< 19 October	21 October >

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaaz[edit]

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

Speedy deletion template deleted by IP. I can't find sources that make this band seem notable, but there may be non-English ones. agtx 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and self-promotional. IP is likely sock. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Maybe as their career develops they will become notable, but for now they do not pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listed sources are all entirely trivial and are nowhere near what is needed as substance, by far nothing close. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skippa da Flippa[edit]

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

A minor recording artist who's releases are mixtapes. Poorly referenced with no real demonstration of notability. DanielRigal (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is the only person making these claims, not a single other one. There's over 20 reliable references on the page, as for whether or not it's notable can be debated but hasn't been. Also, it should be noted WP has many pages for artists who have only released mixtapes Young Thug, Vic Mensa, Towkio, Chance the Rapper, Lil Yachty, Rich the Kid, Noname, Rockie Fresh, Joey Purp, Smino, Fat Trel and many more. Cheetoburrito (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well, no, Cheetoburrito, the references to iTunes and Spinrilla merely demonstrate that the mixtapes exist and can be downloaded, so in fact we are indeed debating their notability. And your argument about other rappers is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and irrelevant to whether this article is itself notable (in any case, the likes of Chance the Rapper has put out full albums that have charted on Billboard and elsewhere, as well as mixtapes). Nevertheless, there is an interview with the subject here which might be an RS... other sources such as this and this are really just brief passing mentions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As stated, the sources used in this article are merely the songs' listings on iTunes and Spinrilla, which are not reliable sources. There are no sources that talk about this artist or his work in any depth, aside from just listings of his releases, and I can not find anything during searches aside from these. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find anything notable about this artist anywhere on the page so I looked on the web and could find nothing either...Domdeparis (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geir Ness[edit]

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

Perhaps somewhat IARish nomination. I previously requested speedy deletion for this article as promotional spam and it was subsequently deleted. It was then re-created by the same blatant COI editor, who has since been blocked. Now matter how you slice it, this is still promotional spam. What I've seen flash across my watchlist since this article first caught my attention amounts to a classic example of "process over product", particularly in this case the notion that some of the weakest sources one could find somehow add up to evidence of notability. I'm getting tired of watching folks make excuses for why we don't need to be bothered with reflecting notable biographical subjects whose notability falls outside of the notice of the web within the past decade, all the while trying to justify self-serving crap like this. More importantly, I don't tag pages for speedy deletion all that often. To see it come back to life and being "nurtured" like this means that folks are content with shitting all over my good faith. This exact same scenario played out months ago with Draft:Shea Welsh. I didn't have the opportunity at the time to weigh in on the recent new page patrol controversy / proposal / whatever it was. However, if folks have that little value for my good faith in what NPP I've been doing, they should just say so, instead of sending that exact message through their editing activity and making me waste my time by repeating my efforts like this. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable perfumer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find no evidence to allow this to pass WP:BIO Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:40, 21 October 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. And salt. Temporarily in case it becomes notable after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UBreakiFix[edit]

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

As stated by my extensive PROD, literally a blatant advertisement that has noticeably been touched and otherwise involved by the company itself, the expected amount of article-focused accounts and IPs and then nothing else actually suggesting both independent notability and substance, the links listed are all simply local PR and republished PR, triviality such as the Fortune link only mentioning them once because of a company action, so literally none of this actually suggests meaningful improvements and suggesting anything otherwise without actually acknowledging the PR advertising blatancy is damning ourselves as an encyclopedia. Considering this was speedy deleted once before in 2009 before actually being restarted by an advertising-only account last year, I suggest Salting to at least bar from repeated attempts as it shows it's still only advertising. Even today, an IP from the company's area changed the company information and there's nothing worse blatant than the past account "UBREAKIFIX CANADA". SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt per nom - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt and close this Afd. I commend the nom for taking this much effort to explain details in the nom statement. I might have not had the gumption to do so. No reason for this Afd to be listed any further. Lourdes 04:26, 28 October 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. per SK1 (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Barr-Kumar[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have received non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Steps were taken to locate such sources WP:BEFORE this nomination but were not successful. Recommending deletion until said coverage is evident. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---Regarding Nomination for Deletion---

Vote: Keep

I just created this article a couple days ago. I haven't even finished building it (hence the Construction Template) and it has been nominated for deletion.

I would argue that Barr qualifies as an individual of significant noteworthiness to merit a Wikipedia article.

Reasons for Noteworthiness:

1.) Fellow of the American Institute of Architects

2.) Former president of the American Institute of Architects and first person of non-European origin to hold that post in the organization's 140 year history

3.) Possibly the best know American architect of Sri Lankan decent

4.) 30 year history as a collegiate educator with a number of published works

5.) Noteworthiness as architect of record on a large number of projects in the US and internationally (I was still in the process of building the section of completed works when the article was nominated.)

Best,

Bmhs823 (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional primary and third-party sources. Yamaguchi先生's search for sources/information appears to have been cursory at best.

Bmhs823 (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a number of references from various publications since the original nomination for deletion. I am now removing the construction template. While additional expansion of the article is desirable, I believe there are now enough references that the article can stand on its own.

Bmhs823 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Presidency of AIA should be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. The sourcing is more than sufficient at this time in my opinion, thank you Bmhs823 for your contributions. If there are no objections this AFD may be closed at any time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chu Đình Nghiêm[edit]

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

Appears to show no notability. Only reference is to a list that show the team members and the coach's name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per this, managed a team to the V.League 1 championship title - and as that is a fully-professional league he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has managedin a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG is debatable but definitely passes NFOOTY Spiderone 11:05, 26 October 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. As it is, it doesn't seem like there is any evidence of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Snobar[edit]

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

The DMZ at Ryerson University is a notable business incubator program of Canada. Snobar is not inherently notable as its Executive Directory, and there appears to be no other claim to notability for this person. The article appears to have been created as part of a promotional effort on the part of Ryerson DMZ personnel. (Note that Avnishrpatel originally registered as "RyersonDMZ" until informed that that username violates WP:UN. Note also that the only other substantial editor on the page is a much older account named RyeDMZ.)WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We understand. Apologies for the misguidance. We simply wanted to add our current executive director to our page so it was updated with recent information. Reading through the notability, it makes more sense as to how his page cannot be created at this time. Although, our previous Executive Director has a wikipedia page. Also, he has been appointed as our executive director, how can we include this on our page and infobox? @WikiDan61:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryedmz (talk • contribs)

Who is "we"? Wikishovel (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BIO, and the only coverage I can find of him online is brief mentions in connection with the Ryerson DMZ. Wikishovel (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ryedmz: You are free to list that Snobar is the Executive Director of The DMZ at Ryerson University. That page has an infobox and Snobar's name is listed in the infobox. He does not need to have a Wikipedia page in order to be listed as the E.D. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are media releases online from known publications which validate his appointment and stance. He has written pieces in the Huffington Post and various other digital outlets. Yes, okay we will update him on our page. Thank you for the clarification. Once we get more notable sources and comply with the Wikipedia construct, are we free to recreate the page? @WikiDan61: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryedmz (talk • contribs)

@Ryedmz: Yes, if the current page gets deleted, you may recreate it in the future. However, in the same vein as the username "RyersonDMZ", I would recommend changing your username from "Ryedmz". And stop using the word "we": an account represents a single person -- do not share accounts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! Thank you for making it clear! And apologies for the questions and inconvenience. @WikiDan61:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryedmz (talk • contribs) — User:Ryedmz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Ryedmz (UTC).

It may be worth while to look at other creations of this spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Negligible sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- executive directors at this level are not inherently notable. A vanity page only at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 24 October 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFaraone (talk • contribs)

AramMir[edit]

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

Highly self promtional non-notable professional wrestler. The article was speedied and recreated several times. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if the guy is as fantastic as he claims, why are the only references from facebook? ubiquity (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete promotional article with no sources outside of a facebook page.LM2000 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul Sinha[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced article about non-notably scientist. The few references that are there (and are not dead links) talk about riots that took place that have questionable connection to the subject of the article. The other 2 sources confirm that the person existed but don't speak to their notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to admit that I think this AfD is misguided and could have done with a good dose of WP:BEFORE, though I won't !vote as I was the admin who declined the original A7 CSD request.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ponyo: Just my 2 cents but I don't think that should disqualify you from making a keep vote. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'd prefer not to, even if it is overly cautious. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the sources say more than the article which is both unusual and slightly confusing. The refs make the claim for notability even though it is rather muted in the article. The many typos and spelling issues don't help in the understanding and it is possible that I may have misconstrued the intended meaning. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already cites enough coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability and plenty more is found by the searches automatically linked above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources support the claims. This is just a bootstrap and the article has a potential to grow. Xscontrib (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of honorary Native Americans[edit]

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

Completely non-notable concept, arbitrary (who decides who is an honorary Native American, can members of one tribe be nominated for another tribe? BTW practically ever US president has been declared an "honorary member" of one tribe or another. Yuchitown (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Delete – Looking at the revision history, this is yet another example of the failures of AFC in particular and the process of patrolling new pages in general. We have editors going through the motions with script editing or whatever else instead of actually employing human judgement, I presume in this case assuming that the mere existence of reliable sources equals evidence of notability. The end result is that inferior content is dumped onto the encyclopedia with only a scattershot chance that knowledgeable editors will even know that it exists, which will only bring long-term harm to the project. I see examples of that all over the encyclopedia and it's only gotten worse over time. It appears that this list has been sitting in article space for over four years with little significant improvement in between. Here in Alaska where I live, for a non-Native to be considered an adopted or honorary member of a particular subset of Natives (the term "tribe" is only sparingly used) is actually considered a very high honor in many cases. Still, it's somewhat arbritary and carries no real official recognition or weight. Consider the case of Bishop William Gordon, who was originally from the Mid-Atlantic region of the continental United States but is buried in Point Hope, Alaska. That burial site says a lot more about what regard the Natives held for him than any particular title issued in life ever could. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Lower 48 Indians are proud to call themselves tribes, and they certainly have the right to honor anyone they like. I'm not seeing much evidence that the honorees then become "honorary Native Americans."Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is not now making a positive contribution. I know that's not in itself a reason to delete, but the concept seems so vague and non-notable. I also question if being made a member of a tribe makes that person a Native American. Does the whole thing really have any meaning? Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongarm (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article does not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Turn into a Disambiguation page, since this page features two different cartoon characters from animated series which also have articles, we would probably disambiguate it to those two animated series pages. Mathewignash (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or, if a dab page is genuinely necessary, redirect it to Strongarm and list both characters there. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Merge any content if needed. Avoid redlink bait to recreate the article again, preserves history if ever needed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. The information on this character is largely unsupported by reliable sources, so a stand along article is out of the question. The List of Autobots has entries on all of the various incarnations of this character, though, so it would make the most sense for a redirect target. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is an article about several characters in different cartoon series, it would make more sense to redirect/merge to pages about those cartoon's characters. Leaving an disambig and merging to places like List of Transformers: Energon characters and List_of_Transformers:_Robots_in_Disguise_(2015_TV_series)_characters#Autobots would be better than lazily merging to a giant list of Autobot names. Mathewignash (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there were actually a good amount of sourced information in this article, I would agree with you, but there is not. Nearly all of the sources here are from fansites, youtube videos, etc. In short, none of the actual information here is being backed by reliable sources, thus merging it into multiple other articles would be overall detrimental. And again, the List of Autobot Characters actually has multiple entries for this character's different incarnations, so the coverage on his different cartoon/toy/etc. versions is still easily accessible there.64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. The above discussions are compelling enough. Lourdes 04:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Beast Wars Neo characters § Maximals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Convoy[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect somewhere. This is a nice example of why we need to put these articles through AfD and just how long we have had problems with Transformers articles. The article was created in 2006, and was gradually added to over the next few years. I tagged this as of questionable notability back in 2010; no one added any evidence of notability, and so I redirected it to a list of Maximals (which no longer exists) a few weeks later. This was reverted without comment, and the article has since sat around in the current state. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN and J Milburn comments, unless a suitable redirect can be located. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Beast_Wars_Neo_characters#Maximals per Mathewignash's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to List_of_Beast_Wars_Neo_characters#Maximals. It would not make sense to delete a page which would need to redirect to a list of characters from a cartoon. Redirect is the minimum. Mathewignash (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Maximals list per Mathewignash. Merge any content if needed. Avoid redlink bait to recreate the article again, preserves history if ever needed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of Beast Wars New Characters. The entry on that page seems sufficient. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Beast_Wars_Neo_characters#Maximals per above. As stated, the target article has sufficient information on the character already. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petre Marinescu (producer)[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. One primary source for the subject is provided in addition to an interview and an official website for the show he is most notability know for. Without additional 3rd party sources for notability verification it makes it difficult for the subject of this article to receive his own WP:BLP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - music producers are so common that we almost always delete these articles. That this one is filled with red links is a bad sign. Bearian (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources in the article and I couldn't find any on my own. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Sins[edit]

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

An under-developed article on an unremarkable actor that not meet BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Most of the article is about Pornhub which, in a promotional stunt, announced that it would make a film in space featuring the actor. This is WP:BIO1E at best, as significant RS coverage on the subject cannot be found. There’s not enough source material to build a bio article, thus falling under WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for actual independent and notability, listed award is trivial and then the only actual information is literally only about the porn events. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Biography of one non-event with no biographical depth. Gets only passing mentions in RS coverage of multiple publicity stunts. Fails GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornorgraphic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per Gene93k, and per the argument of my original PROD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non notable. I've searched for sources and ended up in the same situation as Gene93k. Lourdes 04:35, 28 October 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 withdrawn. -- GB fan 22:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IVV[edit]

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

This page started out as a redirect to Volksmarching. It was then changed to a DAB page when iShares was added. Later IVV (Business) was added saying it was a part of Balfour Beatty. Volksmarching was the first one removed. None of the three pages that have been on the DAB page actually contain "IVV". I can not find anywhere to redirect this to and it doesn't meet the need for a DAB page. I PRODd this but it was removed without explanation. -- GB fan 18:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note ivv is some sort of stock exchange code for iShares. It can also be the ISO 639 code for the Ivatan language. – Uanfala (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IVV is a stock exchange code for one of iShares exchange traded funds. They have 333 funds with stock exchange codes. So it really doesn't make sense to list them all in the article nor include them on DAB pages. Ivatan language is a valid place for IVV to redirect to. -- GB fan 11:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2nd, 3rd and 4th entries all mention IVV in their linked articles. Boleyn (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bkonrad's recent additions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as dab page. I have added a couple of entries. Per MOS:DABMENTION, "IVV" is now mentioned in every linked article.— Gorthian (talk) 21:55, 21 October 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. SpinningSpark 14:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hidden Curriculum[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its sources are almost all internal to MIT (namely its student paper, which is not a reliable source). There is only one external review apparent online—the one that shows up in JSTOR. If someone has access to BRD, perhaps there might be newspaper reviews from the period? I was surprised after reading such an elaborate (well-written?) article how little currency the book had, especially considering the role of the "hidden curriculum" in sociology of education but perhaps the book just didn't have that great an impact. We don't see much of an impact in the included sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Hopefully this text can find a home on another wiki. czar 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar 17:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The MIT student newspaper could certainly be considered reliable, not sure why it wouldn't be. It's not the New York Times, but it's also not a blog or The National Enquirer. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspapers are never reliable sources. They do not have any reputation for reliability. And in the chance that our standards were to sink that low, a MIT student newspaper would not be "independent" of the topic—all the sources are affiliated with the university. The point is that it hasn't had widespread external coverage. Books like this normally show their notability through a range of external reviews. czar 01:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Student newspapers are never reliable sources." Can you point me to the policy that says this? If not, then it should be queried on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I'll have a look at doing that shortly to get some clarity on the issue. EDIT: If they agree with you I'll change my KEEP to DELETE. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you posted at RSN already but the answer is because student newspapers do not have a reputation for reliability like professional newspapers or publishers—they can post any sort of content without fact-checking and generally are not reliable for statements of fact in an encyclopedia. That much should be straightforward. @DGG would have more to say, in depth. But as I said above, even more important here is the independence—that the MIT student newspaper wrote a book review on a MIT professor's book about MIT student life is not a contribution to the book's notability. czar 18:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say reliability is not an issue for MIT-derived sources, the problem is independence. You cant demonstrate notability with references that have a relationship with the subject due to potential COI's. It appears the book itself has been cited a number of times elsewhere academically (linked document metions Snyder being cited elsewhere). So no comment on keep/delete. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book, and the newspaper is reliable enough to report that a book exists, published by MIT Press, by a noted person at MIT, and mentioned in scores of reliable source books. I note that publication by a major university press counts a great deal as a rule. As do reviews by Library Journal and Saturday Review (US magazine).

The Tech (newspaper) appears to be used as a source about a published book. [1] indicates the book is published by MIT Press which is a reputable publisher of reliable sources. It has been reviewed in major journals (The Hidden Curriculum "will gain recognition as one of the more cogent 'college unrest' books. Its main contention is simple. There exist, Snyder explains, two curriculums governing the university degree. In addition to mastering the substantive one (say, physics or history), a student must cope with its tactical complement, the academic game whereby his appropriate responses to institutional prejudices will best ensure a high letter-grade transcript.... [A] most provocative thesis." —Saturday Review

"...the formal requirements for courses or for success in higher education are often in sharp contrast to what it really takes for a student to complete a course successfully or to be acceptable to peers, faculty, and others.... The central task in studying the 'hidden curriculum' is to learn which patterns of behavior are tribally and/or institutionally sanctioned, and to learn to practice 'selective negligence,' that is, to identify the relevant and simplify the complex. The author calls for a searching dialogue on the disillusionment and gamesmanship that hide behind the specifics of the curriculum."—Library Journal

MIT News states: "Snyder was a professor of psychiatry and psychiatrist-in-chief at MIT from 1959 to 1969; dean of Institute relations from 1969 to 1972; and director for the Division of Study and Research in Education from 1973 to 1986. ... Snyder wrote about students and mental health; his book “The Hidden Curriculum,” published by MIT Press in 1972, was on the culture of MIT and how students cope with overload through selective neglect. The book went through various editions."

Other sources include [2], and dozens of other uses in reliable sources. Collect (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing published by Knopf NY in 1970 before by MIT? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knopf was hardcover in 1971, MIT Press then issued an edition in paperback in 1973, possibly with some changes. Both of which more than meet any requirements as being a reliable source publisher. Collect (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with Knopf (and after looking into this more I'm voting Keep anyway, it appears its been cited many times elsewhere and plenty of reviews on it) but reliability is not the only criteria for demonstrating notability. MIT Press printing a book by an (at the time) active MIT staff member raises independence questions, which is why I was looking at the earlier publisher. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we had the actual Saturday Review review to look at, that would be a start (I mentioned a BRD lookup would be useful). And Library Journal is known for short, single-paragraph previews of books, of which the actual review is a sentence or two. That you would base a book's notability on a student newspaper (affiliated with the subject), a Library Journal paragraph, and a single, unverified Saturday Review review is unfathomable. Plenty of academic books go unreviewed and are notable—being published by MIT Press is not an automatic indicator. And as I said at the RSN thread—the concept of "hidden curriculum" predates the book The Hidden Curriculum by several years, and the encyclopedia article you posted is mostly a retread (citogenesis) of our article on the former. czar 18:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Ten seconds to find it. "Education in America New Books by John Calam; Textbooks and the American Indian, by Jeannette Henry; The Saturday Review, February 20, 1971," To be exact, page 76. 24 lines. Major review. Please next time you say something is "unverified" look the review up. I trust you will withdraw the AfD now. Collect (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have been so hard to link it? And it surely takes more than ten seconds to find. No need to be hostile. I'm not withdrawing the AfD. Two short paragraphs are no basis for keeping an article. czar 21:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a serious, scholarly book by someone with standing to write one. And the article exists now. Why throw it away? There's no reason. If you search Google Books, you'll find a plethora of references to this book. So it seems to have some modicum of significance. Other people who wrote serious scholarly books and articles appear to have read this book, or at least be cognizant of what's in it. It's part of the intelligentsia-sphere, or was in its day, it appears. So why do want to say our readers searching on this topic "Well, yes, it's a serious and scholarly book with at least some minor significance. And we had an article on it. But we erased it." How does that help our readers? Herostratus (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the article exists now. Why throw it away?

The article is almost entirely unsourced, and the only sources are to a student newspaper on issues unrelated to the book's content and era. We delete articles on books without reviews for far less. You're overstating its impact. If the book had a noted impact, which in your plethora of sources say so? There are plenty of other sites that can host this content. The argument that the content exists and that it looks interesting are both arguments to avoid. We use reliable sources alone to note the impact of a topic. czar 20:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a bunch of other sources have been shown here. Notability in spades doubled and redoubled. Time to drop the proverbial stick. Collect (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting one source—the Saturday Review. LJ has not been counted as a "source" at AfD in the past, and the student paper MIT-affiliated source doesn't count either. If you made a strong case, I'd have no argument but you've quite literally linked nothing else that I haven't addressed. Take the two paragraphs you're using as sources and what kind of article would we even be able to write? czar 21:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well but searching on the string "The Hidden Curriculum Snyder" in Google Books (not regular Google -- Google Books searches into books only) gives me the following results -- this is without actually clicking into the links which I can't be bothered to do, but just to give a high overview, this is what the Google Books result says, just showing them in order exactly as they come up in the search results.

"...in an elementary school context, a more conceptually focused work is Snyder's 1971 tome The Hidden Curriculum" in book titled The Hidden Curriculum in Health Professional Education.
"In his book, The Hidden Curriculum, (New York, 1971), Benson R. Snyder described the results of research among..." in a "book" which I guess is bound volume of a journal called ThirdWay.
"Snyder (1970) argued that the hidden curriculum was, in part..." in a book titled Journey to the Ph.D.: How to Navigate the Process as African Americans
Life in Classrooms does not reference Snyder; it is only on the list because it uses the term "hidden curriculum" a lot.
"...by the sociologist Phillip Jackson (1968) and developed by Benson Snyder (1973) [sic]' in his book The Hidden Curriculum" in a book titled New Horizons in Multicultural Counselling which I would guess is a textbook.
"The term hidden curriculum has been used in two quite different ways in curriculum studies. The more common and ... A second usage of hidden curriculum appeared in 1970 in Benson R. Snyder's Hidden Curriculum. Where Jackson had..." in a book titled Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies.
"Benson Snyder's The Hidden Curriculum (1970) considers the 'dissonance' between student and university values..." in a book titled Social Inclusion and Higher Education.
"The term "hidden curriculum" has circulated with great intuitive appeal among educators for the past 50 years ... Snyder's (1970) classic book first discussed the hidden curriculum in higher education" in a book titled Distance Education and Distributed Learning.
"This term [hidden curriculum] was also used by Benson Snyder, who conducted research at MIT and Wellesley College in the area and presented..." in a book titled Encyclopedia of Distance Education

That's the first page of results. There are dozens more pages of results, yielding a plethora of similar results (according to my quick scan). These examples are passing mentions (I expect some Google Books results will yield more in-depth material, though). But they are sufficient to show that the book is part of an ecosystem of thought on matters of curriculum analysis and design (an important and scholarly subject!). We do not grow as a project by throwing away articles on important books. In response to my question "Why throw it away?" the reply was "The article is almost entirely unsourced". That is very poor argument for deletion. It is a good argument for adding a ((Refimprove)) template to the top of the article -- but not more than that. And the refs are certainly out there, as the Google Books results shows. It's just a matter of adding them in. Herostratus (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the Google Books listings in depth before the AfD and did bother to read the actual citations—which ones are not throwaway/cursory mentions? Because being cited is not enough to make a work notable. Plenty of books and academic papers are cited just as much (more, really) without their own articles. Our criteria is significant coverage—having enough coverage with enough depth such that someone could write a full article on the subject without veering into original research. I didn't want to, but if you remove the unsourced stuff in this article (the stuff that fails basic WP:V), you would be left with plot summary. I've already recapped our in-depth sources above. No AfD regular would call single paragraphs from Saturday Review and LJ significant coverage. czar 14:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the first hit in Google Books, the one I listed as "...in an elementary school context, a more conceptually focused work is Snyder's 1971 tome The Hidden Curriculum" in book titled The Hidden Curriculum in Health Professional Education, the actual entry is "Although there are frequent references within the hidden curriculum literature to Phillip Johnson's 1968 Life in Classrooms, which does reference the concept within a broader discussion of student socialization within an elementary school context, a more conceptually focused work is Snyder's 1971 tome The Hidden Curriculum. Snyder, a physician and psychotherapist, compared student life at Wellsley College and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He focused on the space between a school's formal expectations and real requirements versus what was 'actually expected of students'. As a psychiatrist, Snyder was interested in the effects of context on students, what he called the 'emotional and social surround of the formal curriculum'. He found that the difference between the expected and its real requirements produced considerable dissonance among the students and resulted in cynicism, scorn, and hypocrisy within both student bodies. Snyder also found students engaged in a great deal of gamesmanship as they worked to figure out what the faculty really wanted, and the most successful students were the best at navigating this gap. He identified a covert student subculture in both of these learning environments and, in an important and often underappreciated distinction, he found that minority students had more difficulty in these turbulent waters."

This is not a cursory or throwaway reference, colleague. And that's just the first entry; other entries also engage on the subject to more than a cursory level. So your "I reviewed the Google Books listings in depth" appears to be lacking in diligence.

Beyond that, a couple points: first, a large number of citations of the work in other scholarly works, even those that are short and cursory, demonstrates that the work is notable part of the body of thought, on the reading list and part of the intellectual background, of persons engaged in examining this aspect of of the human condition. Second, its a scholarly work. Granted, as matter of fact we tend to focus more on Pokemon characters, minor figures in obscure comic books, D-list rock bands, and so forth, this is not intended to be our main focus; we are not People magazine, at least not entirely and in original design. Scholarly works on the borderline should receive some respect -- not that this book is on or even close to being on the borderline.

At this point, I think that you should consider backing off. Bringing an article up for discussion at AfD is fine, but the article has now been demonstrated to be OK. Let it go. A truly dogged determination to erase articles on notable scholarly works would probably not be helpful to the project. Herostratus (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic summary of the book—same as the other "reviews". Look at its context and weight—it's only discussed as relevant to the concept of hidden curriculum, not as such a standalone concept that must be addressed in depth on its own (granted, we don't have the sources to cover it in depth). At best that source suggests that the book should be discussed within the context of the "hidden curriculum" article. I don't see how Pokémon characters are relevant at all to this discussion, but I'll note that I've personally deleted and redirected a great many such articles (on that topic) with far more "coverage" if the above is what passes for significant coverage with this audience. But that's the double standard of AfD. Unless you have more sources, I have nothing more to add czar 20:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you've "personally deleted and redirected a great many such articles (on that topic) with far more coverage", then you're being objectively destructive to the Wikipedia project and you need to stop doing that. Your personal standards of notability are highly idiosyncratic and frankly worrisome. They certainly go against our established standards, worked out over many years as a community, such as WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.

This is frankly troublesome and, unless you are just posturing, there is possibly damage to be undone, which is outside the scope of this discussion; I'll contacted you on your talk page. Herostratus (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF—nothing in that sentence implied rogue/wanton/out-of-policy deletion... I think we've heard enough from both of us—let's let others weigh in on the sources. czar 01:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. I think it is a notable book, even perhaps a significantly influential book. (tho I will need to check for actual references--our usual sources don't do well for books published in 1970)) There are 605 holdings on Worldcat, which is pretty good for a book about higher education. There is however a severe problem with the article, and I have commented differently on other articles of this nature and said in effect: "delete--violation of NOT PLOT" ("plot" being the nearest equivalent to "over-detailed summary of non-fiction book" and "in-universe" the equivalent, of "assuming the viewpoint of the book")

I frankly do not know what to do with articles of this nature. It is very difficult to abridge such an article without actually having recently read the book, and the alternative if we removed content would be a fairly useless stub. Nonetheless, this article is more easily fixable than most, because the case studies can simply be removed, as well as the unsupported judgements and the non-encyclopedic rhetoric. Czar is of course right in principle about the use of student newspapers for notability of their own faculty's books, though in this case the book is also about MIT & what a MIT student newspaper says might be quite relevant. But I'm not sure I agree about saying that detailed reviews show notability of the concept, not of the book--it is very difficult to separate the two. A discussion or review of a book must say what the book is about, or it's a mere catalog entry. I am also concerned about not having two duplicative articles, but in this case our article Hidden curriculum, discuss it from what seems a very different & broader aspect--tho it's hard to actually tell, because of the intensity of educational jargon.

I am also concerned about the style of this article: Looking at the edit history, I have a feeling it was originally a term paper. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:TNT. It's an unencyclopedic combination of WP:NOTESSAY and WP:PLOT, full of what smells like WP:OR. Its referencing is simply unacceptable. I have added multiple CN tags. While I concede the subject may be notable, this article is a disaster on wheels. Blow it up and start over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete primarily per Ad Orientem - this article would have to be completely rewritten to be well-sourced, NPOV, and free of WP:OR. I am surprised by the lack of independent reliable sources discussing the book itself. The student newspaper may be reliable but it is too local to really count toward N. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the meat cleaver now has worked - the notability of the author and work is clear, and the extensive commentary and précis deleted. Collect (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well there has been an improvement but this is still almost completely unreferenced. That's not acceptable. And I am not sold on notability although I am inclined to give it a pass if that were the only issue. Absent citations, I am thinking this should be no more than a three sentence stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also added two refs. Including the Saturday Review laudatory review. As this work is cited in literally hundreds of places, a "three sentence stub" is ludicrous. Collect (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be no problem adding the appropriate references. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For usage, see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22hidden+curriculum%22+snyder&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10 .

First entry shows 921 cites of this book. Most books which get cited 921 times are actually notable, indeed.

Do you really want me to add a few dozen or so? IU would gladly oblige at this point. Collect (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lack of significant discussion about the book by independent, reliable sources that would allow us to actually craft encyclopedic content about the book. Citations of the book are not necessarily discussions about the book; some of them may discuss it in detail, and those would be useful. at this point we have no evidence of that. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop the silly "citation needed" game as the reviews and other uses clearly establish what the thesis is. I added two scholarly journals, and will gladly add as many as are need to show the silliness of "cn" for every sentence. These cites, by the way, deal with the content of the book, so the cavils now are getting absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)What Jytdog said. Beyond which I don't care about the cite count. All claims of fact, excepting those that are completely uncontroversial, MUST have a citation from an independent reliable source. If you can do that with five or six great. If you need a hundred, I think we may have a problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should as assiduously note that most of the Hidden curriculum article is quire uncited, and direct your attention to those claims as well. Collect (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Weak Keep I believe the NPOV issue has been resolved and the WP:V and OR are now at an acceptable minimum. The lack of in depth coverage is not helpful. However there are enough references in other works to it that I think it rings (very softly) the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you deleted material which was having a cite added -- a notable presentation to a conference should quite suffice. Collect (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' For showing the influence of a book, a high number of citations especially in noteworthy serious sources is at least as important as in-depth references. One way for something to become significant is for it to be cited very widely; another is to show that it made enough of an impact to be discussed in detail. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm neutral on the outcome (haven't heard of the book or even read the article) but, as was pointed out on RSN, the MIT newspaper's reliability is immaterial when it comes to establishing notability -- it is not an independent source, as the book is by the then-dean of the school at which the newspaper is published. The closer should take this into account when reviewing the various "keep" !votes that missed this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search in Google scholar gives 928 citations to the book which continues to be cited after 45 years. It is the defining work for the concept of a "hidden curriculum" in higher education, and is cited on works well outside of higher education. Citations refer to it as a classic text. There are recent books and articles discussing the book and the research behind it. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting back some library research: I looked up the book in Book Review Digest and Book Review Index—the two main book review indices of the period—which I'd consider to be foremost indicator of a book's reception:
- Saturday Review – brief (130w)
- Library Journal and CHOICE – both publications for brief book summaries for library purchasing, less than 130w, and have not been used for book notability in the past

Barring some stunning revelation from what I expect to be low-quality education history sources, we continue to have no content to separate the notability of this topic from the general topic of "hidden curriculum". If writings on the book have encyclopedic import, it would only be in the context the history of sociological writings on the concept of hidden curriculum, not the book as its own subject. From someone with an actual background in history of education, I'm surprised to see the claims of importance above. We would need some extraordinary claim of the book's legacy in order to justify an article, and I have seen not a single citation that marks this 1970 book as popularizing the concept, term, or legacy of hidden curriculum (I could name several more notable works for that, and each would have at least a dozen reviews in reputable sources because, well, that is the measure of noted impact). Our only marker is the book's collection in WorldCat libraries, and that has not been enough for independent notability on its own in AfDs past. With no depth of coverage or WP:NBOOKS policy-backed argument and with the research I did before and during this AfD, I really don't see the case. But with BRD/BRI as the final word, that's the last I'll add to this discussion

czar 20:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have disagreed (and continue to vigorously disagree) with User:Czar on other issues, but on this one, it is clear that User:Czar's interpretation of WP policy is sound and reasonable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... Sheesh. There seems to be a group of editors who don't seem to understand -- or maybe they just don't care for -- WP:NBOOK, which is supposed to be our book notability guideline.

Let's take a look together at what WP:NBOOK says: the book is assumed (not proven, but assumed) to be notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews."

"Has been the subject of... non-trivial published works" is further explained thus:"The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment... 'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.... Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur...."

Is the passage I quoted above (" Snyder, a physician and psychotherapist, compared student life at Wellsley College and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He focused on the space between a school's formal expectations and real requirements versus what was 'actually expected of students'. As a psychiatrist, Snyder was interested in the effects of context on students, what he called the 'emotional and social surround of the formal curriculum'. He found that the difference between the expected and its real requirements produced considerable dissonance among the students and resulted in cynicism, scorn, and hypocrisy within both student bodies. Snyder also found students engaged in a great deal of gamesmanship as they worked to figure out what the faculty really wanted, and the most successful students were the best at navigating this gap. He identified a covert student subculture in both of these learning environments and, in an important and often underappreciated distinction, he found that minority students had more difficulty in these turbulent waters.") a "mere mention of the book"? Is it just a "price listing"? or the functional equivalent of just a price listing or other insubstantial mention? Or perhaps the book The Hidden Curriculum in Health Professional Education (published by Dartmouth Press) is functionally equivalent to a "personal website, bulletin board, or Usenet post"? Or is it not part of set of "two or more" works substantially addressing the work in question?

That some editors are answering "Yes" to these questions, in defiance of the plain English, is what's troubling. We are not even speaking the same language and this is very annoying and not functional. Editors are expected to work and argue against guidelines they don't like but respect them until they are changed. I do. Herostratus (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Herostratus. Clearly passes NBOOK. Sources are clearly more than adequate for a 1970 publication date, which is in something of a pre-internet "dead zone" -- many print sources not yet digitized and thus it is difficult to recreate some of the "buzz" that surrounded a work in its time. Being covered by the Saturday Review was notable, looks like two peer-reviewed journals, and an analysis in a scholarly work. Just because you've never heard of it does not mean it was not notable in its time. Worldcat shows it has at least two published editions [3], and rooting around with the various editions, it appears to be kept in at least 600 libraries. Montanabw^(talk) 08:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:NBOOK; arguments for a deletion have not been convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:16, 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temba Maqubela[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NACADEMIC. Just another in a long history of WP:PROMO associated with the prep school he is headmaster of. John from Idegon (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Distinguished career at notable schools. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Perhaps you weren't clear. This man's career has been strictly at institutions of secondary education. No posts at post grad schools that would meet NACADEMIC. I see nothing in either GNG or NACADEMIC that indicates the reputation of one's employers has any bearing on notability. John from Idegon (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am clear enough on the difference between secondary and tertiary educational institutions. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as not a notable professor as shown by the listed schools and I invite X to look at this again, since there's actually nothing else aside from those unconvincing positions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete headmasters of schools are not notable for such, and that is his closest thing to a claim to fame.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends upon the school. These are very eminent schools. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I added several references from diverse sources. Maqubela was interviewed in 2013 by NPR for his experiences South Africa in the early 1970s and personal knowledge of Neslon Mandella. He was the subject of profiles for his educational work in 1990 and 1991, and this interest in him was sustained through 2002 in major media, and through 2007. Whenever someone fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC, scroll up and note that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" That's because they can meet WP:BASIC, also known as WP:GNG, which says "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Though headmasters of secondardy schools are not generally notable, this isn;t true for the most famous schools, and Groton is oner of the very most famous US secondary schools. (note I said "famous" not "notable" if the school were just ntoable, I would have `voted delete. This meets the intent of WP:PROFm, as theschol is more famous and at a higher level than many colleges. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's reasoning. Very prominent independent school, and being the headmaster there is equivalent to the standards set by WP:PROF. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep -- the 1993 Distinguished Teacher Awards seems significant (although I could not find much information on it). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 23 October 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 A7. Peridon (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sutosh Pratap Singh[edit]

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

Non notable person, possibly the editor. Eric S.V. (talk) 17:08, 20 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton "Jiggs" Chase[edit]

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

not the easiest subject to search for sources, but seems like it fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. No references, and in its 11 years has only had 2 significant edits, both from SPAs. Rayman60 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Concise Guide to Hip-Hop Music lists Jiggs Chase among the "influential beatmakers" and founders of the hip-hop genre in the 1970s/80s. He was a chief arranger and producer of a pioneer hip-hop label Sugar Hill Records. There is far more about him on G-books. I would say he is notable and there's enough material to compile a decent article about him. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. The history of the article here on Wikipedia is not relevant to the actual notability of the subject. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know nothing about the subject matter but he does seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE based on the Gbooks results and claims made in this Billboard article from Gnews. Also puzzled by the nom's statement "not the easiest subject to search for sources," when the rather unusual name makes it very easy, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as anybody with a passing interest in the development of hip hop will know, Jiggs Chase was credited as songwriter on some of the key early hip hop records and as such his name is often cited when talking about them. Whether that's enough for his own article or whether it would maybe be better redirected to Sugar Hill Records (hip hop label) as part of their production team, I don't know. Richard3120 (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Meets WP:CREATIVE for sure. Relevant player in 70s hip-hop. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps close this Afd here. I've found similar sources to editors like Shawn in Montreal and Vejvančický above. The current state or editorial inputs of the article notwithstanding, the subject has notability. Lourdes 04:37, 28 October 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. There seems to be no obvious consensus coming from this discussion, even after being relisted twice. Closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nanae Kato[edit]

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

With only Ahiru as Nanae Kato's main role, and little to no news coverage and strong references, the subject in question is clearly not notable enough to warrant her own independent article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She plays title characters in Croket!, Princess Tutu, and the not-so-notable Noramimi. Not sure if that's good enough to keep around or write any sort of article. Croket!'s had 78 episodes in Japan. She plays some supporting/recurring characters in Inazuma Eleven and Inazuma Eleven Go. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks like one of her CDs was covered by news media, this combined with her main character role. [4], [5]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially a press release/promotional piece for a generic seiyuu band with six other members. It's hard to see how it could be evidence of notability. That they only lasted a few months before splitting the first time says a lot.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - her voicing some title characters, some more supporting characters, plus her CDs receiving RS coverage allows her to just scrape past WP:NACTOR I guess. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I guess"? Does this mean that you're not entirely sure whether or not the subject should have her own independent article? Also, please read Sephy's post. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means I'm more or less on the fence and thus am defaulting towards keep, hence the "weak" part of my !vote. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:33, 27 October 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. Ignoring the promotional socks, there seems to be consensus that this is barely notable at best. Given the extensive reference bombing, I am applying WP:TNT. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can show notability and create a decent, non-promotional article. Randykitty (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candyland (musician)[edit]

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

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)).

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources cited are a hodge-podge of Facebook and YouTube sites, as well as numerous primary sources. The subject of this article has received minor, two paragraph-long mention in non-notable secondary sources such as music blogs and websites. Of their productions that have charted, none of the charts are recognized by Wikipedia, per WP:BADCHARTS. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article should be kept because the only Youtube links cited as references are for the remixes done by the artist, Candyland. Everything else on the page is well sourced, which is why the page has 125 references. Yeah, 125. And the facebook links used for references are few. Out of those 125 links, only nine of them presumably can be accredited to Facebook. The rest of the references are merely websites; where I must note: "just because it's not USA Today or Billboard, doesn't mean it's not a decent website. And there are NO music blogs used on the page. There are websites listed, for which promote music, similiar to Billboard. But there are no blogs used at all. I will admit at least five and probably only five websites do have "two-paragraph" long mentions endorsing this page. But really this page should not be deleted because the majority of its sources are notable. And whatever reference issues are present can easily be fixed.

Infopage100 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Infopage100: - Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Canvassing. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Magnolia677:, I guess requesting votes is kind of cheating. Even if it wasn't a Wikipedia rule, it would still be pretty bad. But it is, so I get it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Infopage100 (talk • contribs)

@Infopage100, It's good that recognize and tried to clean up the innocent mistake. I don't mean to blame you for trying to clean it up, but you accidentally made it worse. I just want to explain the mistake and fix it, without blame. The 4th criteria for appropriate invitations is transparency. Removing your "retracted" pings from the page [6] makes it harder for the discussion-closer to know who got a ping to come here. For transparency: TheMagnificentist, Jax 0677, XPanettaa, and I, were pinged. Problem solved. We're good. Alsee (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added a chart which makes the article to qualify for WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Really good article, Infopage100. @Magnolia677:, please revoke your nomination for deletion as I've added a source to prove its notability. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - While I do not intend to go through the dozens of citations in the article, I think that we need something besides Facebook as references. That being said, I recommend keeping or redirecting the page to Speechless (Candyland song). --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speechless (Candyland song), the notable thing she's actually done - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unnecessary. The article is quite well-written and there are sources backing its notability, as well as a charted single in the US, automatically negates deletion according to the policies in Wikipedia. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @TheMagnificentist:, I do not disagree with you. That being said, Speechless (Candyland song) can also be merged into Candyland (musician). --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This page received its nomination for deletion because there was not enough references to back up its notability. It was also eligible for its removal on Wikipedia, simply because the references provided represented the information poorly. But this nonsense has been resolved, as I have added a gargantuan of new references to the page. I'm not completely finished yet, so I will keep editing later on, if necessary. Infopage100 (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infopage100, Your "gargantuan of new references" is more a plethora of junk links to personal blogs and online music vendors. I would urge you to take a moment to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Alsee:, I didn't understand anything you said. All I know is to not ask for votes again, so I won't. Sorry.
Delete. One minor appearance on a minor chart. very weak claim to notability. Compare that to the over the top promotion, the excessive refspamming, the undue weight given to almost everything, the fan cruft, the lack of any real coverage WP:GNG. Give it some TNT. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I just decided to revisit this discussion to assure people that the article should be kept because it's a good article. And the artist has technically officially charted on an official chart. So.... I don't think this page should go.

Infopage100 (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Can't vote twice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - number 46 on the Billboard dance chart is a very small claim to notability, especially when there seems to be extremely little notable coverage otherwise, but is does meet the conditions set out by NMUSIC so should probably stay. It will, however, need a lot of work to strip it down to remove all the un-notable information supported by press release song announcements or facebook posts only. Nik thestunned 10:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is worth noting that both User:TheMagnificentist and User:Infopage100 are indefinitely blocked. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mooradian[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a print journalist associated entirely with a single newspaper market (and not even its major newspaper, either, but with suburban community weeklies), whose only strong claim of wider notability is that he once published a book. But the book was self-published by "Moreradiant Pub" (read that name and then say his surname out loud again if you don't believe me), so its existence is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:AUTHOR. Further, it's referenced to blogs and a non-notable niche publication rather than reliable sources that can actually carry WP:GNG, and the rest of the sourcing here isn't any better -- the sourcing otherwise stacks almost entirely onto the fact that he played basketball in high school, mainly comprising the basketball league's own primary source historical directory of its own players. None of this, neither the substance nor the sourcing, is good enough to get him in the door. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry but I beg to differ here because I think the issue with the coverage is there isn't much available online from 50s and 60s today. I can still give several reference here that are from notable sources from back in 60s, here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 & many more. All of these are newspaper cuttings from Notable newspapers, if he wasn't notable why so much coverage in newspapers then! You may disagree with the content that you can modify or suggest modification but I think the coverage establishes notability. Pyzeseeds123 (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every single high school athlete who exists at all is always going to get his name into the sports section of the local paper from time to time, so all of the ones there that link to the sports page in the Detroit Free Press count for nothing at all toward notability. And of the ones that remain after those are discounted, every single one is either an unsubstantive blurb covering him in the context of nothing that corresponds to a Wikipedia notability criterion, or a page I can't see at all to verify how much it does or doesn't say about him (though considering that every single link I could see failed to be a notability-conferring one, I don't have high hopes for the ones I can't either.) Our notability criteria do not extend an automatic freebie to everybody who's ever gotten their name into any newspaper for any reason at all; in order to count toward getting him over WP:GNG, the coverage has to be substantive and not just a glancing namecheck of his existence. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per IAR. Journalist biographies are among the hardest to source out at WP since much of what is available is generated by the publications for which they worked while biographical coverage in competing papers is non-existent for obvious reasons. My own inclination is to be inclusionist towards the bios of retired journalists and deletionist towards the bios of newcomers on the make. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what about any of this constitutes a reason why the journalist in question merits permanent coverage in an encyclopedia? Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the only claim of notability could be under WP:NAUTHOR, but I've not been able to find any meaningful reviews of the subject's memoirs. Ping DGG to see if they may be able to check on library holdings. Or if any reviews are presented, I'd be happy to look at them. The subject's life is an interesting one, but unfortunately does not quite rise to the level of encyclopedia notability per guidelines or currently available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book is held by 52 libraries indexed by Worldcat. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Library holdings aren't a notability claim that exempts a person from having to be sourced better than has been shown here, and 52 isn't that high a number in the first place considering there are millions of libraries in the world. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making any such claim, but was simply responding to K.e.coffman's wish for information about library holdings. I agree that 52 is a low number, but I'm not sure that there are millions of libraries in the world unless you count my collection of books on shelves and piled up in various rooms and in boxes in the attic as a library. And Worldcat only indexes major libraries so being in several hundred might be an indication that a book and/or its author merits further investigation as to notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little too busy with real life to take part in the failed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward L. Keithahn earlier this year, yet another exercise in pushing the POV that the only biographical subjects we need be concerned about are living people notable within the past decade or so who are good at getting themselves mentioned in certain places on the web. I don't know what was more pointless, the AFD itself, or that the "keep" rationale based on a WorldCat search amounted to the only significant improvement to the article since. It tells me that it's a waste of my time to go hunt again for the book sources from the 1940s and 1950s which not only clearly demonstrate his notability but provide meaningful biographical information if other editors believe the only purpose that Wikipedia articles serve is to reflect the results of their incidental web search. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- still delete as the library holdings do not seem sufficient to presume notability. BTW I notified WikiProject Armenia of this AfD a week ago, so I think we've made a good faith effort to locate sources and establish notability. Does not meet the notability guidelines at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local journalist who self-published a memoir. It sounds like he's had an interesting life, but nothing in the article suggests WP:Notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to Pyzeseeds123 (talk · contribs)'s sources, here is a book source providing a paragraph of coverage about the subject:
1. De Waal, Thomas (2015). Great Catastrophe: Armenians and Turks in the Shadow of Genocide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 120. ISBN 0199350698. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The book notes:
  Tom Mooradian was a 19-year-old from Detroit and one of the few American-Armenians to migrate. In his memoir The Repatriate, he relates how he quickly realized he had made a mistake and sank into depression. He had renounced his US citizenship and bought a one way ticket. Letters home were censored so as not to spoil the propaganda message. In a coded postcard, Mooradian warned his parents not to come, asking them to encourage Uncle Avak and Auntie Vartouhie (who were both deceased) to repatriate: "Our homeland needs more workers like them. They will fit in with the rest of us who are dying to see them." His family took the hint and did not follow him. Mooradian eventually made himself into a leading Soviet Armenian basketball player and 13 years later found a way back to the United States.
Cunard (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the link above is not only from the start, an interview, but it's literally a set life story about his thoughts of what happened in his life "he warned his parents not to come, asking them to encourage ncle Avak and Auntie Vartouhie (both are deceased)...." Mooradian [became] a basketball player and [back to the United States]". Not only is that blatantly a webhosted web of information about not only some random uncle and aunt, but it's not actually relevant to notability therefore if that's literally the best there is, an interviewed set of quotes and named family, it's not significant or substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- updated my vote to full "delete" as no better sources have been presented than what I was able to find myself, including the passage above. This is one paragraph -- clearly insufficient to build a bio article. The rest of the sources are equally unconvincing. The subject is not notable as an author, and there's nothing besides that. Per WP:WHYN, there is no reason to have an article on the subject.K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly there are hardly any secondary sources with significant coverage about the subject. Per WP:WHYN we create articles if we have enough coverage. Over here, I don't see that (except for that brief mention in that one source). For WP:AUTHOR, the library holdings are not sufficient enough to show that the subject was a significant author. Even if we assume that journalists have less coverage overall, notable journalists will either win some award (WP:CREATIVE) or their works will be quoted in multiple news reports which helps to gauge significance. The newspapers.com references are not useful here as they are the type of routine local coverage which any local athlete will receive - it's not useful for notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:52, 1 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. I also am going to revert a couple of places where mention of this has been crammed into other articles, such as this and this. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fast calculation algorithm for discrete resonance-based band-pass filter[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Only source is the original paper. No evidence found that others have taken any note of this research, hence, no notability. SpinningSpark 16:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is certainly interesting but it has not been implemented anywhere, nor has it influenced others, yet. If the subject becomes notable, it will probably have a shorter name, perhaps discrete resonant band-pass filter or discrete resonant transformation, as suggested in the one source. We don't need to preserve this long name version. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no independent reliable sources or any secondary sources at all. Hence it fails notability criteria, per WP:GNG. I agree, far WP:TOSOON. --Mark viking (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article creator has posted the following message on the article talk page. SpinningSpark 22:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding additional details to make it understandable to non-experts, in few hours. Please do not delete this article too soon. Thank you in advance, Hiiqit

Comment. I'll wait to see a few days if this can pass WP:HEY, but right now it looks like WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the research article was published less than two months ago. Of course it is not going to have lots of cites, and of course WP:GNG is not passed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am the author. I was not aware that additional sources should cite the article in order to be eligible for its own page, so please feel free to remove it (I would do it, but not sure about the correct procedure). I would disclose it shortly within another page that explains the related generic phenomena. Thank you for the involvement and the advices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiiqit (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 October 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kris McCaddon[edit]

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

Subject has been a member of several bands but not a prominent member. Fails WP:GNG and not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article consisting of entries on which recordings the musician performed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - seems to pass NMUSIC #6 (multiple notable bands), but not NMUSIC #1 (actual RS coverage), which is a requirement to have a BLP. Some of what few sources are listed here don't even mention him. Note that you need to search under "Chris McCaddon" as well - there's a bit more under that name, but I'm still not dredging up the RSes. If we can turn up actual RSes about him, that'd tip it over to keep, I think - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as David Gerald says (though contradicts it by voting 'Delete'), he meets WP:NMUSIC #6 having been a member of four notable bands, therefore meets current notability criteria. He's heavily featured in the Deseret news and Alberquerque Journal. Sionk (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC satisfied by being a member of several notable bands, as there is no single redirect target, and McCaddon seems to have gotten some notice on his own. Also, this nomination is the latest in what appears to be a very long WP:HOUND campaign against the edits of Metalworker14 by the nominator. I recommend giving the guy a little space to breathe. Chubbles (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's completely wrong. No one writes about McCaddon in those bands and the music criteria are not stand-alone, they require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That is not met just by being a musician in multiple bands. Ever. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As for hounding, that's not true at all. I have an interest in the same genre as that editor and have multiple articles on my watchlist and when he makes additional poor edits to them, I attempt to correct them for the sake of the project. I don't want to give him space to breathe, I want him to stop treating the project like a blog and stop adding articles about non-notable subjects (like this one). Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the music criteria weren't standalone there would be no point in having WP:NMUSIC. The idea behind it is, if a subject meets one of the criteria, it can be presumed they meet WP:GNG. Though I suppose there will always be exceptions. Considering McFaddon's been a member of four notable bands, two of them before online resources were widely available, it's difficult to believe he wouldn't meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - And that's the mistake you're making. It's not a stand-alone, it expands GNG by giving possible ways that multiple sources may be discoverdd. Without the sources, you still have a non-notable subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have to have at least one source that indicates that it actually meets WP:MUSIC; that's necessary for WP:V. But if meeting GNG were the only ultimate criterion, none of the subject-specific guidelines would exist. Ultimately, if the artist meets WP:MUSIC by some measure other than bullet 1, and this can be verified with an RS (say, a charting hit), that artist is notable even in the absence of a full complement of reviews or news articles. Besides that, for musicians in multiple notable bands, there's a simple, practical reason for not deleting the article; ordinarily, a non-notable member of a notable band would have his/her name redirected to the band. But it would be misleading for this musician to be redirected to only one of the bands he's known for playing in. At the least, a simple, telegraphic entry indicating the multiple noteworthy musical endeavors he has been involved in is sensible. Chubbles (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        But there are no RSes that discuss the subject. Sorry you don't get it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's a biography of a living person. We absolutely need reliable sources that are actually directly about the subject. I see your point, but the RS requirement of BLP is really very strong - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 30 October 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoethics: theory, principles, problems[edit]

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

Non-notable academic book with very small circulation (300 in Russian, 1000 in English). Pichpich (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. The references describe the field and content but do nothing to establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appear to be significant chunks of text lifted directly from other sources (eg. [7] and [8]). The copyright status of the whole text is suspect and it may be a close translation from the Russian monograph itself at [9]. Lithopsian (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably by the author, in all innocence. Still, CSD G12 is probably the right response. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete - articles about monographs usually entail undue synthesis, as this one does too. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unduly massive coverage of a single, apparently not notable source. I'd suggest that a fair bit of the content could be used to expand the sadly stubbish Geoethics article, though.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn book. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional spam/OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 27 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Hall (singer)[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced mostly autobiographical, non notable backing singer and worship leader fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator User:NinjaRobotPirate has found the required references. Would someone else like to close it? Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I worked it over some and added a bunch of sources. I'll admit that I'm not knowledgeable about Christian music or preachers, but there's enough coverage out there that he seems notable, including [10] in This Is My Story: 146 of the World's Greatest Gospel Singers, [11] from The Arizona Republic, and [12] from Billboard (a small blurb, but not everyone's career makes it into Billboard). The awards are generally for his work in music groups, but I think they would count for something. It hasn't been easy to find sources about him specifically (and not the band), but I think a person more familiar with Christian music could probably source it better than me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McWilliams[edit]

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

Not factual and not notable enough for a Wikipedia article TTFTAKM (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it extremely important that Wikipedia is as factual as possible. Kate McWilliams was indeed known as the youngest commercial airline captain ever (and she is indeed a commercial airline captain), however, this was a PR stunt by easyjet and was relayed to the media by the airline and she is, in fact, not the youngest. The media did not do any fact checking and took the airline's word for it. In fact, most of the referenced articles that are used on this Wikipedia page use quotation marks (ie quoting easyJet) so they do not have to do the fact checking. The references to the fact she is not the youngest include other examples of younger captains, both male and female, who are of more note than Kate McWilliams. So therefore, I believe that this article should be deleted for two reasons. 1) it is not factually correct and 2) it is insignificant to have an article written about it.TTFTAKM (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because while the fact that she was once a youngest commercial captain would have made her notable, other sources point to the truth that that was not really the case. Wikipedia is not a news/gossip platform or a forum to discuss such insignificant theories. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if Wikipedia had a place for news, the false reporting would disqualify her in my opinion. Clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the Guiness Book of World Records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to EasyJet, a one-liner would work. Always nice to see more women in STEM fields. SST flyer 10:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite I agree the article is inaccurate but she has had a lot of coverage on her article (8 International news sources) so she more than passes WP:GNG.JohnTombs48 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would point out that it is a false article. Wikipedia should not have false articles on it, neither merged with another article or rewritten. Everyone who makes the news, even briefly (she made the news for a couple of weeks maybe) would have an article then. TTFTAKM (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sure this person has achieved quite a bit in their life to date and there are a number of sources covering this but they are all mostly about the same thing and it hardly seems to be significant coverage (hence WP:BLP1E). No evidence of lasting notability that I can see. Consider if this article were still in existence in ten years time (assuming Wikipedia is too for that matter), will she have continued to received coverage in WP:RS over that period sufficient to allow the biography to be complete and up to date? I'm speculating of cse but unless she was to do *something* else of note in that time (as opposed to just carrying on living a normal life, with normal career and personal achievements etc.) then the answer would very likely be no. Ultimately then, like many people, the subject is probably just a normal person who has briefly come to the attention of a bloated and over-resourced media which reports nearly anything over and over again just to fill space (or local content rules), and that is likely to be all. Anotherclown (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Knots Landing. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Matheson[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. While the series was notable, this character isn't herself notable. Offered references are from a self-published fan site. No literary or cultural analysis, no substantial third-party references available. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a minor fictional character who starred in a number of episodes of a long running TV-series. She does not not pass our guidelines, there are no in-depth discussions or coverage of her except some entries on some fansites. I cant find any RS in the web. Given the fact that she is only a recurring character (although for a larger number of episodes), it is not likely that there is significant coverage offline, and the article also cites nothing in that direction. She completely fails WP:GNG and therefore the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dead Mary's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the TV series. Merge any content if needed. Avoid redlink bait to recreate the article again, preserves history if ever needed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ EmicVee[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO for lack of reliable sources. - Mr X 13:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. All sources are from the same blog which is NOT a WP:RS. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 22 October 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. There is no need to wait for this discussion to run for a week, for the following reasons. (1) It qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G5, as it was created by a block-evading sockpuppet or meatpuppet: it doesn't matter which. (2) It qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). While the article is not identical to the deleted one, the only substantial difference is in the references, and since they are largely fakes (as explained below by SmartSE & Brianhe) they can be disregarded. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasha Mann[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No change from the previous AFD - still fails WP:NMUSIC. While there appears to be an impressive bunch of references, closer inspection reveals that they are not reliable. Six have impressive sounding names like RS "The Times of Texas" etc. but they are clearly not reliable and having looked them up on https://who.is/ are all operated by the same organisation. I'll surmise that they were created purely for use here, something that I've seen before. SmartSE (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT delete: the burden on the volunteer editors to weed through the reference falsification is too great. As documented at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Multiple fake newspaper websites, at least six references appear to be created by the same group for advertising purposes. Brianhe (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 22 October 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 SNOW and Speedy Keep considering the future is noticeable in that a Keep will happen, and considering the article's massive information and sources, it's not something that is emulated in the deletion statement (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Netball and the Olympic Movement[edit]

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

Netball is not an Olympic sport so the title is a bit misleading. All of the information is found on other articles. Therefore its unnecessary to have this article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: There are a large number of sources documenting the process of netball's efforts to be included in the Olympic Games. Title was consensus given that the sport is an Olympic recognized one but is not on the Olympic program. Title is not misleading as article explicitly discusses the intersection. If the article title is viewed as misleading by nominator, the correct action is an RFC on the name: It isn't nominating the article for deletion. The information is not found in other articles about netball, and the nominator has not substantiated this claim in their nomination by citing the articles that makes this article a complete duplicate. --LauraHale (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks as if none of the claims in the nomination are correct and even if they were true they would not be reasons for deletion. Thincat (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(snowy), and trout the nominator, this is a good article (since 2011) with numerous references, looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough independent references on this exact topic to prove notability. I also support routing the nominator, for not checking anything before nominating. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allurez Jewelry[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Cited sources mention Allurez in passing, or are listings of the company in fastest-growing lists, etc., but no evidence of any real, significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Nothing notable about this one! References are written for promotions alone. Light2021 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as blatant advertising information by what only the company would advertise itself, and the advertising-only account also emphasizes this alone; there's nothing at all to sensibly suggest an otherwise better article, literally. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 25 October 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. Per Bearian's suggestion. No prejudice for speedy re-nomination. Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TEDxSanta Cruz[edit]

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

These events, and many other spinoffs of the TED (conference), are not notable per WP:EVENTCRIT guidelines, and as one of many independently organized TEDx events (over 1,500!) worldwide, none may warrant even a brief mention at the TED (conference) article. Coverage in local press indicates existence, but not necessarily notability. Other relevant guidelines include WP:BRANCH, where local chapters/units of national or large organizations generally do not warrant separate articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating these other TEDx events for the same reason, and to keep Wikipedia from becoming a conference directory:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not totally against this. I would note that within the 1,500 events there are larger TEDx events that are actually very notable in their communities. There are maybe a couple of dozen city TEDx events that have over 1,000 attendees annually and regularly have online videos with hundreds of thousands of views. These events are full productions with full-time staff and large annual budgets. I think it unfair to lump all of these events in together. Some smaller events are not notable but the larger ones are much more notable than many events that have Wikipedia pages. TED has Level 2 events as a starting point but even that bar may not be stringent enough.ShakyIsles (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After examining the infobox and content as well as the detailed writing style which informs the article, I feel that this entry (along with its 11 inline cites and 1 entry under "External links") provides well-presented information on a known and familiar topic that is of benefit to Wikipedia users. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Looks promotional. Each individual event fails SIGCOV, only one mention in mainstream media (the NYT citation, copy/pasted to each individual article, and which does not mention Auckland) and that only establishes existence, not notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Perhaps redirect to forestall recreation - David Gerard (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Merge what is salvagable to main TED article. Subconferences seem to fail GNG. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all articles of this type into a List of TEDx conferences. I think there's notability for a group, but for individual events generally do not have enough reliable sourcing. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Start the article and I'll support this :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Merge and delete" isn't possible. I guess that if somebody starts working on the proposed list it's likely going to be a "merge" outcome, otherwise probably "delete". Sandstein 12:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TED_(conference)#TEDx. If any of these location-specific spinoff events garners significant non-local coverage (for example, a conference that achieved national recognition in some way), then they of course can individually be notable. But per nom's argument, these look to be largely local. I don't believe in mass deleting them, however, as each one should be treated individually. For any of questionable notability, I recommend merging to the TEDx section and moving the information there, and also WP:SPLIT to a separate but linked list if three or four need a place. Yvarta (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since individually those events fail NEVENT/COMPANY. User:Piotrus under --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still stand by my "merge" blanket conclusion earlier, but I have some time now to see if any of the events might pass general notability, so will provide individual votes for each below (ongoing for a few minutes): Yvarta (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- TEDxSanta Cruz - Merge to List_of_TEDx_conferences#Santa Cruz. The page is well-developed, so I was disappointed to find very little coverage that wasn't local, although there is some very nice reputable coverage from the area. I would change my vote, if more press were uncovered. Minor coverage here, local here: [13], [14]. I am not sure about the reputation of this publication, but it is significant: [15]. Yvarta (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Note: latter publication is local (Good Times (newspaper)). Yvarta (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- TEDxAuckland - ~~Merge~~ to List_of_TEDx_conferences#TEDxAuckland. I did find significant coverage in national publication the New Zealand Herald [16] in 2015, and minor coverage [17] in same publication. Other articles I thought I found turned out to be press releases at Scoop.com [18]. If two or three more quality sources are found, I would change my vote to a strong keep. Yvarta (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (mind change) - it is unfortunately all one publication, but going through the NZ Herald's archives, I did find a number of news stories: [19], [20], [21], and minor coverage here. These are in the Aucklander, which I consider to be a local version, and therefore less helpful: [22], [23], Yvarta (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- TEDxBermuda - Keep (barely barely) per these articles: [24] (Royal Gazette), [25] (The Bermudian), and this source that reads a bit more like a press release: [26].
- TEDxYouth@Doha - Unsure, leaning keep. I regret I am woefully unfamiliar with Qatar's press, and so am not entirely sure these sources are helpful. Some are based on press releases (an inference based on the same content appearing in multiple articles): 1 and 2, although the latter publication appears at first glance to be "reputable" (again, I regret I have no knowledge of major newspapers in Qatar, so I may be mistaken). This source [27] in "Qatar is Booming" seems to be an original (non-press release) article, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. Yvarta (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Back: great coverage of an initiative by the conference [28] here in The National, a UAE publication. A briefer mention of the same initiative [29], in Justthere.qa. Brief government coverage doesn't help with notability, but does show it receives national attention, I suppose. Brief coverage of initiative in Doha News, very reputable-looking significant coverage in iloveqatar.net (with Gulf Times mentioned at bottom of article, as publisher?). Minor reputable mention in The Edge, and what seems to be a reputable article hosted inexplicably on a blogspot domain. Perhaps that is normal in Qatar? I don't know. Final conclusion: still undecided, still leaning towards keep. In my search, I scanned the URLs (and some content) of 120 google hits with "TEDxYouth@Doha" used as the exact search phrase. Yvarta (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- TEDxMcGill - Merge to List_of_TEDx_conferences#TEDxMcGill. I scanned all 150 hits google provided, and saw no significant coverage beyond university publications. I was hoping to find coverage in Globe and Mail or something more local even, but no luck. Yvarta (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- TEDxWarsaw - Unsure how to vote. There appears to be some nice press in Polish, but I am too unfamiliar with the publications in that country to easily judge their usefulness. Yvarta (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as "no consensus" per WP:TRAINWRECK. Renominate individually. SST flyer 10:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead as an actual solution, sufficient for removing this article. SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close and start over. The Santa Cruz one appears to be notable; not so sure about the others. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slowth[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEO. Got deleted via PROD 5 years ago as "subject is a neologism coined by author". It appears to be the exact same article as before, and I see no evidence that it has caught on since then. Kolbasz (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my searches show that this is a neologism that failed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charla Fischer[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 12:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale given by nominator. There also seems to be a promotional element here(though not to the degree to warrant a speedy deletion) in that this person mentions their expertise in their field and other experience, information helpful in finding potential patients. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in indepedent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no demonstration of notability, and the youtube link is promotional. -Roxy the dog™ bark 00:33, 21 October 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) GSS (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1922 Washington State Cougars football team[edit]

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

Bot blanked it, please delete it. Eric S.V. (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not blank anymore. Not a good reason to delete anyway. Notable subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has now been started. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Washington State is a top level collegiate football program (NCAA Division I FBS) with sufficient coverage so that each of its seasons has sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Moreover, the 1922 team played in the Pacific Coast Conference which was the highest level of football played in the Western United States in that era (pro football did not come to the West until the 1940s). Further, the article now has sufficient substance and sourcing for a basic stub level article. The article needs further expansion and improvement but should absolutely not be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep into a larger list in List of Washington State Cougars football seasons. I can't remember where else I saw this but this was the way some other football team had old seasons listed. This page will always remain a stub, so there's no reason to keep it as a standalone article. The information listed on the page may have literally been the only data recorded from this season. College football was not as popular as it is today until the middle of the 20th century, and Wash St. is one of the more obscure DI FBS schools.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Will always remain a stub". Not necessarily. If someone did some research, they could probably make this into a decent sized article, enough to warrant it as a stand-a-lone. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment by @Prisencolin: is wrong on multiple counts. First, college football was the second most popular sport in the USA in 1922, trailing only Major League Baseball (pro basketball didn't exist, and pro football was in its infancy), and received extensive press coverage. Second, Washington State is far from "obscure"; it is a Power Five conferences program. Third, there was plenty of media coverage of the team. A search of Newspapers.com finds 1,619 articles on the Washington State football program in 1922. E.g., this re Game 4 and this re coaching change. Fourth, the general protocol for NCAA FBS teams is to allow season articles, not to limit coverage to a bare bones list of seasons. Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about its relative popularity in mainstream society, I don't doubt that football's been one of, if not the most popular spectator sport in America in the history of modern sports. I was unable to find any more information about the team, not even rosters or box scores, which suggests that it would beyond desire levels of WP:DETAIL. I don't have access to any sort of newspaper database, but even if there a lot of coverage some of it might either A) just impart the same information like on this page or B) not meet requirements for an WP:RS.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:RTFS first and then comment. --Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also this re Game 7, this re Game 5, this re Game 3, this re Game 2, this re Game 1, this re preseason training table, all of which satisfy WP:RS. Cbl62 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you have me convinced, changing vote to keep. It's just that these articles seem rather hard to come by, but they do exist. Now the question is whether anyone is able to insert references into the scores of unsourced sports season pages out there.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak for other sports, but college football season sourcing seems to only be limited by the project's capacity to volunteer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only is it standard to keep season articles for current NCAA Division I FBS teams going back to the origin of the team, each season normally more than surpasses the general notability guideline easily. Add to that the head coach for the season was Gus Welch, who was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. Plus, Washington State football goes back to 1894 and its membership in the Pacific Coast Conference started in 1917 (which they christened with a conference championship), confirming it was a top-level program even at the time. Oh, and they won the 1916 Rose Bowl to cap off an undefeated season of 7-0. This is most certainly not an "obscure" program. This is a clearly an article that needs to be built up, not deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62 and Paulmcdonald, obvious notability as an NCAA D-I FBS team historical season. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly notable per all above, and an invalid reason was specified anyway. Can we just close this now? Smartyllama (talk) 12:50, 26 October 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Symantec Endpoint Protection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating this for deletion on behalf of User:WikiGopi per request on my talk page. This is an administrative action only, I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur, this product defined the AV standard for many years and in some fields still does. I worked in the industry from many years myself and I found this article to be quite useful in keeping track of the latest releases, since their website often changes and is no good in keeping track of past released versions and dates. I wish the features section of this article could be more detailed and how the product evolved over the years, e.g. being the first that introduced cloud based services if I remember correctly. This article had been flagged being written like an advertisement - which I think it currently is NOT - I myself was afraid adding more detailed information in the features section would put it over the edge. I think this flag should be removed not detaining interested people from adding more in-depth information upon their field of expertise. Again, I hope article will be kept and improved in the future.
Keep. This product is/was for many years THE standard corporate PC antivirus software. As such it has at least tens of millions of users, and a great deal of review and criticism in industry-specific reliable sources. It is definitely notable. It isn't any good, but it it's definitely notable. Thparkth (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - once notable, always thus. Still used by some people. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would vote keep, but the article is indeed bad (too heavy reliance on primary sources). Plenty of reliable sources... outside the article. Pavlor (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was rubbish but very widely-used rubbish. A little sourcing improvement needed, but no reason to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I would vote delete, the article contains sources that totally link to their own domains, No proper sources available for citation. Recently i have requested to remove McAfee Endpoint protection, which is also the product that intend to promote product through wiki. The following article is removed under the same circumstances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAfee_Endpoint_Protection. I strongly recommend to delte the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aicte.david (talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aicte.david: To be fair, there are well refrenced parts (well, one section: Security Concerns and Controversies). In some cases even primary sources are useable (eg. for exact release informations of various versions). However, features, reception etc. should be referenced by RS. Pavlor (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: I was already requested this page for deletion few days ago & it is reverted without update, personally i use to search & update citations for article. simply, i don't usually update comment for deletion without proper research. Through my analysis i don't even find good citation resources for the version they keep adding it here. The article itself shows that it clearly intend to promote product. I really don't know the reason why people still asking to keep this article.

@Aicte.david: There are rules for deletion of articles, you did some mistake when nominating, so your edit was reverted and this article was nominated for deletion by another user. Articles are kept, if their subject is notable. Notability can be proven by reliable sources. As I wrote above, there are many reliable sources about this product, but not in the article itself. Promotional language in Wikipedia articles certainly is a problem, but this can be solved by rewording/deleting most offensive parts. Speaking about rules... you should sign your posts (eg. reply to notification will not work without signature, I think). Pavlor (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: Do you know the reason why it is nominated for deletion few years ago? Only Symantec promoter & product lovers are asked to keep this article & few people who comment to keep the article on that day are no longer in wiki now. Just they comment and vanish while the article request for deletion. I know the article won't get deleted from here, since it is been protected by Symantec lovers. However, as a wiki spam cleaner im engaging here to share my view/point. Simply, i am not going to gain anything out of it. (Aicte.david (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)).[reply]

@Aicte.david: Please, don´t label other users. Everybody has own idea what belongs to Wikipedia (although we all cite the same policies...). You yourself can improve this article. Eg. use its talkpage, mention your concerns and propose solution (remove parts with weak sources). If you gain consensus for you intentions, use mop and clean the article. Pavlor (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Venusian[edit]

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

No significant media coverage regarding either the project or the director, kickstarter has only raised $154 so far. lovkal (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. I can't find any independent coverage whatsoever. Kolbasz (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project has just started, media coverage and crowdfunding deserve patience. Go to http://eliad.ch/press/ for significant media coverage regarding the director. --Venusian-film-project (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

undo: Give it a try. If the campaign fails and ends without any media coverage, deletion as non-notable will be fine.--Venusian-film-project (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. a) The film has to become WP:NOTABLE first. b) WP:NOTPROMOTION. MarnetteD|Talk 21:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo stuff without sources to support NFILM. Lourdes 10:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Ehrlich[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Majority of references are works by author. Lack in-depth support for individual. reddogsix (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Coverage I find is all writings "by" the subject, not writings "about" the subject. Nothing in-depth that would support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass notability as either an academic or a government official.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - :This is false. Lots of independent coverage. For example, in English:

1. BBC Newshour interview about personal history/work in Russia: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p046ghw4

2. Coverage by Keith Morrison on NBC News: https://twitter.com/ClintEhrlich/status/775053414757728256

3. Critical profile by Hayes Brown, BuzzFeed News World Editor: https://www.buzzfeed.com/hayesbrown/magazine-defends-pro-kremlin-piece

4. Article by Steve Sailer in Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/isteve/justice-young-lawyers-pro-bono-work-frees-man-wrongfully-convicted-of-murder/

5. Interview on Sputnik Radio: https://sputniknews.com/radio_loud_and_clear/201609191045394755-us-media-targets-russia/

Also LOTS of secondary-source foreign-language coverage:

https://ria.ru/world/20160908/1476403033.html

https://novocrimea.ru/crimea/578875.html

https://www.ridus.ru/news/231214.html

http://rueconomics.ru/195098-antirossiiskii-kurs-nuzhen-klinton-kak-trampu-pensne

Academic and gov official are *alternate* tests to the General Notability Guideline. If GNG is satisfied, they don't matter. GNG is satisfied here because there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. 83.220.239.4 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)— 83.220.239.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this article. This is a good page to maintain because the controversy of Russia threats in the 2016 Election has been covered by reputable sources like Foreign Policy and BBC Radio (three times) 2600:1012:B064:323C:A1B1:78F3:5B78:7C4 (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC).— 2600:1012:B064:323C:A1B1:78F3:5B78:7C4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Lacks non-trivial WP:SECONDARY sources. reddogsix (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this article. This is a good article about an important individual who has been published in several reputable sources, including Foreign Policy. This individual has also been interviewed by international media outlets, including the BBC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.131.19 (talk • contribs) — 199.190.131.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Lacks non-trivial WP:SECONDARY sources. reddogsix (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Dozens of reliable independent sources on subject. Some are huge outlets, like BBC. Not just trivial mentions. Was lead story on Newshour, plus two unfriendly bio pieces by journalists, etc. Many many international stories reacting to Ehrlich's writing about Hillary and Trump. Prior commenters are confused about what a secondary source is. The Foreign Policy op-ed by Ehrlich = primary source. The newspapers that then published articles about Ehrlich's views = secondary sources. There are lots of them. Clearly very notable 93.159.238.248 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)— 93.159.238.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Lacks non-trivial WP:SECONDARY sources. reddogsix (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close this Afd. I've tried my best to search for sources. Have to agree with the nom. A majority of sources are only the subject's reportage. The Afd can be closed now, discounting the spammy !votes above. Lourdes 10:56, 28 October 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. There are good arguments made on both sides for the type of article that is often quite difficult to deal with; for this reason I cannot find a consensus to delete even though numerically there are slightly more comments for that outcome. Black Kite (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Movebubble[edit]

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

There are several concerns here such as 1 is that this was clearly a paid article considering the history which only contained 2 SPAs in the entire history, and then the entire article simply focused with what there is to advertise about the company, the listed sources are still in fact trivial and unconvincing, since they also simply consist of the company's own information, such as the ThisisMoney which contains company-supplied information, from start to finish, from A to Z, since a large amount of, first of all, is interviewed information and then the other part is simply what the company business wants to say, such as what the company's own suggestions are about business; now, we could say the company was "featured", "honored", etc. having their information included, but this in fact can also suggest churnalism and-or paid PR, and then the other links I had found in my own searches, such as the TechCrunch, which is PR from start to finish since it largely only focuses with what the company would say about, and it's clear from the article style, since it's not something a journalist or news source would actually publish since it's so flashy.

Now, I'll note that I executed several searches before this, and I once again searched multiple times, at BBC, The Guardian, Forbes and WallStreetJournal but I only ever found articles, 1 at TheGuardian and then another at Forbes, but all of them are clearly trivial and PR, especially the Forbes one since it lists it was submitted by a "special contributor", which essentially actually means someone who was not part of the Forbes staff and this is because it was actually a freelance journalist, meaning it was a honeypot area for paid PR and that's expected since the entire article is paid PR, focusing again only with what the company would said itself, and what's worse is that the company itself is only ever actually mentioned once, that's not substantial and it's sure as hell not convincing. I'll also note this was speedy deleted twice before including as advertising, so that's certainly something that should've been kept to mind when accepting at AfC, and it's something that should especially kept to mind if it's noticeable of having PR campaign intentions.

Now, although The Telegraph article has the claim that they're the first peer-to-peer marketplace, this is still quite outweighed given the concerns I have listed here, therefore it still seems too soon; it's also happened before here at AfD that an article has a significant claim but, if it's still advertising and PR, that is not a compromisable situatiation, and we would essentially be succumbing to accepting said advertising and PR. I'll note this was actually speedy deleted twice before, SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. Of note is that the Forbes, The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal sources mentioned in the nomination are not in the article at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Andrew, Amy (February 19, 2015). "Start-ups easyProperty and Movebubble take on letting agents". This is Money. Retrieved October 4, 2016.
Cave, Andrew (January 4, 2014). "UK web duo take on rental agencies". The Telegraph. Retrieved October 4, 2016.
Crook, Jordan (December 7, 2015). "Movebubble Makes Renting Suck Less". TechCrunch. Retrieved October 4, 2016.
Allen, Kate. "Property portals hand control to homeowners", The Financial Times, 22 August 2014.
Tidey, Alice (August 28, 2014). "Renting? These companies are disrupting the sector". CNBC. Retrieved October 4, 2016.
"Packed with cash", The Sunday Times, London, 1 June 2014

Your comment appears to refer to another list than the one there - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - brochurelike, badly sourced and I find the article sources, Northamerica1000's proffered linkdump and the results of a basic BEFORE utterly unconvincing - David Gerard (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My commentary is about this company and mobile app. I provided sources that provide coverage about the company for Wikipedia's users to consider. It is not a "linkdump". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per the source examples I provided (in the box) above as examples. More sources are available in online searches. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Northamerica1000. Additional sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Edited the article to make it sound less promotional. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All of those sources still fit with exactly what I said above, it only focuses with triviality which includes listing what the own company says, and none of that substantial. One of the links listed then actually says "To make moving home easy!" and another "to make hone viewing easy from the desk!" (all contents still never go apart from company-supplied information and PR, making it non-independent and unconvincing) which is clear PR, it's helps to actually see what the concerns are of listed links like the ones above before actually staying that they establish notability, because they are certainly not.

As it is, I have explicitly explained this article was solely started as a PR campaign and that is enough said there, especially then contributing to the fact all supplied sources were only ever PR, and that certainly is not surprising considering that's exactly the company's activities and what's being ponied as "news" sources above, therefore Copy-editing advertising is not meaningful if it's basically adding cosmetics to an unimproved article. Once we ridiculously started accepting such advertisements for such trivialness of "having sources" is when we're completely damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 08:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the sources are basically trivial-(most of them describes the company in the words of the company!!) and advertorial in nature ,used to improve PR.Wikipedia is not a place to house advertisements and such trivial matters even if they appear in reliable sources!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 06:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the list of sources already discussed in the previous !keep votes. Review of those lists show notability via significant coverage in reliable sources. Article is a keeper. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What was talked about was the analysis of why the sources are in fact unacceptable, given the specific analysis above. It is not the same thing to simply state "It's keepable" without actually giving one's own thoughts and examples, including the concerns. SwisterTwister talk 15:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical "corporate spam" on a minor private company. No indications of notability or significance and the sources listed above are not convincing. If kept, the article would need to be reduced to a couple of sentences, as the content is mostly fluff and / or trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- article created by an account with no other contributions (Special:Contributions/Rosedrjlg), so paid editing is highly likely. See WP:BOGOF; let's not encourage the spammers by keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we should judge current state of that article, not its origins. Taking your proposal as rule, we should delete nearly all articles about companies. As of this article in question, I will wait for more comments before my own judgement (but I´m close to keep now). Pavlor (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having most company articles start as spam is not a reason to encourage spam, that's a frankly boggling statement. It's a highly relevant factor at AFD in my experience - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. essentially per K.e.coffman ; his suggestion is exactly right--we should delete all articles on companies or anything else written by promotional editors. It would undoubtedly narrow down our coverage perhaps more than it should, but the entire principle of WP is that it is written by volunteers without a COI. The major companies, like the major people in many lines of work, will be written by volunteers. The otherscan rely on the web for their publicity. Assisting those who want to do promotion is corrupting the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional tone can often be addressed by simply copy editing articles, rather than deleting them in entirety. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:SwisterTwister, can you please use paragraphs? Your walls of text give me a headache... Sandstein 11:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IAR and WP:NOTPROMO. It is pretty obvious that the article was written with the intent to promote the company. A visibility on a site like Wikipedia helps companies a lot. In addition this takes advantage of Wikipedia's general reputation for reliability. We cannot encourage such behaviour. "Keeping" articles like these encourages a greater tide of badly written promotional articles, which then have to be fixed by volunteer editors. This WP:BOGOF editing is bad for the encyclopaedia and should not be encouraged. Regardless of sources (which are pretty weak btw), I say to IAR and delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The stubified article is now eligible for Speedy deletion as A7. So a delete per WP:DEL1 as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the article content for now. It is typically poor form to strip down an article and its sources to the point of qualifying it for A7 deletion, particularly while it is being discussed at AfD. Also, regarding the latter, some users base notability assessments upon the state of sources within an article, rather than the overall availability of sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on that. Thanks for pointing out this issue. I'm alright with your reverting my edits, which anyway weren't intended to push the article towards A7. Thanks. Lourdes 15:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually one of the problems with poorly written promotional content. Strip it down, it become A7 eligible. Keep the promotional content during the AFD and it is promotional content eligible for WP:NOTPROMO. Just to clarify Lourdes, there is nothing "poor form" in removing promotional unsourced content. It is a much better thing to do rather than add back unsourced promotional content which is pretty much against our content policies. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:IAR doesn't perhaps apply. (Of course, NOTPROMO is appropriate). If the issue is that there are reliable sources available confirming the notability of the corporation but the current state of the article is promotional in nature (and in all probability written by PR personnel), then why don't we stubify the article to a line or two and nuke the rest? (and David Gerard, the linkdump usage is hylarius; I am going to use it on someone) Lourdes 10:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I provided sources that provide coverage about the company for Wikipedia's users to consider. It was not a "link dump", which comes across as assumptive that the content of the sources were not considered. I don't find this humorous at all; rather, it comes across as potential bad faith toward good faith contributors. Source content was entirely considered prior to my post. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that NA. I saw the word and liked it, because I want to paste it on the face of another specific editor soon enough (of course, never intended for you) :) Just chill and take it jovially. You do outstanding work all around and especially here at Afd, which even David knows. Lourdes 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to reconsider "using" this type of statement toward users on Wikipedia; I certainly would not consider it. It only promotes bad faith. I'm just chilling, so it's up to you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh he won't mind it. He's a good friend and I'm going to use it only in humor with him. Convivial is the tenor of the month :) Come on NA, you're the last editor here I would be debating with. Lourdes 11:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it's okay. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The removal of sources from this article[30] by User:Lemongirl942 was in extremely poor form, and calls into question the validity of this AFD. If such actions are repeated here, or in other AFD discussions, then administrator intervention is highly suggested. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had replied to this on my talk but didn't notice it was pasted here as well. I do not see why removing a bunch of links is "extremely poor form, and calls into question the validity of this AFD" and neither do I get the reasoning behind "If such actions are repeated here, or in other AFD discussions, then administrator intervention is highly suggested". I removed the sources because Wikipedia is not a link farm. My very next edit was to move the links to the talk page. Whoever wants to improve it could still find those on the talk page. AfD or not, it doesn't give an excuse to dump a bunch of links on the article. If they can be inserted as refs, do that. Otherwise put them on the talk page and let someone else incorporate it. I find it a lot more weird that unsourced promo stuff is added back to the article with rationales like Sorry, but in the process you qualified the article for WP:A7 deletion, as a user noted at the AfD discussion, and is a proponent of. A new editor is probably gonna learn from it and repeat stuff like this. Just a couple of days ago I had a hard time trying to convince a new user User:Xboxmanwar that citations are necessary. It is stuff like this that encourages newer editors to think that it is OK to add back promo content or let re-add unsourced stuff. They could simply point to edits like these (made by experienced users who are "supposed to lead by example") and justify their behaviour. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942, calm down and carry on. You are ordinarily absolutely composed and despite your relatively fresh tenure at Wikipedia, are quite a good example at Afd discussions. I find your response here angry and unnecessary. What 1Wiki... has mentioned is a non-starter. There's no admin action required or called for; your edits are absolutely competent and with diligence. At the same time, in your anger, I suspect you are throwing off missiles at other editors who also are attempting a good faith contribution to the article. There's no need for that. Both NA and you are great at what you're doing. I might not agree with your massive deletionist tendency at Afds (in the sense that I have yet to find a keep !vote from you), but that is your editorial choice and nothing for anyone to complain about. Like I said, calm down and carry on. Comments like 1Wiki's don't require response. Lourdes 12:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE: non-notable start-up that in RS has received passing mention only, except in the subject's own literature. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) and 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk · contribs). Movebubble has received significant coverage in This is Money, The Telegraph, TechCrunch, CNBC, and The Sunday Times.
The coverage spans nearly two years (January 4, 2014 to December 7, 2015), so Movebubble has received persistent coverage. Movebubble has received significant coverage in national sources in the United Kingdom (This is Money, The Telegraph, and The Sunday Times) and in the United States (CNBC and TechCrunch), demonstrating it has received international coverage.
Here is the current version of the article:
Movebubble is a company and property rental mobile app that helps renters find a property.[1][2] The start-up company was founded in 2014 by Aidan Rushby,[3] Tony Edwards, and Logan Hall with headquarters based in London, England. The company is privately owned.[4] Movebubble was created as a result of the founders' negative experiences with renting a property.[5]
The app enables renters to view property, book viewings, and give feedback on property viewings they've attended.[6] The app uses data from its users to suggest areas and properties to renters, and includes an analysis of property relevance relative to what users are seeking.[7]
History
After meeting in 2010 whilst doing an MBA at the University of the West of England, Aidan Rushby, Tony Edwards and Logan Hall formed the concept for Movebubble.[8]
Funding
In 2016, the company raised a $1.6 million funding round, with total investment of $3.4 million. Investors include Adam Williams (former Spotify MD), Richard Leigh (co-founder and MD of London and Capital), and Robert Stiff.[9]
This is neutrally written. It does not violate WP:NOTADVERTISING, so deletion per WP:IAR would not "preven[t] [editors] from from improving or maintaining Wikipedia".
Cunard (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is a blatant advertisment as the Delete comments have established above and the information listed above is simply emphasizing in the blatancy of literally going to specifics about what the company not only knows, but wants to advertise about itself, which is the amount of money it holds for its clients and investors, how it can be serviced and used, where to contact them of their locations and other company information. None of that establishes convincing for notability or substance, because it's only suitable for their own website, which is exactly what the current article is. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: "improving the article through copy editing: This does not work when the entity is non-notable. The content is essentially fluff and / or about company's aspirations and funding. If such content is removed, there would be nothing there, and wikipedia is not a catalog of unremarkable tech companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article (as recently re-written) meets WP:N and isn't overly promotional (or really promotional at all). Hobit (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of it establishes any actual notability either literally considering it's only now focusing with the general information to advertise about the company and its funding, followed by sources literally republishing the company's own words about its said funding, business plans and other such information; none of that establishes notability, especially not when such blatant sources listed have been and still are notorious for republishing PR. This can be emphasized by the sheer and literal fact every single source listed is only actually focusing with said funding and business plans, therefore that's not independent and thus it's also not convincing. WP:N be damned if it means Wikipedia will not accept an advertisement, along with considerations of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- repeat after me: "sources are notability in the context of Wikipedia". That was pretty much the grand compromise. Otherwise we're just in "IDONTLIKEIT vs ILIKEIT". The company has reasonable coverage that meets WP:N. We aren't here to judge the media or judge what people write about. Rather we are here to build an encyclopedia. We can write a reasonable (if short) article about this company based on reliable sources. So we should. Or at least we shouldn't complain when others do that work. Hobit (talk) 15:12, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RNF Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP - zero coverage in RS as far as I can tell. SmartSE (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article sourced mainly to alumni association coverage rather than specifically reliable 3rd party coverage of this firm itself. Nor are my searches finding anything better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even a single reliable source for this entity which covers it in some details. Fails WP:NCORP. Anup [Talk] 08:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- corporate spam on an unremarkable tech company. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as the sheer blatancy of self-reviewing accepting one's own Draft when it was clear advertising emphasizes the concerns, and the article itself actually has no significant claims aside from what someone may mistake as being such, but it's still not actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 25 October 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. Sandstein 10:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Canton United Methodist Church[edit]

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

Seems completely normal and un-noteworthy. tahc ^chat 23:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let's be polite here. This is an article created by a new editor, who edited a few times in 2014 and 2015 but has less than 50 edits. I note a couple process problems about Wikipedia welcoming this editor, namely that the editor has not been welcomed, and they have not been notified of this AFD. It is horrid, IMO, for editors to receive their first real interactions with other editors with the nomination for deletion of their first article. Most editors who are going to read this are among the lucky ones who randomly got a good experience when they started, while most arrivals get a bad experience or two or three and then don't come back.

About the article, it is a church founded in 1871 which is relatively old, for the United States, and there are lots of other articles on historical yet newer U.S. churches, so it is quite reasonable for an editor to think it would be notable. I hope editors participating can make a real effort to find on-line and off-line sources to help out here.

And, I would seriously like to ask that no one votes "Delete". If it is necessaary to be negative about this as a standalone Wikipedia article, please advocate merger and redirect instead. Possible merger targets would be the community where the church is located, and List of Methodist churches in the United States. --do ncr am 00:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
- The church's "mother church" mentioned on its webpage is Washington Hill United Methodist Church, which appears clearly wikipedia-notable by its historic brick church and its 1834 founding and more ready information available about it. Start with Washington Hill's website. So a good possibility is to have one article about Washington Hill with a section on North Canton as a redirect target.
- There's some chance the church could be included in a state or local historic district. It is not very likely by its location, but it is possible it is within the National Register-listed Canton Center Historic District which runs along Route 179, and North Canton is part of Canton. The NRHP document with its detail is not available right now as the NRHP website is down, I think. Is any other National historic district listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut a possibility? --do ncr am 01:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- With the greatest respect to the last contribution, I fear that this is merely a NN local church. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:INSIGNIFICANCE. What is your argument that there are no redirect targets? Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Locally notable, historically significant church. I've just added a little to the article. This church is no less significant than hundreds of equally or less notable churches that have articles merely because they're listed on a register. WP needs more articles like this, not fewer. Station1 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Li Nan (internet entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Fails BIO & WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable VP Sales & Marketing; significant RS coverage cannot be found. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a resume.

The article appears to be part of a walled garden around Meizu and various models of its smartphones developed by Special:Contributions/Ut_tbkbob who does not have contributions outside of this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear example and item of a PR advertising campaign, from considering the listed information and completely unconvincing "sources" to the fact the account is in fact also a PR-initiated account, there's of course absolutely no inherited notability either and there's literally nothing else here. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article text and sources indicate a man with a job. Biographical notability is not inherited from an employer or a role in product announcements. AllyD (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: I am not affiliated with Meizu, however Chinese smartphone manufacturers are my area of expertise and Meizu was clearly underrepresented on the English Wikipedia (especially in comparison to Baidu Baike). Li Nan is *the* public representative of Meizu and proactively engages in discussions about rumors (e.g. alleged iPhone 7 leak in March 2016) and products - specifically on Chinese social media (Weibo). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ut tbkbob (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close this Afd. The subject is non-notable. With statements like "Under his leadership...", "Li Nan has over 890,000 followers..." used within the article, I can only imagine how this article has been written. Lourdes 10:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Digital subscriber line access multiplexer. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copper access node[edit]

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

Unremarkable topic. The term "copper access node" does not appear once in google books results or in google news results leading me to believe that it is a very very niche technical term, or is something that was completely made up by the author. The only reference in the article does not include the term at all. No indication whatsoever of notability Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DSLAM. Copper access node is a term which nobody uses. Seems to be some kind of OR to make an equivalent to "fibre access node". Its basically a made up term which is technically not incorrect but simply not used in RS (or by almost anybody at all). As result the article hasn't any content at all and there are zero RS which use this term out there. The correct term used to describe this concept is Digital subscriber line access multiplexer as the article itself says so. Therefore the article should be redirected to the correct article. Dead Mary (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Fair enough for me. --46.1.232.234 (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DSLAM - there are mentions around, for instance here or there, so the term exists. Now, it seems to be the same as DSLAM although I would not bet on that based on what I have read. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Manh Cuong[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:MUSICBIO. Writing a lot of songs and being a semi-finalist in a song writing competition, while significant personal achievements are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Jbh ^Talk 09:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 09:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 09:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 09:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 09:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I had the same concerns myself. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Teeny weeny keep with one seeming reference here at [31]. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not only still nothing actually convincing as a substance article, but there's questionability about this overall where speedy would nearly apply. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayo the Producer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to find any reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable producer. KEYZBABY should also be probably looked at. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable producer without substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a handful of sources available on the subject, but all with minimal mentions. Lourdes 10:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mays Domat[edit]

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

This is not quite a speedy, because the article does makea claim that might establish notability. However, I could not find any sources to support it. agtx 17:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being "among the first" to do something does not make you notable if the thing itself is not notable, and her work is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTRESUME. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it simply fails WP:GNG (unfixable article). Anup [Talk] 03:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above comments. Lourdes 10:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteering Solutions (VolSol)[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP specifically WP:CORPDEPTH:

"Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

Subject lacks significant coverage and additional reliable sources for verification could not be found - therefore delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence of notability (i.e. no in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy). Citobun (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article which makes no particular claim to encyclopaedic notability, just describing the firm's business. I found one additional reference, in a Marie Claire article (not especially positive), but neither that nor the existing given references are indicating more than a firm going about its business. Not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is in fact A7 material, let alone nothing beyond actual substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Sadowsky[edit]

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

Delete. Biography, based entirely on directory sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a person whose only claim of notability is as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia if the sourcing is this weak. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he had been a member of a major party Sadowsky would not be notable, as a member of the socialist party he clearly is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr. Sadowsky does not have automatic notability under WP:POLITICIANS and I see nothing currently that would reach the general notability standards. Dolotta (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He seems even less notable than the same-named inventor of a skating accessory whose sources came up in my search. Lourdes 10:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and all of the above. We have never kept such a sketchy stub. It is sourced merely with directories (albeit somewhat reliable in my book). This guy was not even a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Global Intercontinental Malaysia[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage. The parent article, Miss Intercontinental pageant was deleted several times. Richie Campbell (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:RS. We've consistently deleted these kinds of pages; this page has zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; these pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local pageant of a non-notable parent pageant. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...having non-notable mentions in the handful of sources I could search. Lourdes 10:25, 28 October 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchoma Shain[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable in any particular field or categorization. Strongly suspect COI. Quis separabit? 03:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's suspected COI, which I also suspect, is not a reason to delete the article. Especially in a case where the article is written neutrally, without peacock terms or fluff, like in this case. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is some coverage in independent, reliable sources. She has published some books. Neither are too notable, but IMHO do establish a minimum of notability. Debresser (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason for considering deletion, let alone doing it. I fail to see where the COI would be. Her notability as a rebetzin and as a scholar is quite clear, as is her importance within Orthodox Jewry. Just to quell any suspicions, I am not a Jew myself, but a firm believer in freedom of worship, which relies on knowledge of each other's belief systems.Bmcln1 (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is best known for the biography of her father, and there is very little notable about her personally. Merge any relevant content into the YY Herman article. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added more sources showing her influence on other writers, as well as verification of her first book being an all-time bestseller for Feldheim Publishers. Yoninah (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bmcln1 and Yoninah above. -- -- -- 04:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not extremely notable, but notable enough. I don't think that deleting it would improve the encyclopedia. Zero^talk 03:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Riyaz Ahmad Naqshbandi[edit]

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

I believe this article fails the WP:GNG and that the subject isn't a notable religious figure. The only source for the article is a webpage claimed to be official (though the subject is dead). Beyond that webpage, I couldn't find anything about the subject of this article beyond Youtube videos. The Indian subcontinent is full of holy men for every religious tradition on Earth; this specific holy man doesn't appear to be of note. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i vote for to delete this page at the earliest. User talk:Aasim001 07:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried Gbooks & JSTOR, found nothing. Anup [Talk] 19:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contagious shooting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTDICT - at best transwiki to wiktionary. Most of the examples' articles and sources don't mention "contagious shooting", either, making a large chunk of the article original research. The article was kept at AfD 10 years ago, but the standards have changed a lot since then. ansh 666 01:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still have my qualms about this article, but it seems like they're probably fixable, so I'm going to withdraw this nomination. ansh 666 18:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about the concept not the word used. The references can use any synonym. For instance WWI was not the name for the Great War until we had WWII. I count over 5,000 GHits in Google News archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citation of sources on the article shows sufficient notability of this term. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and trim a bit (in particular the lead). The word is around in newspapers, and there is a reasonable section with examples, which disprove respectively WP:OR and WP:DICDEF claims. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources that mention it specifically by name to show it's a legitimate and notable topic. Felsic2 (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons given above.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - term that is used and discussed in many criminal justice textbooks and police training manuals. In fact, I used to teach about it. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, not a strong showing of notability and could use some ce work and would like to see some additional examples with RS citing; for example, if used and mentioned in police training. Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden ratio poetry[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. The current sources are:

Radoslav Rochallyi's Golden Divine, which is self-published through CreateSpace
A library's digital card catalog entry for Golden Divine
Radoslav Rochallyi's Blog

Every other source mentioning "Golden ratio poetry" appears to be a mirror of this article. I looked for reliable sources but could find none. And not only aren't there reliable, third-party published sources about the subject, but there don't even appear to be unreliable sources, either. Woodroar (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely non-notable. Zero coverage in reliable sources. Kolbasz (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, almost total WP:BOLLOCKS. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 22 October 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.