The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 03:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis (2018 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NFF the film has not begun principal photography and should not have its own article NathanielTheBold (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Principle Photography is required to create an article. User should habe started a Draft article about the subject until it could have been moved into article namespace. Chase (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is essenitally empty, with just being a (unsourced) infobox. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFF. If principle photography didn't take place. Then it's a case of WP:NYF. Ayub407^talk 08:30, 17 September 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 01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diana L. Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Despite a large number of references listed, does not appear to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Most of the references given are basically directory listings that do not contribute to notability (entries at Florida Far, California Far, Cornell University Law School, Fitzgerald & Isaacson LPP profile etc). There are a few references to news sources, but they all appear to contain 1-sentence mentions of the subject, ref no. 9[1], ref no. 12[2], ref no. 13[3] (2 sentences here), ref no 15[4]. I did GNews searching and found very little else. Does not seem to me to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete--not enough articles about her career to establish gng. I am open to being persuaded however --JumpLike23 (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet wikipedia policy per above for signifigant coverage. Chase (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I agree that the sourcing is not the strongest, I feel that it meets the GNG. Granted, I would obviously feel this way having posted the article, though I do not disagree that it is lacking in certain respects. - @Rob talk 23:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate in which way you feel the article meets WP:GNG? GNG requires that the subject "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where "significant" means "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Which of the sources cited in the article in your opinion provide such coverage? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that the article fulfills the General Notability Guidelines because the article details her connection to several notable figures, and has been involved in a number of major companies and organizations, such as Zoo Miami and Fortune 500 companies. - @Rob talk 02:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, thank you, but no, that's not how WP:GNG works. Being connected to notable figures and organizations is not enough and does not make one notable, per the WP:NOTINHERITED principle. To satisfy WP:GNG one needs to show that Diana L. Fitzgerald herself has been the subject of specific and detailed coverage by independent reliable sources. I am not seeing anything of the sort in the article. Several directory-type listings, several refs to her own law firm, several one/two-word mentions in the news media, and the like. I do not see even a single independent source there that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" as WP:GNG requires. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like it was just rewritten, I thought my version was stronger, but in any case, I do believe that the version I created met GNG.@Rob talk 00:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Fitzgerald is one of hundreds of business litigation lawyers. There is nothing even remotely special about her. When you have to cite that there was a comment sought from her on an article it just shows that she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I have to chime along with John's message above; the article, I will note, is so noticeably bombarded with claims of other people and entities and then also sources consisting of laced PR, trivial coverage, etc. (The article is not even confidently navigable with such bombarding of sources alongside nearly every paragraph) None of this easily states the basics, of which would be best to start with, not overfocus with PR or other trivial and unacceptable information. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This character fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per J Milburn. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities as it lacks enough evidence to establish notability. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. There are no non-primary sources that establish any independent notability for this character. Merging isn't really necessary, as she is already included in the target article, so a Redirect would be sufficient.64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 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 Jain University. Redirect history preserved for anyone interested in merging past contents (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Management Studies - Jain University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Both sources in the article are primary sources, and neither one establishes notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest we merge redirect to main article Jain University (which isn't even properly linked here). I'm sympathetic to the idea that university level business schools are notable, but I'm just not seeing much in the way of independent coverage, at least in English. Maybe in Hindi? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Redirect to main article, as per Shawn's suggestion, although I should note how little content there actually is in this article at present. I found only one example of coverage in a reliable source [5]. There has not been enough reliable coverage identified to establish notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Per above, Not enough content in this article to garner notablity. This could be covered just as well, if not better, in the article suggested above. Chase (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: CMS Business school appears to cover the same subject, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, you're right. That article's official website link makes that clear. Creator User:Sainath nuvvula (of both articles and more) has recently been indef blocked by Timotheus Canens. There's no explanation as to why but I guess it's for spamming for JGI Group-related articles? Because of the spam block, I've changed to redirect, above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have also changed my vote, in light of this information. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh and as you'll see, I've also placed a speedy delete tag on CMS Business school as a duplicate article. Yes, they could all be redirects, but I've no particular interest in aiding the banned editor by creating a forest of such links. If anyone wants to remove the tag and redirect themselves, I've no objection, certainly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jain University: doesn't qualify for a separate piece. Anup [Talk] 15:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jain University (preferably after "delete"); not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 11 September 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) 07:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Steele (country musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This musician fails the general notability guideline as well as the musician-specific criteria at WP:BAND. I was unable to find any third-party coverage of this musician or his band. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails wikipedia policy per above. singles did not preform high enough on charts to establish the band on the basis of the guidelines. Chase (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this actually states, even basically, where there are any independent claims of significance and substantial notability; there's, as always, no automatic inherited notability from other people or entities. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 18 September 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. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of weightlifters at the 2011 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Listcruft The Banner talk 19:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: One reference if you can call it that, per above. Chase (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One referece is not enough reason to delete the article. Please see the Discussion at List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships. @The Banner, please merge your deletion requests when requesting multiple of the same pages. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 08:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the policy that clearly states that an article with only one reference should/must be deleted? Maybe you'd like to nominate these 2,000,000+ articles on that basis. Good luck! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they call that policy WP:RS as it states that sources should be independent... The Banner talk 18:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep don't see a reason why this is a listcruft!? All weightlifers have a page. I would say we need more of these kind of pages. MFriedman (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lugnuts. This list is of notable individuals which helps navigation and meets WP:LISTN. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:41, 18 September 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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of weightlifters at the 2010 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Listcruft The Banner talk 19:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 17 September 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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of weightlifters at the 1998 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Listcruft The Banner talk 19:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 17 September 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. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not a policy or even guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Listcruft The Banner talk 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep don't see a reason why this is a listcruft!? All weightlifers have a page. Or do you have specific reasons? I would say we need more of these kind of pages. MFriedman (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, list of notable individuals that meets WP:LISTN. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:42, 18 September 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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of weightlifters at the 1999 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Listcruft The Banner talk 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 17 September 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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of weightlifters at the 2007 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Listcruft The Banner talk 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep like the reason at the other pages. MFriedman (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 17 September 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Listcruft The Banner talk 19:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Banner, please explain yourself a bit. All weightlifters at the world championships are appear to be notable. It's with these pages easy to get the information from a specific country who are participating. The same kind of lists are for the UCI Road World Championships and the UCI Track Cycling World Championships at Category:Lists of cyclists like the List of elite cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships, List of junior cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships, List of under-23 cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships and List of entrants at the 2015 UCI Track Cycling World Championships. So you should also nominate these pages for AfD. And also List of cyclists at the 2012 Summer Olympics, List of cyclists at the 2012 Summer Paralympics and all the pages at Template:Competitors at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All weightlifters at the world championships are notable According to who? The Banner talk 19:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: I thought it went to WP:NSPORTS, but see the discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 23. But however, that is another discussion. I changed the sentence. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no ruling that they are/appear to be automatically notable. That makes it a list because you can make a list (by slightly altering the source) The Banner talk 20:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said. This is another discussion. Even if they are not all notable a list of them is notable. However all weightlifters at the 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015 world championships does have a Wikipedia page. I'll illustrate it with a few examples that this is another discussion.

• Example (1): Junior and Under-23 cyclists are not notable. But there are pages like List of under-23 cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships and List of junior cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships
• Example (2): Volleyball players are also not at WP:NSPORTS. But these kind of pages for volleyball of the World Championships are at Category:FIVB Volleyball World Championship squads‎. And even smaller tournaments, see the tons of pages at Category:Volleyball squads.
• Example (3): Field hockey players are also not at WP:NSPORTS. But these kind of pages for field hockey of the World Championships do exist {few examples: 2014 Women's Hockey World Cup squads, 2014 Men's Hockey World Cup squads, 2010 Women's Hockey World Cup squads, 2010 Men's Hockey World Cup squads, 2006 Women's Hockey World Cup squads, 2006 Men's Hockey World Cup squads...
• Example (4): Handballball players are also not at WP:NSPORTS. But these kind of pages for handball of the World Championships are at Category:World Handball Championship squads‎‎. And even smaller tournaments, like in Category:European Handball Championship squads‎‎, 2014 African Men's Handball Championship squads and Handball at the 2015 Pan American Games – Men's team rosters.
• Example (5): Water Polo players are also not at WP:NSPORTS. But these kind of pages for volleyball of the World Championships are at Category:World Aquatics Championships water polo squads‎. And even smaller tournaments, like in Category:European Water Polo Championship squads‎ and Water polo at the 2015 Pan American Games – Women's team rosters.
• Example (6): Futsal players are also not at WP:NSPORTS. But these kind of pages for futsall of the World Championships are at Category:FIFA Futsal World Cup squads‎. And even smaller tournaments, like European Champinships are at Category:UEFA Futsal Championship squads‎.
• Example (7-...): Yes I can list many, many more.

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep To continue: If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is judged on its own merits. The Banner talk 21:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are the mertis!? Like I asked in my first sentence, give a good reason why you want to delete this page! Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 08:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request Please make it a Template:Afd footer (multiple). And why not nominating: List of weightlifters at the 2001 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2005 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2009 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2013 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2014 World Weightlifting Championships, List of weightlifters at the 2015 World Weightlifting Championships. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner, please merge your deletion requests. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 08:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep totally agree with Sander.v.Ginkel. MFriedman (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A clearly defined list of notable individuals. This would tie in with WP:CLN, specifically WP:NOTDUP. The nom's reason is also very poor, citing the essay on cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 17 September 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 per WP:SNOW. I also note that the article was also a WP:COPYVIO as substantial portions were either closely paraphrased or word for word taken from this website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The World Trade Center Stories: 15th Anniversary Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article concerns a self-published book. The article is promotional and possibly written by an editor with a conflict of interest. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:39, 10 September 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 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Complete bollocks, or, if we're to get lawyerly about it, a total lack of independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. WP:Complete bollocks seems fair. Oculi (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:Complete bollocks. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 00:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as WP:CB. Blythwood (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WHATTHEWHAT?. I don't even know what this is. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is at least WP:Complete bollocks, and borders on WP:Patent nonsense. I'd be okay with it being Speedied under G1, although I admit it's a borderline case, since the sentences individually sort of make grammatical sense, even if together they make no coherent sense, nor are any of the words even vaguely related to the title of the article. Could also speedy per WP:SNOW? Fieari (talk) 00:20, 12 September 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 The Oregon Trail (video game)#Editions. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregon Trail 5th Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources found to pass WP:NVG. This article was previously deleted as a copyright violation, and is now just a completely unsourced stub. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Oregon Trail (video game)#Editions. I couldn't find anything, but the term is plausible for a search. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems best, but then won't we have confusion with lots of redirects? At that point we could have a redirect for the 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th editions! So delete might be better. Blythwood (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Having multiple redirects is fine. --Izno (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What's wrong with having multiple redirects to the same target? I don't see how that's confusing. Depending on the series article, the redirects could always been made to specific subsections relevant to the specific edition too. (ie something like a redirect target of [[Oregon Trail (video game series)#Fifth edition]]) Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I'd rather see resources invested into a The Oregon Trail (video game series) article that gives an overview of all Oregon, Amazon, Africa, Maya, etc. entries.--Coin945 (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirects are WP:CHEAP]. Fieari (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per above. It's a plausible search term, but it's not a notable enough series to have article on each individual edition. Smartyllama (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - viable search term, but doesn't need its own article unless there's much more sources and content present. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 16 September 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deleted and re-created. A player with a career total of one appearance, according tot he table. No reliable independent sources to establish anything other than that he exists. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What's missing from the nomination statement is that between being deleted and recreated this player made his debut in a fully professional league. I don't like this "fully professional league" determination of notability, not least because it gives a free pass to players who have turned out in a match for any of 92 English teams but for none in, for example, Georgia, where players who have played hundreds of matches for Dynamo Tbilisi, one of the top teams in the former Soviet Union, are not considered notable because they play in a country too small to have every team in their top league being fully professional. Good luck to the nominator in taking on the wikilawyering WP:FOOTBALL regulars, some of whom accused me of vandalism and personal attacks just because I pointed out that defending the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline without using a bit of common sense is wikilawyering. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is 19 years and has just made his debut for Olympique Lyonnais in a Fully Professional League as per thisPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as has made his debut. GiantSnowman 15:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ...and the predicted wikilawyering with no attempt to engage in rational discussion goes on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly meets WP:FOOTBALL - I fail to comprehend this nomination. Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in 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. IP's sour grapes are misguided, there is no wikilawyering in citing an established notability guideline. The player is just starting his career and has passed the threshold, there are numerous instances of players going no further being determined non-notable, but given this player has already achieved multiple junior national team appearances it seems unlikely he would fall into this bucket. The IP would also do well to remember GNG trumps subject specific guidelines, so there is no need for any georgian players to go without an article if he can find sources. Fenix down (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well could I remind you that the "fully professional league" guideline has no clothes. Nobody outside of Wikipedia classifies leagues, teams and players internationally on this basis, so what basis is there for doing so on Wikipedia? FIFA and the various continental governing bodies have classifications of leagues, but none of them is based on this made-up "fully professional league" requirement. There is a growing backlash against Wikiprojects producing their own notability guidelines on the basis of the consensus of a handful of editors obsessed about a particular topic, so, if the football wikiproject wants to maintain credibility it should come up with a more realistic guideline before one is imposed by tha community at large. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily satisfies WP:NFOOTY per above. Smartyllama (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - article does needs improvement, but so far does meet the WP:NFOOTY standards. Should not be deleted. I do not understand the IP editor's argument of wikilawyering, seems more like a grief about a past dispute more than everything else. That doesn't mean that I'm not open to re-discuses the Wikipedia notability policy, but this isn't the place to do it. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTY. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:28, 17 September 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 Sabbir Khan. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: I had created the article by adding content with reliable sources. Then I had redirected the article to the director's article saying that when the principal photography of the film would start, the last revision of the article would be undone to meet the criteria of WP:NFF. Now if some other user has added content with no sources, the loss should not go the creator. The nominator instead of nominating the redirect for deletion, should had first checked the revision history of the article and then should had reverted all the revisions to my second revision. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 05:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sabbir Khan: doesn't qualify for a standalone piece now but definitely would in six months or so. Anup [Talk] 15:36, 11 September 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) 07:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

One passing mention in a source can't be a reason to keep this non-notable biographical article.

Overall fails WP:GNG Marvellous Spider-Man 17:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as it stands, if cut to the one third-party RS it would be a sentence or two. Surely someone this very noteworthy should have sourcing ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't seem to meet the inclusion standard. Not to be confused with Swami Abhedananda. Anup [Talk] 15:47, 11 September 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 Da'is. postdlf (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability FlorenceJoyner (talk) 09:35, 3 September 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 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FlorenceJoyner: Question: What are your concerns about this article? KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 11:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: List of Da'is seems to have the same scope: a list of Muslims who proselytise. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is indeed the same thing as List of Da'is, then Merge and Redirect.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect because I'm not sure if there's any material that actually needs to be merged; the articles listed at "List of Muslim callers" already seem to be listed at "List of Da'is." MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Da'is which already appears to contain the same info. Nsk92 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - at least needs a rename as "Muslim callers" clearly is not a term that cleanly translates into English. Blythwood (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG -NottNott|talk 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As I mentioned on the PROD tag which was removed by IP user, the article about living person fails general notability criteria and notability of people. All sources cited here are blogs which fails verifiability. The Huffington Post article cited in this article is a self published source. Ayub407^talk 17:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the WP:PROD tag was removed by an "IP user" (are there really any users who manage to edit without using IP?) or by someone who prefers to use a pseudonym than to reveal their IP address is immaterial. Once anyone has removed a PROD tag you can't reinstate it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have just removed three references from the article to apparently reliable sources that are actually about other people with vaguely similar names. None of the other sources, nor any that I can find online, come anywhere close to the significant coverage in independent reliable sources demanded by our notability guidelines. Given the subject matter I would expect any such sources, if they existed, to be available online. Please note that most sources found by a search for "Ali Haider" are about Ali Haider Gillani, not this guy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable YouTube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as another classic example of an article only consisting of the subject's own websites and sources, that has the bare signs there is nothing actually substantial at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 18 September 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 Nomination withdrawn" Based on the additions by Mike Searson, there appears to be enough coverage to get past GNG Niteshift36 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The product exists and there is some coverage in non-reliable sources, but most coverage I'm seeing in RS's is mentions or more of a product review sort of piece. The sole source used in the current article doesn't even mention this configuration to accept both cartridges. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No multiple independent acceptable sources appear to be available - fails GNG, WP:ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH. And per nom, the only reference doesn't even mention this product. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep...I've found the following references with a simple google book search. [6] [7] [8] I'm sure there are many more I just stopped looking after the three. I've also found too many to count mentions. Perhaps, it would be better to rename the article to "Wylde chamber" and then rewrite the article accordingly. As the current name ".223 Wylde" does make it sound like a wildcat .223 caliber cartridge.--RAF910 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite your implication that a search wasn't done..... it's not mentions that the subject is missing, it's significant coverage. Your first two examples are barely more than a mention. The third is a book reference saying that the has tested 2 rifles in the caliber. These sources confirm it exists, which isn't in dispute. What is lacking, still, is significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP 223 Wylde is a chamber dimension which splits the differences between both SAAMI and NATO ammo specifications allowing either 5.56 NATO or 223 Remington to be used in the rifle in question. More manufacturers are using this spec with their barrels than any other configuration on the civilian market so shooters can use either round. The incorrect non-SAAMI use of decimals preceding non-metric ammunition calibers may be why editors not familiar with firearms cannot find appropriate sourcing.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's great that it splits the difference. Some substantial coverage would be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm sure the editors at Newsweek and The New York Times didn't exactly cover it to death. I'll see what I can come up with--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, they probably didn't. Good thing for us that those aren't the only reliable sources around. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable chamber variant that allows for two widely used cartridges often for competition. Expand section on the chamber developer, Wylde, and copycat usage in other rifles that use similar technique to accomplishe the same objective (i.e. mini-14 ranch rifle that can chamber both rounds even though they are marked for one). --DHeyward (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Are you going to do the expansion and add reliable third party sources? Or are you just going to driveby !vote and waste more time talking about editors than issues? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disregard, someone else took care of what you merely talked about doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer Despite the very clear description on the first line, the nominator seems unable to distinguish a barrel marking/chamber design from an actual cartridge. It is not a cartridge or a caliber so there is a very good reason why a search for a cartridge yields nothing. Competence is required and this is a nuisance nomination. It's like nominating "adjustable wrench" for deletion because there are no sources to indicate any bolts that were specifically designed designed to fit it. Time would have been better spent searching for the "any" key we are always supposed to press. Or post a question instead of crusading against firearm knowledge in an encyclopedia. Google hits alone should have been a clue that is notable and independently manufactured as either complete barrels withe different profiles, materials and twist rates or rifles. This is not a controversial article or anything other than an article describing what this particular specification is. --DHeyward (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: The nominator does understand the difference, he just put it in simpler terms for the non-pedantic layman. The nominator also understands what significant coverage is and how this article lacks it, as well as how the number of Google hits has nothing to do with notability. Perhaps if those leaving a "note to closer" spent times addressing those issues rather than using it to talk about an editor, there would be more firearms knowledge in this encyclopedia.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 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) 08:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article Sources are:

1. Online Etymology Dictionary: no support for existence.
2. Abarim Publications: no support for existence.
3. Oxford Archeological Guides: The Holy Land (sic): Not verifiable, but from the index, pages 198-9 are for Ashqelon, which is nowhere near the Kidron Valley.
4. Ancient Burial Ground with 100 Tombs Found Near Biblical Bethlehem: No support for existence (of "Rivka").
5. Eastern Sketches – notes of scenery, schools and tent life in Syria and Palestine: page 102 and surrounds have nothing to do with "Rivka".
6. The Land and the Book: "Rivka" not found.
7. Hirschfeld, Yizhar. Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence: Not verified.

At minimum, available sources (searches performed) do not meet GNG/GEOLAND. I suspect it's a hoax, given that Rivka Kidron is/was an advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu. If so, then its creator has gone to some trouble. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 15:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment(side issue), is this a concern, that article creator name, Learnthatcom, is the same as this website - learnthat.com? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, interesting that the wadi known as Nahal Kidron (mentioned in lead of Kidron Valley) that runs over 30km from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, also runs around 3km south of Kedar, where the article says this community is situated, and yet it is not mentioned. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is pure nonsense. No single ref refers to this place, no equivalent Hebrew article, or for that matter, a single Hebrew reference. Poliocretes (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: is this a potential hoax? Created by a SPA Special:Contributions/Learnthatcom with few other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I didn't find any support for existence of this place in Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 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) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

New magazine, no sources, no indication of any notability. Article creation too soon. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unreferenced, no evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was unable to find any references whatsoever to establish notability. This would be a clear case for speedy deletion, if there were a CSD criterion that allowed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find nothing to substantiate any of the claims in the article. The only things that seem to mention the magazine is the magazine's website, which is hosted via Blogspot. Being hosted by a blogging website doesn't mean that something can't be notable, but it's usually not a great sign. This also isn't necessarily a sign of non-notability, but I'm less likely to believe the claims of popularity in the article when you consider that the blog (which has been active since at least 2014) only has 11 posts as of right now. I'd take into consideration that there might be more articles on the printed magazine, but I don't really see any indication on this website that there is a printed magazine. By all accounts the site appears to be a blog or electronic magazine rather than a printed work, which runs contrary to what's published on Wikipedia. Typically most magazine websites tend to have some sort of information available on how to subscribe to the print versions. Now even all of that aside, there's really nothing out there at all about this magazine on the website, which goes against the article's claim of the magazine being one of the most popular magazines in Pakistan and the most well known one of its type. If these claims really were true, then this would be covered somewhere and I just don't see any of this coverage. I'm aware that the people who run the magazine are reading this, so my recommendations would be to work on improving the website and to be careful of claims. The above claims could be true, however the only people saying these things are you and most people tend to be skeptical when it comes to promotional claims. You also need to understand that magazines are not automatically notable because they exist (WP:ITEXISTS) and in order to show notability you must show where people other than yourselves (or anything WP:PRIMARY) is discussing the magazine in independent and reliable sources (WP:RS). This is extremely difficult to do for magazines, but especially niche magazines, as the mainstream sources typically don't cover this sort of thing and the academic sources (the ones more likely to cover these types of things) have so many things to cover that magazines and so little money and manpower (in comparison to mainstream news outlets) that they almost always fall by the wayside in favor of extremely major mainstream publications. I'd also like to caution you on your language. Wherever you go, you are representing yourself and your magazine. Things like this is unprofessional and makes both you and the magazine look bad, which can result in a loss of respect and reputation - things that any magazine, especially a fledgling one, need to survive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Clear attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a new magazine. Joe Roe (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as I frankly consider this speedy material even considering the thin claims of "popular magazine", as that would not save this article by itself at all; there's no substance for actually establishing both notability and non-PR. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 18 September 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 Delete. No credible assertion of notability was made within the article and no sources which would demonstrate notability could be found after a careful online search. Nick (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is a utter mess. It's a long-winded, completely unsalvageable piece about a NN person. Delete. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:31, 10 September 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) 17:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of graphics file formats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A mundane list article lacking a notable topic per GNG, and appears to be synthesis - fails WP:SAL, which says, "stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as WP:V, NOR, NPOV...".

Wikipedia is not a repository, and is not a catalog or a directory, and is also not a platform for promotion --- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My first instinct would be to move to List of image file formats (and trim the unreferenced cruft if needed be). Image file formats is, obviously, a notable topic, and the individual file formats are notable as a group (not just individually); if restricted to the formats created by software with their own WP page, the scope is not too large. I disagree with the nomination, and think the topic fully meets WP:SAL.

However, Image file formats is already a list-like article. There is quite a large overlap between the prose article and the list. I am not sure how the content would best be organized. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion but support tidying up. There's a good deal of information presented in this article that isn't (readily) available in Image file formats. It could clearly do with a bit of work (e.g. a vector/raster indicator in the first table as well as the second, perhaps as a highlight in the 1st column). But the tabular format is useful, especially for the second table which has less overlap with the prose article. Deletion seems like a step too far; as a minimum the "technical details" table could be merged into Image file formats, but really some better integration is needed, including reducing the list sections of that article. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'll second Tigraan's and ChrisHodgesUK's views. The content of this article is a suitable WP list, so moving it to List of image file formats would be a better title. Yes, it duplicates material in Image file formats, but that article focuses on major formats (e.g., Image file formats#Major graphics file formats) and then just lists minor formats (Image file formats#Other raster formats). That article could cover the main formats and features (and the reasons behind them — leaving gritty details to individual format articles) and then point to this article's more inclusive list of formats. That would make IFF less list-like and push it toward a more general overview. Glrx (talk) 16:13, 14 September 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) 17:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sources available from Google News are either trivial, promotional, announcement, or passing mention. Article references appear to be press releases or closely affiliated with the product. Fails ORGIND and GNG. This article reads like a manual, which Wikipedia is not WP:NOTMANUAL, and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Steve Quinn (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but improve - As if deletionism will solve everything, when a quick run through the usual mainstream news sources and citing them would do the trick. Blake Gripling (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Then please post some mainstream independent reliable sources - I don't think there are any. I did due diligence and did a Google News search and a Google search. So please don't jump the gun on "deletionism".

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but improve - it's no less notable than any other Mac OS X/OS X/macOS release, so it should be fixed, not removed. Guy Harris (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry to say this but WP:WHATABOUTX. There are other articles on Wikipedia that have not established notability, but that is not really part of this discussion. If this topic is not deemed notable, then that is how it goes. If it is deemed notable by the posting or addition of independent reliable sources, then that is also how it goes. Please, no one take any of this personally. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but improve- Guy Harris hits this on the head, it is no less notable than any other apple software release and it should be fixed, and not removed. FULL Disclosure: I was the one who originally created this article in the first place, I rushed to create it during the keynote, basically as I was watching it on my iMac. It has come a long way from when I created it. Haseo9999 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Also, notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep News coverage is widespread: from Ars Technica review (already in references) to articles on various news pages (CNN, BBC mentions free update). Well, even media in nearly no-Mac land like Czech Republic register release of OS X Maverick (technet.idnes.cz). Pavlor (talk) 09:20, 11 September 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 Lexa (The 100). Any interested editor who still wishes to retrieve material from the redirected article, may do so from its history, which is well preserved. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unnecessary page with a lead and a copied "pledge" with barely any background information. If this article should exist, it should be thoroughly expanded upon first. Deletion or redirection to draft namespace. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lexa (The 100), which I tagged the article with apparently in parallel to this nomination. The topic is primarily about, and discussed because of, the TV series character. Alternatively merge to The 100 (TV series).  Sandstein  13:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, merging works just as well. Half of the article is entirely a copied pledge that could just be kept to the tertiary sources. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. Also note that "redirection to draft namespace" wouldn't work due to CSD R2 – it could be moved without redirect and then users would still see an auto-generated link to the draft page, but it's pointless, as I doubt this is ever going to be notable and long enough to warrant a separate article. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lexa (The 100) as per above. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lexa (The 100) per above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per my comments at the merge discussion. —Mythdon 08:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lexa (The 100) per my comments at the merge discussion on that article's talk page. (see below) --AussieLegend (✉) 19:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lexa (The 100); useful content can be merged from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lexa (The 100) - Changing from merge to redirect. It appears that the changes recently made to Lexa (The 100) make a merge redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hexagon AB. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sources available from Google News are promotional; from Google Newspapers passing mention; article references appear to be closely affiliated with the product; other ASPRS references are inaccessible - unable to verify - therefore, these could be passing mentions or promotional. This product does not appear to be notable. Fails GNG, and ORGIND. Notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Steve Quinn (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Hexagon AB which appears to be the entity who sells it now? Clearly this one product is not independently notable, but it is worth a mention of it, given the long history. The parent company article could stand some work to add more prose and remove the marketing, etc. anyway. Suspect sources might be in other languages than English. But would be more work of course than a quick death. W Nowicki (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I agree with W Nowicki. Product with such long history deserves at least mention. Current sources have mostly ad-like quality, not sufficient for an article. Maybe there are some reviews in magazines specialized for this field of study, but this is certainly outside of my expertise. Pavlor (talk) 18:37, 12 September 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, G11 by DGG (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 11:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rayna Tours and Travels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

De-prodded, quasi-promotional article about a travel company. Sounds like the average WP:MILL, and searches for sources, even just Rayna Tours without "and Travels", reveal little or nothing but trivial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. — Sam Sailor 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, if cut to sources it would be a paragraph and not a convincing one - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per WP:PROMO; this is a replica of a corporate web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 11 September 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. Any interested editor may flag the article for improvement respectively. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. Even WP:BCASTOUTCOMES says ". Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated." There is no such real notability demonstrated beyond having a license etc. WP is not a directory. Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) (Striking "low power" thing as inaccurate/modify. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

KMEC-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES, LPFM stations ARE notable and this has been backed up by AfDs in the past. The "neighborhood" that KKHP serves has a population of about 20,000+. KKHP serves three seperate towns with a 60dBu coverage, 54dBu coverage is well into Chico and that's a population of about 87,000. I'd say that's a pretty big "neighborhood". KMEC-LP serves Ukiah, California, which holds a population of around 16,000 people. Again, another large "neighborhood".

You appear to have LPFMs and Part 15s confused. LPFMs are legal stations, licensed by the FCC, and can broadcast from 1 to 100 watts. Part 15s, are NOT legal stations (ie: pirate stations) and typically only broadcast about 1 milliwatt, that's 1/100th of an actual watt. Part 15s that only broadcast 1 milliwatt are sometimes left alone, but are subject to being shutdown by the FCC. Ones that broadcast waaay more than that 1 milliwatt are subject to fines and seizure of equipment. LPFMs are NOT the same as Canadian VF stations. Bearcat and I actually had a discussion on this. Canadian VF stations are the same as US Part 15s. That's why there is a push to remove those. They aren't notable per NMEDIA.

I have updated the KKHP and KMEC pages with clear sources from various sources. These are sufficient for all other pages and bring it well into GNG, V, and N. I would ask that Jytdog withdraw his AfDs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:18 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)

I struggle with the notion that somehow WP has become a directory of radio stations where there is no demonstration of meeting basic GNG via significant discussions in independent sources... Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struggle all you like, this is backed up by strong and consistant community consensus and policy. I could say the same about bugs or TV episodes, but those are backed up by consensus as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:20 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)

In both articles you added four references; three from the FCC showing the station exists and who owns it, and the the fourth from Nielsen. Here is what is actually at the link for KKHP: "No Summer 2016 data found for KKHP-FM.". And Here is what is actually at the link for KMEC-LP: "No Summer 2016 data found for KMEC-LP" In my view none of these sources helps much showing that the station is worthy of a WP article - sure they would be great if WP was a directory. But we aren't. There needs to be signficant discussion in independent sources to meet GNG. There ~appears~ to be some WikiProject creating a walled garden going on here. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you've said several "my" and "I" statements. Your view or your opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is the community's view and the community's opinion...and in turn the community's consensus. That consensus is that radio stations are notable, be them AM, FM, HD, or LP. The entire consensus is covered in NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES. This is not a walled garden, this is a community of users who work on these articles, keep them updated backed by consistent strong consensus from the community. I'm sorry that you can't accept that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:17 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "my" and "I" statements. Whatever - this seems to be upsetting to you and I am sorry for that. Let's just focus on the work - do these articles meet basic GNG or not? Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• LPs aren't the same thing as Part 15s or VFs; they're a class of station that does still have to have an FCC license, while the problem with Part 15s and VFs is that they're exempted from having to have a license. (And the reason there were so many VF stations to delete is that those stations did formerly have to have CRTC licenses as well, making them eligible for inclusion per NMEDIA by the same criteria as any other radio station — their change of status from licensed to license-exempt changed the notability equation after those articles already existed.) The determining factor, however, is not the presence of the words "low power" in the article — it's the existence or non-existence of an FCC/CRTC broadcasting license, regardless of the transmitter power that is or isn't involved. Yes, we ultimately do want improved sourcing beyond just the FCC documents, but the FCC documents are enough sourcing in and of themselves to cover the basic notability criterion. There are, for example, important technical details that a radio station's article needs to contain for which the FCC documents are the only possible source — newspaper coverage about a radio station is never, for example, going to get into the station's ERP or HAAT stats, so we have to turn to the FCC database for those. So no, the FCC documents aren't enough sourcing by themselves to get a radio station's article up to GA or FA status — but they are enough sourcing by themselves to cover off the basic includability issue. Keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and work at beefing up the articles. Both stations have a broadcast history, which is one of the criteria noted in NMEDIA, with KMEC-LP's running approximately 11 years at this point. And in my time here, I can't remember ever seeing an article that was nominated for deletion on a licensed, operating LPFM not survive the discussion. I'm travelling for work, so can't get into the heavy lifting, but finding an additional source that could flesh out KMEC-LP somewhat took seconds, and I've dropped a note for Neutralhomer with that information. Mlaffs (talk) 02:12, 11 September 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 05:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John O. Henes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Little depth of coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO. He was locally a wealthy person, and donated 50 acres of land on which a park named after him is located. This doesn't seem to pass the ANYBIO criteria of "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". He appears to be a successful local businessman, but not notable by Wikipedia standards. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Sufficient new information has been added to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article has been expanded to included Henes' inventing activity. Doremo (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- the inventing activity adds to notability. Not sure by how much, but I believe the article adds value to the encyclopedia at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and I nearly closed myself, there's enough for a historically-informative article; this is similar to an article I improved some time ago. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 September 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) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable tournament. No sources which mention this tournament. No google hits which are not copies of this Wikipedia article gadfium 22:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 22:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. 22:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. No evidence that this passes GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable amateur golf tournament....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing actually establishing notability or substance apart from it being apparently major; none of this even actually establishes why and how it could be its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 18 September 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) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Was csd-A7 tagged, however there is just enough information in the article to warrant an afd here I think. Listing for community input on article's fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable individual. reddogsix (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as it stands, very skimpy on RSes (I can't tell if NFVB.no is a specialist source - even then I'd want more - or just promotional) - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 14 September 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. Merge/redirect discussions can continue on the article talk page.  Sandstein  08:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Was PRODded a second time, with "Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article's tone is advertorial in nature, so WP:PROMO applies." I concur. This article doesn't show any notability or usefulness as an article, and was substantially written by redlinked SPAs. It's been unfixed for years and shows no prospect of being fixable. David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, plus the article seems to be using a lot non-notable awards that the company received as grounds for its notability. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using ((ping))) 08:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See below; Original comment: confirming my PROD that the nominator cited. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The only immediately apparent reliable source for the article as it stands is Information Week, and that particular citation is a dead link. A Train^talk 22:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC) [see updated comment below][reply]

• Keep I have rewritten the article. The company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm still unconvinced. The new article is definitely a big improvement but do the new references really provide depth of coverage? There's a lot of passing mentions. I grant that determining depth of coverage can be subjective and the article is clearly no longer the blight it used to be so I'll strike my delete !vote. But I'm not enthusiastic enough about the new sources to weigh in as a keep, either. A Train^talk 13:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are three sources that are not passing mentions:
  1. McClure, Marji (2008-10-01). "Clickability Empowers Clients to Build Successful Sites". Information Today. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10 – via HighBeam Research.

     The article notes:

     Clickability, Inc. was founded in 1999 in San Francisco by four friends: John Girard, Jeff Freund, Sean Noonan, and Timur Yarnall. Girard, the company's CEO, serves on Clickability's senior management team along with Freund, the organization's CTO, and Noonan, Clickability's vice president of finance. Yarnell left to start his own company, Broadcast Interactive Media, LLC, which is now Clickability's largest reseller.

     ...

     Clickability's tools began appearing--and still appear--on hundreds of media websites, including CNN and The Wall Street Journal. But in 2000 and 2001, when internet advertising markets faced tough times, the Clickability team determined it was time to shift gears.

     ...

     The Clickability platform is an on-demand web content management system that enables nontechnical users to control content on their websites through its entire life cycle, from creation and management to publishing and delivery. It is offered in three editions (express, professional, and enterprise) depending on the size and needs of each customer, which can combine its web publishing, advertising, marketing, and hosting functions all on a single platform.

     The platform has four parts. The first, infrastructure as a service, involves Clickability serving as the host of the application as well as the content repository for its clients' content. The next is onboarding and support, which transitions customers to the platform. The third is the software-as-a-service (SaaS) component.

     Questia Online Library has a preview of the article here.
  2. Marshall, Matt (2008-02-06). "Fremont Mobile Services Gets Funding". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

     The article notes:

     Clickability: The San Francisco-based online content management company raised $8 million.

     Clickability offers an all-in-one package to help clients like the New York Times, CNN Interactive and others manage their Web sites.

     It's an online content management system that comes with analytics tools, its own content delivery network, data storage, e-mail newsletters, RSS feeds and other services, so large publishers can more efficiently manage their Web properties.

     The company started in 1999, raised $7.3 million in 2000, and has been profitable since 2004, according to VentureWire.

     Its latest round, for $8 million, was led by Shasta Ventures with previous investor Convergence Partners returning to the round.

  3. Galbraith, Patrick (2009). Developing Web Applications with Apache, MySQL, memcached, and Perl. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 6. ISBN 0470538325. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

     The article notes:

     Clickability is a company that provides SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) web content management platform products. Their services include content management, web site publishing and delivery, search, web analytics, and newsletter delivery. They use memcached as a layer-2 cache for application servers to store content objects as serialized Java objects. They now run multiple instances of memcached, which are reguarly cleared and versioned for cache consistency. They also use multicast messaging to cache objects across multiple memcached servers, as well as a messaging queue used for sending a clearing message to application servers. They originally did not use memcached, but were able to implement it into their architecture within a couple of days after deciding to take advantage of memcached's benefits. Because of memcached, particularly how it provides a caching layer to web applications to prevent excessive hits to the database, they now serve 400 million page-views a month!

  Cunard (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on the sources presented. They are mostly PR like, including an interview with the founder (source #1) and the funding announcement (source #2). Source #3 is a passing mentioned, which does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and is insufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. Combined, these sources do not overcome WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Information Today article is an in-depth article about the company. It contains quotes from the founder which is standard journalistic practice and does not exclude it from establishing notability.

  The second article is not merely a funding announcement. It provides "deep coverage" about the company's history (its founding, its clients, its past funding round).

  The third source provides "deep coverage" about the technology aspects of the company's software.

  From 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.

  It is clear based on my rewrite that it is possible "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization", so the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH.

  Cunard (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Combined, these sources do not overcome WP:PROMO. – I am an editor with no conflict of interest with the subject. I rewrote the article. Please explain how the article still violates WP:PROMO so I can address Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations.

  Cunard (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been rewritten by a neutral editor with no connection to the subject (no PROMO). It's written in a neutral manner. The sources are in-depth according to CORPDEPTH. It meets GNG. -- GreenC 14:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it still might be marginal, but does seem like it stood the test of time, and has a remarkable discipline to avoid buzzwords and acronyms. Benefit of the doubt. W Nowicki (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as either the Keep votes themselves are acknowledging the concerns but are still choosing to say keep or they sinply ignore it altogether; like with the Delete vptes, everything here is essentially simply PR including the fact it simply comes with the usual and expected news about funding and financing which happens to all companies especially the ones that are seeking and hoping to establish capital and funding; any AfD that has closed as Delete with this basis has bee noticeable, and this is yet another case of it. The article itself even goes to specifications at what, where and why the product was being used; any such information can and would only be used to seek clients and investors, this is something else that has been established at AfD (this article itself even goes to focus about what happened to their employees (see first section, "cut employees from 40 to 15). Any attempts to actually classify this as "coverage and reviews" cannot be taken seriously if they themselves simply chopse to look the other way and not face the actual PR concerns. Even from the above, it's all still essentially business listings and profiles, see for example: Because of memcached, particularly how it provides a caching layer to web applications to prevent excessive hits to the database, they now serve 400 million page-views a month! No one would honestly say that's something convincing for both actual coverage and substance, if it simply inflates and puffs the company's own being. Going to the Keep votes again, they have made no attempt to mention or otherwise acknowledge these concerns, and they even go to the basis of "Oh well, at least someone with no COI at least changed the article, it at least takes care of something". I'll also note this was even deleted in 2008 as G11, another classic example of repeated advertising and the attempts that follow. At best, once deleted, this can be redirected to the Limelight Networks article given the acquisition. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading the entire article, Im inclined to delete. It sounds this was posted just to get more people to use it. Pyrusca (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not rewrite the article "just to get more people to use it". This is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the user meant the fact why the article was started to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Limelight Networks, which acquired the company in 2011. The merge target only has a passing mention, so this will improve the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), I oppose a merge of Clickability to Limelight Networks. A merge of the material would be undue weight because:
  1. Much of the Clickability article contains information about Clickability's history and products in the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2004 before it was sold to Limelight Networks in 2011 and
  2. Clickability is not a part of Limelight Networks anymore because Limelight Networks sold Clickability to Upland Software in December 2013.
  Cunard (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Limelight_Networks#Acquisitions as the company is mentioned there; I don't see a need for a merge though. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reason for a merge is because the Limelight Networks article presently provides absolutely no context about what Clickability does. All it states is, "May 2011, the company acquired Clickability for $10 million. On December 23, 2013 Upland Software announced that they had acquired Clickability from Limelight." Why would we want to keep the merge target I suggested "dumbed down" for Wikipedia's readers, providing no context? Also, I would say merge to Upland Software, but no such article exists, so this is the most appropriate target. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I view "Redirect" as a cleaner outcome; the subject has been deemed to be not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Anything useful can be pulled from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, K.e.coffman, regarding my analysis above especially regarding the advert foundations that have happened here (including mentioned by the nominator), would you object to deletion first? SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 18 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is just barely enough information in this article to suggest some notability; that being said, the article's got other issues and those have long been unaddressed, so here it is for community consideration on its fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of passing WP:Prof. Claims for WP:GNG should be explicated. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I removed a large amount of promotional/unsourced content from the page before but I don't think this is worth saving. Couldn't find any reliable coverage. FuriouslySerene (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Islamic Circle of North America. To be fair, WP:PROF does a poor job in this area because most of the criteria won't apply to Islamic scholars. However I can't find sufficient coverage to meet the GNG either. A redirect to ICNA and brief mention the he is the current president seems appropriate. Joe Roe (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joe Roe: I actually though of that myself, but if you look at the ICNA page the president is given as Naeem Baig, not Iqbal Masood Nadvi, which lead my to wonder if he is no longer their president or if the ICNA page needs updating. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: According to this their presidents serve for two years and Nadvi has been the president since January 2016. Joe Roe (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Only one mainspace article links to the page, the daily page views are very low, and there seems to be nothing worth saving on the page. I don't see a redirect as necessary in the circumstances. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:28, 11 September 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 was a strong attempt to bring the article up to where it meets Wikipedia standards, but consensus was that it still doesn't. I will userfy this on request, if one of the parties wants to continue trying to improve it. MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sources given lack in-depth coverage of the activities of the company. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment from creator: trused Sources exist within the article.The company is registered under "Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission" as well as an in-depth third party article from a trusted sourced(http://citywire.co.uk/) I agree that improvements could be made to the article. But I do believe the page is notable. Ymd2004 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• [this was on an old version] Delete: I did a complete reference check. Almost all sources are bad: primary or user-generated, often just puffery. (We shouldn't have primary links to the fact they're allowed to operate in the EU, that's a basic presumption of financial service companies, which is why there isn't a third-party RS to this effect.) The article has literally one RS. Mostly this is puffery to inflate apparent notability. Even a couple of the unreliable sources fail verification. No evidence it passes WP:CORP - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I noticed this one recently, none of it comes close to substantiating actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per TOOSOON. Coverage includes: "A new leading start-up robo adviser platform in the UK, invest.com, specialises in once hard-to-access alternative investments..." indicating that the company is not yet notable. I cannot find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with reasoning of David Gerard. Fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've removed non relevant text and have added references. The company coverage includes sources from: The Telegraph, CNBC, The Huffingon Post and This is Money. This indicates the company is notable Ymd2004 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Tsipori, Tali (2016-05-25). "Online investment co invest.com raises $20m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

     The article notes:

     invest.com first made headlines in 2014 when it paid $5 million for its domain name.

     invest.com says it charges a 1.5% management fee and 15% of profit but as an opening offer until June 22 no management fee will be charged.

     ...

     By the end of 2017, invest.com plans to launch in other countries, including Germany, Italy, Russia, Asia, and the Middle East, as well as launching several new alternative investment products.

  2. "Invest.com Launches Hedge Fund for the People' With $20m in Backing". TheMarker. 2016-05-26. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

     The article notes:

     Three years after buying the domain name invest.com, Israeli tech investor Moshe Hogeg is launching a “hedge fund for the people” backed by $20 million in investment capital from his Singularteam venture capital fund and other, unnamed investors. Launched in Britain, the new site will offer investors seven alternative investment strategies, which it said are “similar to those employed by quant hedge funds.” Invest.com’s portfolio management service requires a minimum investment of 1,500 pounds ($8,500) for a customized portfolio, with the investor’s risk appetite determined by questions posed by a robo-adviser and trades conducted automatically.

  3. Dakers, Marion (2016-05-23). "Invest.com rejoins the fight for online traders". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

     The article notes:

     Invest.com, one of the world’s most expensive website names, is relaunching itself as an alternative investment and trading site two years after its $5m sale.

     An Israeli venture capital firm named Singulariteam took control of the domain name in 2014, and has since brought in additional backers including Renren, the Chinese social network, to invest a total of $20m in the new platform.

     Ophir Gertner, who ran iForex before moving to help launch Invest.com a year and a half ago, said the site was built to compete with a growing number of robo-advisers now offering lower-cost investment help.

     ...

     Invest.com is modelling itself on the “two and twenty” fee structure at hedge funds, charging customers a flat 1.5pc plus 15pc of their profits.

  4. Mizrahi, Avi (2014-11-27). "Exclusive: Over $5 Million Paid for Invest.com by Israeli VC to Enter the Forex Business". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.
  5. Avital, Yaneev (2016-05-26). "Moshe Hogeg's online investment platform Invest.com raises $20 million". he:Geektime. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 2016-09-10.

     The article notes:

     The new investment platform defines itself as a ‘hedge fund for the masses.’ Unlike traditional hedge funds that require a large sum of starting capital investment, however, Invest.com investors can start investing with an initial deposit of £500.

     Similar to hedge funds, the investment platform’s portfolio management is based on seven different investment strategies to try and achieve returns even in a down market. Among other aspects, one can invest in foreign currencies, futures, bonds, stocks, and more. The platform uses algo-trading, or automated trading using algorithms, that enables a quick response to market changes in a constant and dynamic way and based on the personal preferences of each investor. Another emphasis on Invest.com is on the liquidity of the investment, where the investor can withdraw their money at any time.

     If the investor wishes to manage their own investments, they can do so with an initial deposit as low as £500 and if they want to consult the portfolio management services of Invest.com, they can do so with an initial deposit of at least £1,500.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Invest.com to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • These are literally all passing mentions with zero contribution to WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not consider paragraphs about the subject to be "passing mentions". Cunard (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wow, this is a mess. I think a little WP:TNT would do the article well. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• TomStar81 (talk · contribs), I have rewritten the article. Would you take a look? Cunard (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Still delete Not seeing the CORPDEPTH. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Still delete on rewrite. It's not the puff piece it was, and you've done good work here, but still doesn't have the WP:CORPDEPTH, sorry - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• From 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.

  It is clear based on my rewrite that it is possible "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization", so the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH.

  The company has received significant coverage internationally from the Israeli publications Globes, Haaretz (TheMarker) and he:Geektime and the UK publication The Daily Telegraph.

  Cunard (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the article is still advertorial sounding; I'm not changing my vote yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Which parts of the article are "still advertorial sounding"? Please let me know so I can fix it. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like a prospectus:

In 2016, Invest.com started an online investment platform it called a "hedge fund for the masses" because whereas hedge funds typically require a massive initial investment, Invest.com required only £500.^[1] Clients' investments are liquid in that they can be withdrawn whenever customers wanted. Invest.com's platform allows customers to invest in foreign currencies, futures, bonds, and stocks. It uses algorithmic trading.^[1]

Customers have the option of either managing their own investments or using Invest.com's managing services. For self-management, the starting investment required is £500. For active management from Invest.com, the starting investment required is £1,500.^[1] Invest.com uses a robo-advisor to pose a series of questions to customers to determine customers' risk level and execute trades robotically.^[2] It makes investments through the financial instrument contract for difference. It charges clients a flat fee of 1.5% and an additional 20% on all profits earned.^[3]

This is the bulk of the article. I'm sure this information can be found on the company's website and an encyclopedia article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a description of the company's investment product. This is its core business so that is why it is "the bulk of the article".

The notability guidelines do not say that "this information can be found on the company's website" means "an encyclopedia article is not required". An encyclopedia article is still useful because it presents the information neutrally and sources the information to independent reliable sources, whereas the company's website presents the information non-neutrally.

Cunard (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find the sources to be particularly independent or in-depth For example, the second link appears to be a reprint of the press release (?) as the same headline appears in multiple websites: "Invest.com Launches Hedge Fund for the People’ With $20m in Backing" (sample link:

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/tech-roundup/1.721513) When I click on one of them, the byline is "Market staff" (i.e. not bylined by an individual journalist). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheMarker article doesn't appear to be a press release. It says "TheMarker staff" where TheMarker "is a financial website in Israel, as well as the financial supplement of the daily national newspaper Haaretz". But even if the non-bylined source is disregarded, the articles in Globes, he:Geektime, and The Daily Telegraph should be sufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline while WP:NOT is a policy. The article is still promotional in nature / TOOSOON and should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor with no conflict of interest with the subject. I rewrote the article. Please explain how "The article is still promotional in nature" so I can address Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations. Cunard (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Online investment platform" still reads like a prospectus, creating an impression that the article exists solely to promote a business and to get people to enroll in the company's financial services. The history section contains information about funding and trivial details such as where the company is registered. All of this information can be found on the company's website, and an encyclopedia entry is not needed.

WP:N is a guideline, which states that some subjects may meet the notability requirements but would still not warrant an article. I believe this is such a case. In any case, the WP:COPRDEPTH may not have been met, so it would disqualify the article as well. Hope this clarifies my concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your explaining your concerns about the article. I don't think see anything actionable for me to work on improving the article. Information about the company's product, history, and funding is what the sources discussed and what I expect in an article about a company.

WP:N is a guideline, which states that some subjects may meet the notability requirements but would still not warrant an article. I believe this is such a case. – thank you for stating that you agree Invest.com meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline even if you don't think there should be an article.

In any case, the WP:CORPDEPTH may not have been met, so it would disqualify the article as well. – the Israeli and UK sources from Globes, he:Geektime, and The Daily Telegraph meet WP:CORPDEPTH.

Cunard (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I did not state that the company meets the notability guideline; I believe this assertion comes from editor Cunard, and not myself, and I was explaining that even if there's a belief that the notability guideline is met, an article may not be warranted. I've stated above that the reason for deletion is WP:TOOSOON and that I did not find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. WP:PROMO is part of WP:NOT and supersedes the notability discussion anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article violate WP:PROMO? Which section of WP:PROMO are you referring to? Here is one section:

Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid.

I believe Invest.com is "written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery" after I rewrote it. Do you disagree?

Cunard (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point this is coming across as attempting to filibuster the AFD process - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article meets CORPDEPTH and doesn't violate PROMO. There is coverage in multiple reliable sources. It has been rewritten by a neutral editor with no COI. -- GreenC 13:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Firstly some of the sources have been misrepresented. There is a difference between the domain Invest.com and the company which currently has control of Invest.com. Sources for one cannot be used for another and this article is about the latter. Secondly, per WP:SPIP, many of the sources are questionable. Geektime is essentially a blog which contains user submitted content. Finance Magnates is similar, anyone can register and submit content and there seems to be a feature to submit news about one's company. The Daily Telegraph references is more about the domain name. References 1 and 2 are essentially routine coverage - the kind where companies send press releases to the newspaper's financial section and it is redressed and reprinted. These cannot be used for WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. In today's world, publishing news about a startup's investment/funding is no big deal. Almost every startup can "create" such news and if we go by such a literal interpretation of GNG, wikipedia will become a directory of companies. But that precisely goes against WP:NOTDIR. To prevent this, we try to find out whether the the company is featured prominently in mainstream media (and not techblogs). Most notable companies will usually be profiled in mainstream media and these article will not be "5 line mentions in a redressed press release". This particular entity is nowhere close to being notable at this point and I advocate a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nails the problem with the referencing on this article - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 16 September 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) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Hill Academy (Lexington, KY) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: non-notable, non-high school. Quis separabit? 02:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Quis separabit? 02:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article was created because two schools with the same name were battling over who the original article would refer to. TimothyJosephWood 10:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as creator, after looking into it a bit more, which I should have done to begin with. TimothyJosephWood 12:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Basically no coverage in reliable secondary sources as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as certainly not convincing for schools notability, simply a Christian school. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 18 September 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) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Smith (tattoo artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Alleged to be a CSD article, but I'm skeptical here so I'm opting for an afd instead. Chief complaint is an apparent lack of notability. Article has bounced around somewhat since it came to be on Wikipedia, so its a mess in the history and log sections, however the talk page alleges two prior deletions for reasons unrelated to the GNG, and I did not find any previous afd on the matter (although it was a quick look and not a through scan), so I'm confident that G4 doesn't apply here. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]