wikipedia page when doing some research for a friend of mine and saw the delete banner from last Wednesday. The page was terrible so I started editing the page - and have done far more than I thought I would ever do (I am obviously new to Wikipedia). Anyway the old version had one section but now there are seven & all of the sections have alot more in each. Most or all of these bullet points have a citation, some have multiple citations as well. I've also gone back to check and make sure the URL's aren't broken, updated accordingly. Also have Wikipedia links in here for most of the sections except Clients and Awards.

I think it is in good shape but may go back again and modify a little bit more. Some of the comments on here are asking if this is a real company, yes they are, and something else about IPO or SEO stuff. I'm not sure about any of this but simplivity is definitely a real company.

I would like to know how to keep this page from being deleted plus find out how to make the page better! Thank you, William, Wmshultz Wmshultz (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC) — Wmshultz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No doubt It is full of citations and misleading for readings as well. The criteria for Wikipedia notability is not just writing each words with "non-notable" citations. There are not enough Independent Notable in-depth coverage for this one (means notable media not blog post). Light2021 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First up, I'd like to apologize in advance if I am formatting something incorrectly or otherwise not participating in this discussion in appropriate Wikipedia fashion. This is my first attempt at joining a talk thread on Wikipedia. That said, I would deeply appreciate the opportunity to be heard even if I make a faux pas. Thank you in advance!

I believe SimpliVity are notable enough for their own Wikipedia page for a few reasons. They're one of the largest HCI vendors both in customer base and revenue. Their approach is unique amongst HCI vendors: namely the use of an ASIC to handle data efficiency. Even after years of HCI vendors adding features and homogenizing, SimpliVity still stands apart from the rest in how they handle multi-site capability. These are technical reasons, to be sure, but they make SimpliVIty one of the most notable tech vendors of the 2010s.

I am a tech journo (and a sysadmin) myself. No different in many ways than the fellow so casually derided above. I am also someone who enjoys Wikipedia as a reader, and I am trying - slowly but surely - to learn to become a contributor. I understand (or think I do!) the desire and importance behind notability. Not every HCI vendor *is* notable. Some will only ever be an entry in something like the List of Hyperconverged Infrastructure Vendors that I am working on. That said, I honestly believe that SimpliVity is one of the few vendors in this space notable enough to have their own page.

If the quality of the page is inadequate, or there is a desire for "better" sources, then by all means, let's discuss what criteria are adequate and improve the quality. If desired, I'll take a stab at the research myself. I'm still learning, but if I'm going to stand up and say this company is notable enough to keep, I should be willing to do the work to improve the page!

I'm also curious what is defined as "notable media" here. My own work has been cited on various pages in Wikipedia. So has Mellor's (many, many times). So as a tech journo, I'm honestly curious: does Wikipedia have a list of which publications are considered acceptable and which are too pedestrian?

Another question - and again, I am really new to this talk thing, so please forgive me if this isn't the right forum to ask, but what prevents PRs from a given tech company from simply submitting all their rivals for deletion? The SimpliVity page was discussed above as "churnalism" and there were references to attempting to use Wikipedia for PR. Isn't that a bit of a two-way street?

To round out: I think SimpliVity is distinct enough and important enough amongst tech companies for it's own page, even while I don't believe that about may of the other players in the same space. I'm willing to put the work in to help bring the page up to standards (and educating myself in the process) if you're willing to keep it. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope everyone has a great day! --Astlor (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Astlor! I was on the wikichat earlier and another editor referred me to Microsoft and Apple -- to find specific places to CITE. You could spend all day on here though and become quite frustrated, fair warning. Wmshultz (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Required Immediate Attention :Suspicious entry by users: Not sure but seems very close to this company or each other. The way they are reacting Wmshultz & Astlor Light2021 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia and don't know who any of these people are, but I do know that this is quite difficult & was doing this for a friend. There are so many links on here that I'm trying to find out which ones are good and which ones aren't. Wmshultz (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Wmshultz is, nor what qualifies as "very close" to a company. I am a tech journo. I know SimpliVity, almost all of their competitors, tech companies both big and small who aren't competitors...it's my job. If you want full disclosure, just ask! I once did some commercial content work (read: writing some blogs) for SimplliVity. It was at least 8 months ago. Currently, I am doing commercial content work for three of SimpliVity's competitors. My current relationship with SimpliVity is: Me: "hey guys, I think you're kind of doing it wrong, and that there are some things over here you should pay attention to" SimpliVity: "nah, we're good". Insert months of not really interacting with them because of deep-seated disagreements here.

Also, what ever happened to Assume Good Faith? I like to think of myself as a person, with my own opinions and beliefs. I don't believe that just because a company is a startup, or has not IPOed they are not notable. I believe SimpliVity is notable. Is honest disagreement disallowed? And is it okay to impugn an individual for honestly trying to help?

I don't want to cause a scene, and I don't want to get wrapped up in weird politics. I just wanted to contribute to an area I've spent the past several years of my life living and breathing. I'm saddened that my first attempt to contribute has been met with such an accusation. My apologies to all if I have broken rules in attempting to do so. --Astlor (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this article along with its competitor Nutanix about 2 ½ years ago. Since that time, both have been inundated with promotional wording from editors who are likely related to the company in one way or another. You can see that in October of last year another editor ripped out much of the promotional wording that had been added since its creation in 2014.

Agreeing that it reads promotional, I reverted it back to where it was when I originally created it. I would ask the nominator what is promotional about the wording. While I understand his/her wanting to get rid of spam and promotion, simply existing as an article does not make it promotional.

Now, if an article is promotional beyond repair, it most certainly should be speedily deleted under WP:G11. If it is promotional but repairable, then G11 states replacing the content with text that complies with WP:NPOV is preferable. AfD is not cleanup and should be used for companies that are non-notable. With that, let’s address the notability concerns.

Notability in Wikipedia is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. A company must also satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. SimpliVity satisfies this guideline with articles in Forbes, TechCrunch, and Business Insider to name a few. These are all in-depth pieces that talk about the company itself. If nominator is unhappy with the guidelines on notability, they need to be addressed there, not by using AfD for WP:DE against what the community has already decided are the notability standards.

For routine mentions, simply mentioning funding is what I would consider a routine mention and you can find many sources that simply write a few sentences about an announcement funding. This is what is NOT in-depth according to WP:CORPDEPTH. However, I consider it much different when someone like TechCrunch picks up on the funding announcement and writes and article that not only talks about the funding, but goes into more details about a company and its products/services.

Finally, @Wmshultz: & @Astlor: should not be offended by the comments of @Light2021:. There is a guideline to assume good faith, but in this case I think that he/she has. When new users come to Wikipedia and immediately come to a deletion discussion that normally indicates a conflict of interest. Many of us have been here for a while and can recognize behavior such as two new users commenting on the discussion at approximately the same time. Unfortunately, this is too much of a WP:DUCK and makes us think you are a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was strange how that other guy posted a comment. I was only on here reading the details on what to do and responded when the note popped up - was hoping it was someone who could help? It would be great if I could find someone to go through the article and say delete this, this is bad, don't use this and this is OK. My apologies, continuing to try to edit. Seems like most of the article disappeared so I'll try to type out what I can and reference the better links in the hopes this doesn't get deleted tonight. Hoping to finish by tomorrow night sometime, Central Time US, thanks. Wmshultz (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wmshultz: - I would advise to leave it in the current condition. What you have added made the article sound more promotional then when it was recommended for deletion. Any addition you do that does not adhere to WP:TONE and WP:NPOV I will simply revert. Sorry. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Clark, Don (2015-03-10). "Storage Specialist SimpliVity Reaches Billion-Dollar Status". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  
  Data storage is a big business, inspiring investors to pump money into an array of startups. SimpliVity hopes to stand out from the pack, reaching a market value of more than $1 billion less than two years after shipping its hardware.
  The Westborough, Mass., company on Tuesday is announcing a $175 million funding round, with $150 million coming from Waypoint Capital–an investment firm associated with Switzerland’s Bertarelli family that initially encountered SimpliVity as a customer.
  SimpliVity is a proponent of what Silicon Valley calls “hyperconverged” technology. That means that computing and data storage are handled in the same box–essentially a server based on the x86 chip technology popularized by Intel, packaged along with software and components to store data on both disks and flash memory chips.
  ...
  SimpliVity’s funding round, its fourth, brings the total raised to date to $276 million. Prior investors participating in the latest round include Accel Partners, Charles River Ventures, DFJ Growth, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Growth and Meritech Capital Partners. Waypoint, a new investor, is leading the round.
2. Mellor, Chris (2016-10-19). "SimpliVity sheds staff, rattles tin for another $100m from investors. Compute-storage wrangler is working with Morgan Stanley from here to IPO". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  
  Hyper-converged infrastructure appliance vendor SimpliVity is working with Morgan Stanley to get more private funding and to launch an IPO possibly in 2017. It has also laid people off.
  SimpliVity has been making cuts while looking for $100m in extra cash, a source familiar with the matter has told The Register. We have seen an internal Morgan Stanley memo that confirms the numbers involved. The email states that SimpliVity booked more than $95m in sales in its 2016 financial year, double that from the previous 12 months. The company was founded in 2009 and launched its first product in 2012.
  Crucially though, the memo suggests that, despite Morgan Stanley's efforts this year to secure new private funding for the business, SimpliVity has been unable to win over any new investors – its last funding round was announced in March 2015.
3. Cohan, Peter S. (2015-07-16). "Westboro's SimpliVity changes its sales team as it charges towards 2016 IPO". Telegram & Gazette. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  
  About 18 months ago, Westboro-based “hyperconverged infrastructure” provider, SimpliVity, brought on former EMC sales executive Mitch Breen with great fanfare.
  Now Mr. Breen is out, and founder and CEO Doron Kempel is taking over sales as SimpliVity marches toward its planned 2016 initial public offering.
  Before getting into its organizational change, let’s look at what SimpliVity does. Hyperconverged infrastructure is tech lingo for combining many different computing jobs into one device. SimpliVity’s product is called the OmniCube, and it combines up to 12 different computing activities into a single device that uses a low-priced server with very sophisticated software.
4. The sources provided by 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SimpliVity to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - First let me note there's been an exhaustive list of comments analyzing the sources above and noting how there's a damningly large amount of self-republished interviews, trivial mere mentions as part of either its clients, investors or partners, but then also literal company quotes and number specifics, none of which are independent or significant. Now here's the analysis of sources above:

Data storage is a big business, inspiring investors to pump money into an array of startups. SimpliVity hopes to stand out from the pack, reaching a market value of more than $1 billion less than two years after shipping its hardware. (note how the paragraph begins with the subject of "data technology" first and then saying "Now SimpliVity hopes to stand out....market value!" None of that was journalism because it was literally the company's own words. Now the next one:

Hyper-converged infrastructure appliance vendor SimpliVity is working with Morgan Stanley to get more private funding and to launch an IPO possibly in 2017.... (followed by a few mere sentences and mini-paragraphs about how the business needs supporting, therefore not only is it not independent because the company literally supplied it, we can't even confide of significance, because it means nothing beyond the company's own plans of its own business).

Now as for the last article, note how literally the first massive part begins with that one businessman and his connections to the company before it says "Before getting into its organizational change, let’s look at what SimpliVity does"....literally not only company advertising, but literally saying "We're not going to talk about its business yet, let's mention what its services are and how the company can be used". This is a repeatedly familiar method of simply cosmetic-filling "news" when it's simply advertising simple as that, because it all ever focused with the company's own words, no actual journalism. Therefore, because it was so blatant with company specifics and numbers, businessman plans and thoughts and literal "here's what the company's services and features are and how you can use it!", it's not substantial or independent, hence it's not even notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 13:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pretty obvious promotion for a non-notable company and should be deleted per WP:DEL14. The company itself is not notable. If you carefully look at the sources, there is not one good in-depth trusted mainstream media source. All I see is the routine news published in a bunch of startup media. My problem with using these sources is that they often publish redressed press releases and I do not consider that independent per WP:CORPIND. The WSJ source is reliable but I cannot see if it is an in-depth source or if it is a routine news about funding. The Telegram and Gazette is a local source. That combined with the obvious socking is grounds enough to delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl1942: - Ouch. I am sure you meant no harm but saying this is "pretty obvious promotion" is a kick in my rear. I create the article and have no skin in the game so I assure you it was not created for "promotion." If you look at the article in its current state, it is almost identical to the one I created. Over the years, there has been a ton of promotion added - which is often the case in Wikipedia once a company or person sees they have a Wikipedia page - but not sure what about the current form would be considered promotional. I understand your point on WP:CORPIND as we see it quite often and is normal in the startup stage of a company. However, I am curious about your opinion on the Business Insider article [9]. Not just the article itself, but also the episode of Silicon Valley (TV series) related to the company.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the sources fail WP:RS since they rely on PRIMARY sources of information and quote SimpliVity announcements or personel. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:12, 24 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sayonala[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Infinity Knight (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTADICTIONARY, and I think PROD would've been better. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 14:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dumaguete Science High School[edit]

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

Non notable school, with no sources whatsoever to verify anything on the article or to establish its notability Class455 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited a source confirming that this is a high school. Is there any reason here to abandon our usual practice of keeping articles about high schools? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Thanks to the IP editor for adding a reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One reference isn't really going to help establish notability. A lot more are needed. Class455 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Class455: Please point to the policy that says "A lot more are needed" to keep this article. If you believe that more references are needed, then please feel free to use the handy Google search tools above, find more references, and add them to the article, which is not going to be deleted, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the plethora of past AfDs show this and the one source is sufficient to therefore confirm its existence, politics of whatever be damned, because high schools are one of the important subjects to keep as it is, along with anything else such as towns, geography, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)
Keep: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Schools offering education up to 10th grade and beyond are always notable once it is established they exist. Anup [Talk] 00:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 9 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 Speedy Keep considering WP:GNG is not relevant or convincing if WP:PROF is satisfied and this certainly is with the Dean and Named Professorship positions alone, this AfD cannot be closed any other path (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayya Krishnan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources do not meet GNG Mar11 (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has Gscholar h-index of 43, a named professor appointment at Carnegie Mellon, two significant awards, passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as determined at the previous AFD, WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep -- it's right in the lead that the subject the dean of Heinz College; clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:52, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazma[edit]

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

No full international appearances and lack of in-depth coverage required for WP:GNG. As she is only 12 years old, this is possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spiderone 13:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a youth football player and certainly does not meet the criteria laid out in WP:NFOOTY. The u-14 and u-17 women's team of Bangladesh is certainly only very niche. She was in the team when it had some regional success in Asia and thats it. She actually seem to be one of the lesser known players of the team, and they are all not very notable. Unlike the other players, not even her full name is known apparently. All the sources just give her nickname. There are no RS which cover her independently or significantly and she fails WP:GNG outright. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per this recent AfD. @Cavarrone: please be more careful with your closures. This was a complicated AfD, but there was clear consensus that Nazma met neither GNG nor NFOOTY, despite a number of her teammates doing so. Fenix down (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down:, if you look better, it was a procedural keep as to better deal with a mass nomination which was going nowhere. A keep close was requested by the same nominator as well as by several editors as to re-nominate/discuss individually several articles part of that AfD. The keep close was merely technical and there was no judgment on the merits. Cavarrone 16:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At no point was that clear in your closing summary. Your statement confirms the outcome of the AfD was to keep all. Furthermore, the mass nomination was not going nowhere, there was clear consensus which players were notable through GNG, which through NFOOTY and which through neither. Regardless of what you thought you were doing, your close has had the effect of creating a judgement on the merits of the discussion. the correct course of action would have been to leave things alone, and let an admin delete the non-notable pages to save having this repetitive discussion. Fenix down (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the full discussion, starting from the first sentence after the striked rationale ("Please close so that I can renominate the non-notable ones as individual AfDs") to the last sentence ("Keep, re-nominate individually as previously mentioned"), and you'll find the responses to your concerns. You'll find the same sort of keep closures in dozens of not-unanimous mass nominations, I assume any neutral reader can easily understand how and why the AfD was closed as keep... you are just a bit too emotionally involved and you're reading the AfD in a wrong way. If you have further problems with the closuse, the proper venue is WP:DRV. Cavarrone 18:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're totally missing the point here. The point is that three AfDs have now been started creating needless bureaucracy because you decided to close a discussion that would have been more effectively dealt with by someone who could delete the non-notable articles and keep those that there was consensus to keep, especially as further discussion took place following the sole request for a procedural close which clearly indicated at least one of the players nominated was notable per WP:NFOOTY. Myself, other editors and no doubt more still, now have to come in and make exactly the same arguments that they made previously but three times over. Fenix down (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since she has not played in a fully pro league or in a senior international match, this article fails WP:NSPORT, nor has she received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic gun[edit]

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

An indiscriminate list consisting entirely of original research. Yet another misplaced TV Tropes page (it even keeps TV Tropes's section division!). Kolbasz (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If some sources are forthcoming, this could potentially be rewritten, but, as it is, it's entirely OR. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The non-list portion of the article is complete OR. The list part is a ridiculous mixture of OR, minor trivia, and fancruft. Even if the topic were notable, the article should be deleted per WP:TNT. However, the topic is not notable. I've searched for sources, both using the term "magic gun" as well as various other synonyms I could think of for the concept, and turned up nothing worthwhile. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Josh Milburn here. Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 11 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 Speedy deleted G11. Peridon (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Abdulaziz Soud Alabdulrazzaq[edit]

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

Promotional biography. Fails WP:BASIC for lack of available sources. - Mr X 12:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So promotional that I'd already submitted it for speedy deletion! Largoplazo (talk) 12:25, 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. Cerebellum (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Koester[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Little significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete wikipedia is not a promotional link for all and sundry Govindaharihari (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This comedian has a number of notable sources, Time magazine, etc., this person is notable, the article is still a stub yet there is enough media coverage to warrant an article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing anything for WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. @Neptune's Trident: can you list those "enough media coverage" either here or in article? I didn't find any (other than what is currently cited in article). Anup [Talk] 01:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete a news google [10] fails to support notability. The Time magazine article referenced above [11] certainly doesn't.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - possibly WP:TOOSOON? Bearian (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely TOOSOON. I do think the Time source goes to notability, and here's another on the same incident, but it's still not significant coverage, and even if it were, there'd still be a WP:BIO1E problem. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:12, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partap Chauhan[edit]

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

There is no significant credibility for the notability in fact the subject fails to meets the Wikipedia's notability criteria -- as per verifiability which says the facts and information should be verifiable from the independent and reliable sources. In case of this article, it seems that most of the details is cited from the primary sources which could be phony or promotional. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as this is an advertisement and that's what the deletion was for in 2010, and there's nothing here for professors notability either. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as spam; the affiliated Jiva Ayurveda articles was deleted in 2014. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Subject is not an academic, so it is obvious he would fail WP:PROF. He is a doctor specialised in traditional Indian system of medicine, called Ayurveda (not Ph.D doctor). Coming to N word, he may meet GNG or at the very least BASIC; one needs to dig up quality sources and re-write the article from scratch though. He has received coverage in reliable sources from 1998 up to this year. (Please do not rely on Google search results for India-related topics, instead use custom search engines listed at WP:INDAFD). And I do not see repeated abuse of creation for this topic, so imo salting is unnecessary. Anup [Talk] 14:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Purely promotional and negligible citations on GS.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete abuse of WP to promote a celebrity doctor wannabe. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT delete. Obvious case of WP:PROMOTION: basically a list of achievements and nothing more. The only really biographical section is completely unsourced. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:55, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Reformed Church in America[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Small Christian organisation (not a denomination, despite its name) without a shred of significant coverage. St Anselm (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- While it may not strictly be a denomination, it looks rather similar to one to me. We normally keep articles on denominations and inter-church organsiations, but not those on individual local churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it similar to a denomination? It's nothing like it - it's an organisation of pastors. (I know we keep articles on denominations - that's why I went out of my way encouraging people not to be misled!) St Anselm (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: this is the equivalent thing to a denomination for churches whose ecclesiology leads them (a) to independent local leadership rather than regional hierarchical authority, and (b) still to seek close fellowship and co-working with other local churches of like theology and practice. It is very much like e.g. Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches or Association of Grace Baptist Churches (South East) here in the UK. However, it appears to be smaller than those, and I have not been able to find independent sources, either for this name or the other ERCA also stated on its website, "Ecumenical Reformed Churches Alliance". – Fayenatic London 21:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we are a small fellowship of Reformed churches and pastors we are similar to a denomination. In that any church or pastor recognized or ordained by us is accountable to us in certain matters but churches and ministers are also free to leave whenever they chose among other things that make us more of a fellowship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricknelson1983 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question How does this relate to Dutch Reformed Church?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Here: (Rudderless churches need hands on the tiller, Morphew, Clark. Austin American Statesman [Austin, Tex] 10 May 1997: C.3.) [12] is an article discussing this group in terms that make it sound like a denomination. I am assuming that it is a sort of U.S. equivalent of Evangelical Reformed Church in Bavaria and Northwestern Germany, Evangelical Reformed Church of the Canton of Lucerne and other Calvinist-origin cousins of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated).E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC) (strike vote pending discovery of better sourcing)[reply]

No, it's nothing like them - as I keep on saying, the ERCA is not a denomination at all - it's more like a ministers' fraternal. The article you linked to was from 1997, so it can't be referring to this group, which was formed in 2006. St Anselm (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another link to that 1997 article. Evidently something called Evangelical Reformed Church in America existed back then. – Fayenatic London 21:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patricknelson1983:, please supply more sourced information. This can come from sources WP:RS including statements of well known churches and clergy, from online Christian news sites (such as Patheos). It does not have to be CNN or the BBC. But we do need WP:RS of some kind.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's basically no actual significance aside from its connections to that other group, there's nothing at all for actual substance or that we should expect any to happen for this minor group. SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per SwisterTwister, just really a needless article with links to notable articles, not independently notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not appear to be an actual denomination, but a small group of pastors. Bradv 23:47, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doughboy Beatz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this AfD probably needs to be considered alongside Doughboy Beatz production discography. The subject has clearly worked with notable artists, but per WP:INHERITED that doesn't make Doughboy Beatz notable, and in addition his work appears to be on non-notable mixtapes by those artists, not charting releases. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are only providing passing mentions in mostly non-reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC at this time, and finding no evidence that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page has been active for years, as well as had many other Wikipedian edits, with no deletion flags. Search results on the subject may seem lacking with how common of a term "doughboy" is. He was notable enough of a music producer to have just received a verified badge on Twitter. [13] Also, according XXL (magazine), he just recently produced on a Billboard charting album which meets WP:BASIC. [14] Also, this seems to meet WP:MUSICBIO via MTV. [[15]] I appreciate everyone's time. __Boyboi87 (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Twitter link doesn't contribute to notability. The XXL Magazine link merely mentions his name. And the MTV link appears to be self-published; it sounds completely promotional, and at the bottom of the webpage it states "This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form". Magnolia677 (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreeing with BigBoi87 here. JayPe (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete Doughboy Beatz production discography as well: Boyboi's first argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second sentence is completely irrelevant to the subject or his notability. Doughboy Beatz produced just one track on that Billboard-charting album (Young Jefe 2), and it wasn't the song in the XXL link. The MTV biography is almost certainly a mirror of the Wikipedia page, as much of it is word-for-word the same – this is kind of confirmed by the fact that the "official site" link on the MTV page leads back to the Wikipedia article, not the artist's own page. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:MUSICBIO states that a subject "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: #2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." An instance was provided and sourced in the article you guys seem to be overlooking:

[16] - “Brandon produced Trai'D's breakout single "Gutta Chick" that made it's way onto the Billboard Hot 100 charts which jump started his production career.”

This was the spark that solidified me investing time into writing up the Doughboy profile in the first place. That meets WP:MUSICBIO. In addition, most of his productions are available on iTunes, so to dismiss all his work as being on non-notable mixtapes and non-charting albums as you and Magnolia677 said initially, is wrongful and misleading. Also, as the author of this subject’s entry, I can attest to the the fact that this Wiki derived from the MTV artist page--not the other way around. As this this shows, there was an actual “official website” but has since been shut down. The redirect to Wikipedia came after the fact entirely._Boyboi87 (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is blatant advertising and that's all we need to say, since there's clearly nothing but what the subject advertised about himself. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This entry seems to be sourced to the brim with context validating this music producer's notability. I don't understand why it was even flagged for deletion in the first place. I've read articles on Wiki with far less frame of reference. _JenniferLance7 (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as some of the entries above. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:45, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Cocktail[edit]

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

Similar history The Next Web or Your Story Such sources are being misused to cite abundance of spam on Wikipedia these days. highly misleading and building only promotional content, nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable event promoter & blatant attempt to WP:INHERIT notability from more notable entities:

events organization for startups, entrepreneurs, and technology enthusiasts,^[1] co-founded in 2006 by former Tribune Company and AOL employee Frank Gruber and early FeedBurner employee Eric Olson.^[2]^[3]

Delete This article sounds more like a corporate promotion rather than a real tech publication. Scorpion293 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing anything for WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 14:57, 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 speedily deleted under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Smith Italia[edit]

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

Fails GNG and, along side with that, is terribly written. CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced WP:SPA article. The article text indicates only a company going about its business and my searches are only confirming that, with occasional routine press announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced advertising. Blythwood (talk) 13:48, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fetch My Guest[edit]

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

Promotional sounding overall. Im not Totally convinced. Pyrusca (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I nearly speedy G11'd as this is so blatant, a literal advertisement with unsurprising advertising-only accounts involved, the overall and information are a classic example of making it first seem like a significant and notable article, but those "claims and information" are all thin and only exist as advertising. I'm surprised this is not an actual G12 since it certainly forms like one. Take the one worst part of all, they started the article at their own talk page before moving it themselves to mainspace, so it literally took the talk page format with them, this is a blatant advertisement and there's nothing at all suggesting otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomimation. Tate 2009 (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's blatantly promotional and could have been safely speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Deli nk (talk) 20:40, 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) 11:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Kuwait relations[edit]

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

These seem like routine and unremarkable relations. The only thing here besides the fact that relations exist between the countries is the fact that Kuwait was involved in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, which doesn't seem to be enough to establish notability. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the amount of work Prisencolin put in to this article. I think it's enough to satisfy most of the concerns I had when I nominated it, but I'm still not sure if it's enough to satisfy notability. For these reasons, I'm going to change my opinion to neutral. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject isn't generally notable and there's no point in having an article for the sake of a blue link somewhere else. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. Relations not subject to significant in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Danish troops were part of the coalition forces in during the Gulf Wars and many of them were station or passed through Kuwait. Surely this amounts to something. Unless I'm mistaken military involvement counts as bilateral relations.-Prisencolin (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it may add to relations but doesn't give a free pass to a wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other bilateral relations, such as a tax treaty and oil refining.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tax treaty is an extremely standard in international relations. Any 2 countries that do trade have one. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, surprising to me. There seems to be enough to justify an article. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

could you please explain how it meets notability requirements? LibStar (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Danish Defence has troops stationed in Kuwait; 2. Kuwaiti expatriots in Denmark, and vice-versa; 3. Bilateral trade treaty. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no trade agreement. There is a tax treaty which is an extremely standard in international relations. Any 2 countries that do trade have one. The expatriate population is very small. LibStar (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that some editors seem to accept the smallest fig leaf of content to substitute for the "in depth coverage" we're supposed to expect. Does Kuwait have some diplomatic relations with Denmark? Yes. Does that mean there should be a standalone article? No. None of this content is important, in my opinion, and even if it were it can exist in other articles. There's no reason for this article to exist. The standards have dropped so far on this website that it disappoints me. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that tax treaties are extremely standard, and if so why would this insignificance make this article fail notability.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well said. Significant relations qualify for an article, but not any relations. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete a routine diplomatic relationship, insufficient to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article - and it could very well be improved in the future. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 96 articles in Wikipeida.en about "Foreign relations of Denmark" so I can't figure out why this particular article have been singled out for a nomination for deletion - I find it absurd. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an absurd reason for keeping. You really need to read arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't enough at this point for an article. Significant relations would have multiple secondary works about it. Over here, there are a few newspapers articles which talk about individual events, but nothing much about the relation itself. We are supposed to write an article when a secondary sources has compiled these events and shown how these are relevant to the relations. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- borders on WP:SYNTH without 3rd party analysis of the actual relations being present. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 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. Cerebellum (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Giaccone[edit]

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

Giaccone is just plain not notable, being Miss Delaware is not enough to pass that threshold. The only link in the article itself that might be reliable is to the Special Olympics of Delaware, but it is a broken link and nothing about it suggests it is a substantial coverage. The news search showed 3 reliable source mentions, but they were all in a long listing of those who made it past the first round in the Miss American competition, nothing substantial. She is listed in Complex.com's 50 hottest Miss America contestants who didn't win, but nothing there suggests that is a reliable source. There is a press release from the office where she works as a dentist printed in a small Delaware paper, but even that is just a listing among multiple dentists. The University of Delaware when they put out a release about their program to encourage people from groups "underrepresented" in STEM careers to pursue them, listed her as one of 20 graduates of note back in 2011, when she seems to have still been in dental school. In a more general google search I was able to learn many details of her nine year courtship of her current husband, and exactly where they had their wedding and the reception, but nothing that suggested she is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; these pages are routinely deleted. No other life and career achievements listed. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is top 15 runner-up to Miss America notable enough? Bearian (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Top 15" runner up is a dubious claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not automatically notable for being Miss Delaware, secondary sources to establish WP:GNG do not appear to exist – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 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. czar 05:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Baracy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only thing about Baracee that almost makes it to the level of notability is winning the Miss Michigan title. However winning Miss Michigan is not enough to make someone notable. Her breast cancer caregivers network is sourced to an article that only mentions her in passing, and a google search showed up no better sources. Her media career is a bunch of very local positions with local and PR coverage. None of this rises to the level of notability. The discussion back in 2010 bascially had 2 people vote keep on the argument that all winners of "major" state pageants are notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Furrer should go to show this is clearly not the view of current consensus. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no other career achievements outside of a state level pageant win. Per WP:OUTCOMES, these pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks sufficient claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a BIO1E, with the subject solely notable for the pageant. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachyal[edit]

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranyal[edit]

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupyal[edit]

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Chen[edit]

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

An advertisement consisting of advertised information about his career, achievements and other business-focused events of his life, the sources themselves consist of sources that never actually mention him (TheGuardian and WIRED) and then also questionable sources that are from "special contributor users" (Entrepreneur) and then others that largely consist of only interviewed and company-businessman quotes, none of that is therefore independent of the man and his company or substantially significant for notability. Because of these concerns, this should not have been accepted from AfC especially given that (1) not only was it declined multiple times by different established reviewers but also then (2) only one account has focused with this heavily including by ultimately putting the largest PR contents of all. It is also concerning when an article, again, not only goes to specify and list everything there is to advertise about him and the company, but then to actually list his patents....

There is no inherited notability from simply having listed news sources, which seems to be an influence here, and then there's also no inheritance from having attention because of other people or companies; with this said, my own searches are then finding other news articles but they are simply either local PR interviews and advertisements, trivial mentions, company and business plans and other non-focused materials. We should not accept such PR business listings as they only damage the encyclopedia and its foundation. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable inventor and many reliable sources available.Kittenstix (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Self-balancing scooter The few soures which offer indepth coverage are only in the context of a claim of holding the first patent on a Self-balancing scooter. I noticed that the article on Self-balancing scooter already contains a mention of this. Other than that, this is effectively a BIO1E at this point. I think a redirect works well here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:44, 9 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ring singularity[edit]

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

Is this page really needed due to the fact that there is both this page, the Black Hole page, the Gravitational singularity page, the Kerr Metric page and the Rotating black hole page. These pages all explain the concept perfectly well, which arguably brings WP:NOTABILITY into question. Additionally, the article seems to be a bit of a mess in its layout, like talking about random things in totally different sections, it also seems to contravene WP:NOR - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have yet to look at notability and OR issues, but your assertion of redundancy seems false. Black Hole has a single sentence on the topic. Gravitational singularity has two sentences on the topic. Kerr metric mentions a "ring-shaped curvature singularity" but no more, and it is not mentioned at all in Rotating black hole. Two sentences in Gravitational singularity is not enough to explain the concept, discuss properties of ring singularities, and their implications for black hole and wormhole physics. --Mark viking (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a bit of a mess is not among the deletion critera at AfD. It is not original research. There are no conclusions in the article that haven't been made in the literature. Referencing could be a lot better, but the article dates to the early era in Wikipedia when science articles were felt not to need references for material which was in textbooks. The term is in wide use for this particular type of singularity, there are multiple references available, and it is complex enough to merit an article of its own. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:BEFORE style GScholar search shows hundreds of paper,s spanning half a century, discussing various aspects ring singularities. A Gbooks search shows that ring singularities are discussed in some depth in general relativity textbooks such as Wald's book and and the book by Hobson, et. al.. The topic looks solidly notable. The article could use better referencing, but this is a matter of editing, not deletion. A notable topic and an article with no major structural problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article covers a real topic that is just barely touched on in the adjacent articles, a healthy situation. The topic seems to be well covered in the scientific literature, and as Mark Viking says in books on general relativity: by Robert M. Wald by Paul Sukys by Michael Lockwood by Arne Grenzebach and so on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 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. Unoppposed, disregarding the blocked sock. Sandstein 10:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stracci family[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to The Godfather (novel) or Anthony_Stracci? it's a quite large family in a decently well known series of books and films, what guideline does it fail?JohnTombs48 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:N. Simply being a part of a large franchise is not enough to establish an article. It needs recognition in third party sources, either critical reception or some other form of real world notice. Most of the little minutia of the series like this probably don't need articles. TTN (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 15:29, 11 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt O'dell[edit]

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

Speedy deletion request was rejected a couple of years ago. I can't find anything of any substance online about this artist, active during the 21st century. In my opinion, taking part in the New Contemporaries doesn't in itself help O'Dell pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE criteria. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biographical article on a subject whose main coverage is brief mentions relating to a couple of early-career group shows. I added the Saatchi profile page as an EL, and it shows a continuing CV of exhibitions, as appropriate to a working artist, but neither these nor the retrievable coverage looks sufficient to meet the WP:ARTIST criteria of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as literally nothing actually close for notability and substance here given there's not only no museum collections, but there's nothing else of equivalent, therefore there's nothing to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Hoshikawa[edit]

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

I don't find any notable lead roles in notable productions. Dokyusei 2 and Kakyusei are video games but it's not like she leads the franchise in those. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not found in the Seiyuu Database so delete. – Allen4names (contributions) 16:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Limited significant roles, fails WP:NACTOR. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:02, 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. sufficient consensus despite limited particpation DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Gupta[edit]

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

A city councilor literally with nothing substantiating independent notability and substance, the town's population is still only 49,000-something, so not only would it still be close for notability as the town mayor's own article, but certainly not for each of the listed city councilpeople; the PROD was contested with the sole basis of "I was not aware of the PROD [deletion]". SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable member of a city council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors only get an automatic presumption of notability because city councillor in major internationally famous global cities, which Dublin, California is not. In any city outside of that narrow range, a city councillor gets an article only if you can write a really substantive and really well-sourced article which demonstrates that he's significantly more notable than the norm. That is, if a city councillor in Dublin, CA was getting covered in The New York Times on a regular basis, then there'd be a valid WP:GNG claim — but if all you can show is a few pieces of the WP:ROUTINE local media coverage that a city councillor would be expected to get, then that's nowhere near enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PoliticsNews24.com[edit]

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

Promo piece for non-notable news portal. Searches of the usual types found no independent coverage. Alexa ranks it #2,488,070 worldwide, #14,203 within Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NWEB and WP:BASIC. Couldn't find any independent source. Anup [Talk] 01:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable secondary sources to establish notability Spiderone 14:24, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. C. Saint-Clair[edit]

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

Appears to be a vanity page on an unremarkable self-published author; I'm unable to locate any library listings in WorldCat Identities. The sources listed are either blogs or interviews. Scriptapalooza mentioned in the article has been deleted several times on G11 grounds. Article tagged for notability since 2008 and still fails to establish it. Created by Special:Contributions/Soulward with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. The references in the article seem to be the only coverage that exists, and of those, the Curve interview is the only thing resembling an independent, reliable source. The rest are, like her books, self-published. Not nearly enough for WP:GNG. Kolbasz (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer. When we get told the subject made the quarter finals in a competition we do not even have an article on, I take that to mean they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus Needs[edit]

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

Non-notable video game, with no indication of significance. I can't find any sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate reliable secondary sources for notability. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:41, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Hammer[edit]

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

CSD was declined by Adam9007 on the grounds that "significance is asserted". However, a search online suggests that the subject of the article has never been involved in Code Lyoko at all, and at best was simply involved in some kind of fan-made sequel. This is basically a borderline hoax. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that MelbourneStar tagged this article for BLPPROD. Pinging them for their comments. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Very fishy: a television director at the age of 17? no reliable sources within article to demonstrate significance, notability or even the connection to the series (basis of their supposed significance). A simple search on Google (esp. News) provides no hits. @Adam9007: ought to clarify why such article is not a WP:HOAX, and shouldn't be speedy-deleted as such. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 only applies to obvious hoaxes. Adam9007 (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - A 17 year old television director, in the business since 14 years of age + no reliable sources presented at all -- seems quite obvious to me. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - This is an obvious hoax. No reliable sources, searching for sources online doesn't turn up much either. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about this? Adam9007 (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:RS. That personal website could mean anything, it certainly ought not to be used as an indicator of notability, let alone veracity. Might I add Code Lyoko: Rebirth doesn't exist either. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is everyone assuming bad faith here? A quick Google search reveals that Code Lyoko: Rebirth does exist. It might not be on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Adam9007 (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - User who created this article was blocked for abusing multiple accounts and is accused of creating similar material; they've created an article with no sources whatsoever (not even unreliable sources). In further digging, no reliable sources even exist online -- you have yet to provide any. There's a pretty big difference between existing in reliable sources -- news outlets, books, published works --- and existing in someone's imagination, their own creative works, or even a YouTube channel for example. This seems fan made, and not actual notable work. Happy to be proven otherwise, but you are still yet to. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - My searches lead me to believe he is simply not notable. There's a big difference between being non-notable and a hoax. But either way, this discussion is rather pointless. This should have been a PROD. Snow delete. Adam9007 (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the creator, director, and producer of the 2017 (maybe unauthorized) sequel Code Lyoko: Rebirth, Tyler Hammer is not notable. —teb728 t c 04:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC) For whatever it may be worth see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code Lyoko: Rebirth about the fan-made sequel. —teb728 t c 05:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this is A7, there's no inherited notability or substance from that one film and there's literally no other information apart it, the only website listed is clearly not convincing nor acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 7 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. All the "keep"s look like socks of the first now-blocked poster. Sandstein 09:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center-libertarianism[edit]

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

This is a POV fork that does not summarize what reliable sources report but rather gives a single editor's opinion. Far too often the cited sources simply do not say what they are cited for. The main source is this website that clearly does not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. What remains are largely sources that do not mention Center-libertarianism (or centrist libertarianism), plus a few opinion pieces and blog posts. If all badly-sourced content is removed, literally nothing remains. The page should be deleted and a redirect to the main libertarianism article put in its place again. Huon (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huon has been harassing me ever since we could not reach a consensus on a different page. Now he is going after a well established article that already passed initial vetting with wikipedia admins. The fact he tracks down every page I edit and wants to delete them is getting ridiculous. I dont have time to go on wikipedia every hour and defend against his arguments. As for it being POV fork that is simply not true, its written from a neutral point of view and certainly covers criticisms.LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though I seem to be one. A WP article needs secondary sources establishing that the topic exists and is called by that name. They do not seem to be here. The different shades of libertarianism should be discussed in Libertarianism itself, and/or in some kind of spin-off like "Libertarian policies" or whatever.Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which I tried to add to the Libertarianism article but it was rejected by non other than Huon. LuckyLag360 (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I checked every single instance where the new source which LuckyLag360 added mentions libertarianism. It does not say what LuckyLag360 cites it for; it does not mention Center-libertarianism. Also for the record, the content at the Libertarianism article was based on exactly the same unreliable sources that form the basis of this page. These sources, and content based on them, have no place on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record are you claiming centrist libertarianism and moderate libertarianism doesn't exist? And are you actually reading the sources and what there for or just being deceptive and making straw man articles? LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I claim about the existence of centrist and/or moderate libertarianism is irrelevant. Regarding the source, you are welcome to prove me wrong by quoting the part of the new source (preferably accompanied by a page number so others can more easily verify the quote) that mentions center-libertarianism and says it advocates "a slow transition out of the modern welfare state once the economy is strong". Huon (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it obviously is extremely relevant to this discussion. And I have no plans to address straw man arguments. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. The only thing that comes up on a Google News search is the article itself. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual, luckylag360, has the right to post different types of political thought as articles, especially if it will add more in depth information to the subject matter. There are different forms of liberalism and conservatism, whether it would be radical social liberalism or moderate social liberalism, to radical cultural conservatism or moderate cultural conservatism. These subjects by themselves should be articles within Wikipedia's library of information. Just as there are extremists and moderates on both the left and right political spectrums respectively, there are indeed extremists and moderates within the libertarian political spectrum. I do not see any justification as to delete an article that gives another perspective in the philosophy of libertarianism. In fact, this would be a violation to his 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and press. I demand that luckylag360 have his right to free speech and press be respected to the fullest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomRaider95 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's pretty clearly a POV fork. The sources were rejected at Talk:Libertarianism, and LuckyLag360 instead wrote this article to push his or her POV. Once better sources are found, it can be discussed at the main article once again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)
Delete. I don't think this is a matter of whether or not this sect of libertarianism exists or not, it's more so the fact that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards in the first place. To have an article allowed you need a certain criteria of sources. This article cites directly from the one piece of literature online that already exists about center-libertariansim. It then goes on to cite individuals from entirely different political scopes as "references". Yes, while there are varying degrees of political thought inside libertarianism, this isn't oppressing free speech to say this specific article needs heavily modification before it can be allowed. Like others have said it's very much the views of one person. Until that can be changed, this article should be deleted. Revision and peer-editing is necessary before a new article on this topic is created. Semmendinger (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I've been a silent observer of this hole thing until now. I've noticed Huon has been trying to get luckylag360 banned as well as hounding him multiple times, however luckylag360 has not acted correctly and deservedly so got banned for two weeks for his retaliation edits. However this article clearly meets wikipedia standards and is an important article. Therefor it should not be deleted. ThepoliticalLib (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC) ThepoliticalLib was blocked as a sock of LuckyLag360. Huon (talk) 23:45, 11 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Bersaudara[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's just another of one of thousands of new bands. It is made up of some other singer's kids. They have not toured extensively. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited--Rpclod (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:41, 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria Christian Corpers Fellowship[edit]

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

I was on the verge of nominating for speedy deletion as unnotable organization, but I found this source, so the topic notability is not as bad as one would expect from the article in its current form. Still, I do not think the topic meets WP:ORG. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the creator added an entry at Nccf, the fate of which should be linked to the article's. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically fails WP:ORG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its current form is an exact copy of the group's website, so we have a copyvio issue too. In terms of article quality, I would support a delete, though in terms of notability, I am not so sure.

The organization is listed on a U.S. government website [17] with Nigeria partners, and there appears to be some news coverage [18][19][20]. I must add that I really cannot assess the quality of either of these sources though. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no authoritative reference given. Only one peripheral reference in Christianity Today is insufficient to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:39, 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.