< 17 September	19 September >

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortifications of Antwerp[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no reliable sources, and the connection between the title of the article and the content is tenuous. Even after editing for tone, the article is about things that supposedly no longer exist, but there's nothing RS to back up any historical assertion made within the article. For that reason, I see no need to merge poorly-sourced material into an otherwise stable article related to Antwerp - it's not qualitatively beneficial. MSJapan (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable subject. No longer existing is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as notable sub-article for historical information; does need RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Necrothesp: you're missing the point here. The article claims these things no longer exists, not me. The article then cites no historical sources to show these constructions ever did exist. MSJapan (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points here. 1) Antwerp was certainly a fortified city (as were all major towns before the modern era), so an article on its fortifications is clearly acceptable. 2) We are here to debate the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. Is the subject a notable one? Clearly it is. Obviously it needs more sources and other articles need to be linked from it (e.g. National Redoubt (Belgium)), but that does not call for the deletion of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a few points
- a) sources : a lot of notable sources will be appended as such it's evident to attribute a phrase or paragraph to a single source
- b) Antwerp is a major historic city in the development of the Lowcountries, itś development is key to the history of the Lowcountries (Netherlands and Belgium),
  - b1) the fortifications of Antwerp are an historical fact and the fortifications were constructed up to the interbellum and some of the installations are still in use
  - b2) archeological evidence is abundantly available, the article claims the (oldest) constructions do no longer exist, which is a true claim, that doesn't mean they have entirely disappeared and are no longer there at all, remainders are visible, or can be visited (which underlines that the construction did exist.
- I am a major contributor to this article and I admit a lot can be improved, I do object to the practise of nominating an article for deletion before discussing the matter, without raising and discussing the issue first in the talk page. The action and the practise of nominating an article with valid content before any discussion - which i find not only objectionable, offensive, degrading and vandalising among other things - is NOT an opening for discussion itś the final action and conclusion of the dicussion (whatever the bots may say) ... therefore I will NOT edit or contribute further to the article until this deletion insult has been removed , and apologies formulated on the talk page for this vandalising action . --DerekvG (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the briefest Google search demonstrates that lots of sources exist on this topic, so notability isn't a problem. AfD should not be used to resolve concerns over article content, except for where WP:TNT may apply, which isn't the case here. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable topic as per available sources; worthy of further development. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove ASAP as User:MSjapan prefers to first nominate this article for deletion before attempting to raise any issues in the talk page of the article ( as outlined in all policy documents of wikipedia), i think the article should be removed irrespective of content being valid or not and wether or not itś sourced , that does not seem to be the issue. --DerekvG (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a quick look at Google Books it seems the subject meets the significant coverage requirement to be notable per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs a lot of work, but per all the above the subject seems to be notable. This list shows that the "Fortificiations of X" article is hardly unprecedented. ¡Boz zio! 05:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the subject is clearly notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 23 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. Consensus is that at this point, these attacks cannot be discussed in the same article. A clearer connection that would justify such an article may arise in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17 September 2016 United States attacks[edit]

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

Not a notable topic per WP:NOTNEWS, and they're not all related to each other. It wouldn't do as a disambiguation page either. epicgenius (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. General Ization ^Talk 23:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is ZERO evidence that these attacks are connected in anyway, the only other thing that could be done is to redirect this to Category:Attacks in the United States in 2016. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand how you could jump to the conclusion of no connection when investigators and officials themselves have have stated connections.--Izudrunkizuhadenough (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason for my nomination is that there isn't enough evidence, if any, that all three attacks are connected. Maybe two, but most likely this is an unfortunate coincidence. epicgenius (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this time it is being discussed as possible but so far there are no hard facts or evidence linking all three events. You could argue that the NY, and NJ events are connected but again there is too little to go on there as well right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon for this. There is no evidence that these are connected events. The most recent coverage I can find (CBS as of a few minutes ago) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/three-attacks-minnesota-chelsea-new-jersey-investigations-links-unclear/ very definitely does not connect the events, with lins such as "didn’t appear to be connected, officials said, but added that they weren’t ruling anything out yet", "any clear link between the devices, has not been established." "people should not jump to conclusions about who may be responsible for the blast or what the motive was", and "have not yet definitively made the connection between the blast in Chelsea, New York City, Saturday night that left more than two dozen injured, and the blast in Seaside." Meters (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that these are connected. As Epicgenius said, there's only a very slim chance only two of the aforementioned incidents may be connected, but this has yet to be confirmed, and officials are starting to imply that may not be the case. At most, September 17, 2016, was just a very unfortunate day for America. Parsley Man (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No matter what they are connected by being 3 attacks on the same day in the same country where highly publicized terror attacks occur on average less than once a month. In addition most experts believe at least 2 are connected. Other articles exist just by the dating coincidence. --Izudrunkizuhadenough (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Izudrunkizuhadenough (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Izudrunkizuhadenough (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most experts DO NOT believe at least two are connected; all I'm seeing right now is just one Fox News report. Also, would you mind giving examples of said articles created just by dating coincidences? Parsley Man (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that Fox News is the only known major news source that is not subject to liberal media bias however, so maybe that is why it has not been connected by the other stations.--150.216.224.131 (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidly delete as clear SYNTH/OR. Zero RS evidence that anything is connected. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the 3 events are regularly grouped by the media: Washington Post [1] and by politicians, here Clinton in that WaPo article condemning “apparent terrorist attacks” in Minnesota, New Jersey and New York. There is at this point no clarity on whether the NY and NJ bombings are linked, and no indication that the perp in Minnesota was connected to the NY/NJ bombings. What is still unclear in the extent to which these 3 violent attacks will be discussed as a group. Only time will tell.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if only New York and New Jersey events are related, they may extend beyond one day, including Elizabeth explosion Zr2d2 (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: Not that it affects this AFD, but the same person of interest is wanted in both the NY and NJ bombings. The MN stabbing still looks unrelated, hence this AFD is unaffected. epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keepand fix through normal editing. I daresay events on the ground have outpaced this discussion. We know from today's NYT update that Ahmad Khan Rahami is a suspect in a bona fide series of terror-related incidents: Chelsea; Seaside Park, N.J. as well as multiple bombs found in Elizabeth, N.J. The out-of-state stabbing can just be cut from the article (and the article renamed if need be). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect if desired to 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to September 17 (general list of events on that date). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is even more redundant given the New York and New Jersey incidents have JUST been connected and given a singular article to boot, with Minnesota seemingly out of the picture for the moment. Parsley Man (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – (WP:NOTNEWS); also there's nothing, as of yet or possibly, to connect the New York/New Jersey area bombings and attempted bombings to the stabbing in Minnesota. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the two bombings have already been combined. Unless there is something to connect the bombings with the stabbings, these are probably coincidence.Nooneisneutral (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – and snow close — 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and already covered elsewhere. ¡Boz zio! 05:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The date does not connect these events. WP:SYNTH (WP:DEL6) and WP:NOTNEWS (WP:DEL14). Unscintillating (talk) 17:25, 25 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) 05:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cy Frost[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. His IMDb credits are undistinguished, and you can't WP:INHERIT from people you've worked with. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undistinquished composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Ayub407^talk 07:38, 19 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) 05:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cy Town[edit]

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

An article about an actor best known as a Dalek operator must be exterminated for failing WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no major roles in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if is pretty weak. Jack1956 (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 23 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) 05:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Katsimitros[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to Cypriot First Division club. However, since he has yet to play for them, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has never played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only claim of fame is a bench appearance at the 2016 Greek Cup final. Very little in the way of non-trivial media coverage. Clear WP:TOOSOON. Kosm1fent (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't played in a fully pro level competition Spiderone 12:22, 25 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) 05:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Gray (Arkansas politician)[edit]

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

Never elected to an office higher than mayor of a small town, appears to have only run once for higher office and received less than two percent of the vote, does not appear to have received noteworthy media attention. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Gray was mayor of a place with under 1,500 inhabitants. He was a minor party candidate for Senate. Candidates for senate need extremely good coverage for their articles to survive if not elected and that being their top claim to notability, and he very much lacks such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another NN very small town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smalltown mayors do not get Wikipedia articles just for being mayors, non-winning candidates for higher office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and the sourcing here — an alt-weekly and a blog — is nowhere near strong enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu of failing WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:41, 22 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) 05:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul C. Maxwell (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. Polled third (of three candidates) in the primary[2]. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as not elected to any office. Tassedethe (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Article clearly promotional, probably qualifies for G11. Article written by SPA with likely COI. The subject fails WP:politician and this article is an attempt to promote his current campaign. MB 01:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is running for a state house district, if elected he will be notable, but not until then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election, and even less for being a candidate in a primary — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to actually win the seat in November (and not just the primary) to qualify for an article on the basis of the election itself. But there's no credible notability claim here, the article is written very much like a campaign brochure, and it's minimally sourced and even what little sourcing has been shown is mostly to his own self-published campaign website. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 23 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. Favonian (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Character theory (media)[edit]

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

This article seems to be some sort of synthesis, under a title which gets only a little ghit support, in terms of Propp's Narritive Theory. The article seems to mix ideas about characters in media, with "characters" encountered in online communities. There has in the article's history been a healthy dose of WP:COI, and there is a suspicion that the article exists, as much as anything, as a vehicle for non-notable views of a COI author. Valid content in this article is found, or has been moved, to appropriate articles; Propp to Actant, Bartle has its own article. Campbell et al to Online_community#Classification. In view of the dubious admixture of disparate concepts lumped together in this article, I recommend it be deleted. In view of the COI which has plagued the article, I recommend it be salted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree, once pruned of the obvious promotion there is nothing of substance left. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, almost all primary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm on the fence. If we delete this, we lose reference to the Campbell, Fletcher and Greenhill typography, as well as the Propp typography. I think both of those are good content, though I'm not sure either deserves their own article. But at the same time, they're typographies of different types of people, and they don't belong in an article together. The Campbell et al one could share space with the Bartle typography, but the Propp one is unique in that it refers to fictional characters. So I'm not sure what to do here. I'm open to having my mind made for me by good arguments here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Propp typography is at Vladimir_Propp#Characters and I put a Wikilink to that at Character_(arts)#Types_by_role, which is where categories of fictional characters should go. I put in Wikilinks to the main ones (Protagonist, etc.), all of which already have their own Wikipedia articles. Bartel is covered at Bartle taxonomy of player types. I'd like to read Fletcher, et. al.'s "Fight club: culture, conflict and everyday life amongst an online 'community", but it's paywalled.[3] It did, however, get a good review in The Guardian.[4]. So Fletcher, et. al., might be worth saving as a reference in some article on online behavior. John Nagle (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as I noted in the deletion rationale, above, MjolnirPants, Cambell, Fletcher et al has been preserved by moving it to Online community#Classification ... which is to say that all of the useful content in the article has been moved to more appropriate places on wikipedia. All that will be lost is the lead paragraph. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the responses to me (which address every concern I expressed), I'm now on board with Deleteing the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded content fork now that all the content has been relocated elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As all useful info has been moved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not have a common topic, and the sources are misleading at best. Vladimir Propp's text was not about characters in fiction in general, it was about characters in folk tales. Richard Bartle's text was about the types of video game players. John Campbell, Gorden Fletcher, and Anita Greenhill's text was about the types of online communities users. They have nothing in common and are talking about "characters" in general. Dimadick (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The useful encyclopedic content has been incorporated into the other appropriate articles mentioned above. Thanks to the editors who did that work. This article has been the subject of a campaign of promotional and self-promotional editing going back many years. Whether the editors involved are one person or several is not relevant to this discussion. This article is their most prominent promotional target and therefore should be deleted, since there is no evidence that the topic is independently notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 20 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 Ek Tha Tiger. Don't usually close on 2 !votes however consensus at the moment is to redirect and once filming's begun to perhaps reinstate the article - I'd suggest to anyone reading this that before you revert the redirect you discuss it on the tp, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Zinda Hai (film)[edit]

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

It's created by a user called Tigerzindahain, to promote a movie called Tiger Zinda Hain. It's Bollywood though, so I don't know if it has a claim to notability or not, hence why I'm not speedying. OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wise to refrain, as we do not speedy film topics unless obvious hoaxes and this sourcable topic is no hoax. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film is surely notable, and seems to be a sequel of Ek Tha Tiger, see 1. The question is if it is WP:TOOSOON. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Titodutta, it fails WP:NFF and is thus too soon even with recent coverage because filming has not yet begun. I agree that will be easily notable topic once filming is confirmed.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ek Tha Tiger: The film has already garnered an awful lot of coverage. Since principle photography has not yet begun, it does not qualify for a standalone piece for now (per WP:NFF), make it a redirect to main article and write few words about it in there. Anup [Talk] 04:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Ek Tha Tiger#Sequel as this new film was announced less than two weeks ago and, having not yet begun filming and in even with lots of pre-production coverage, fails WP:NFF. So yes it is for now simply TOO SOON. Allow a reconsideration when it begins filming (apparently to film during 2017 for a 2018 release) as it appears it has growing coverage in such as DNA India (1),DNA India (2),Hindustan Times,DNA India (3),Indian Expresss,Times of India,Bollywood Life,and many more and will be notable when filming has begun is met. Even in not meriting its own article, it's a great topic for a draftspace work-in-progress with sourced mentions in articles of Ali Abbas Zafar, Aditya Chopra, Salman Khan, and Katrina Kaif. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:07, 24 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) 05:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internet and terrorism[edit]

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

This article reads as a personal essay or term paper. It's been tagged for rewrite for a year and nobody has touched it. The topic may be notable, but this is a WP:TNT job. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's not that bad. Instead of having it deleted it should be improved instead. --Fixuture (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point I'd suggest this is unconvincing unless you actually do the work instead of saying someone should - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @David Gerard: & Co What exactly do you think is so bad about the current state of the article? It includes the most basic info and most of it has refs. I'm just saying that if you have a problem you should edit it - I find it good enough for an article to keep by now already. --Fixuture (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as it stands per nom. Wikipedia is not a personal essay space - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TNT. E Eng 04:35, 26 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. Evidence of notability appears to exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pork Tornado[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This band does not appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:NBAND. Only one released album. This band appears to have been a side project of one of the members. Inactive for many years before reuniting and have not produced anything of note after reuniting. Additional sources provided are not reliable sources and don't appear to indicate notability. The notability of a single member of this band does not confer notability upon the band as a whole. Safiel (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allmusic biography and album review are reliable sources as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources although only having released one album makes them borderline notable per WP:GNG there should be more sources such as newspaper reviews available but probably behind paywalls Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the first AFD was on a completely unrelated topic Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other sources exist such as

Morse, Steve (4 October 2002), "TORNADO MADE WITH STRONG PHISH STOCK", The Boston Globe

Aquilante, Dan (1 October 2002), "GETTIN' IN 'LICKS'", New York Post

Condran, Ed (9 April 1999), "PORK TORNADO, THE OTHER WHITE BAND", The Record

At the very least it should be merged to Jon Fishman. No deletion here. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:32, 23 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) 05:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Pochynok[edit]

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

Recently minted phd who does not seem to meet WP:PROF. That said, some of the sources are in Ukranian, so if there are sources I don't understand that do demonstrate notability, please post below. agtx 19:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article that you don't understand are actually in Polish, not Ukrainian, and are announcements of lectures by Pochynok and articles written by her - nothing that demonstrates notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. At least two are in Cyrillic [5] [6] so I figure they're not in Polish. agtx 04:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - So they are. I didn't notice them before because the article gives them English titles. They are a blog post and an interview with the subject on a radio station serving Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. Still nothing to demonstrate notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything that indicates WP:PROF notability or WP:GNG for that matter; is essentially a CV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources either in the article or by searching for the Ukrainian, Polish and English spellings of the name. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so particpants are notified of afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a worthy person but there are no sources to support notability WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO at the moment, but has potential for WP-notability in the future. This is a good example of an article that has been created too early. WP inclusion is about notability, not potential for future notability, however strong that potential may appear to be.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; has a lot of publication credits, but probably TOOSOON. Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 25 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) 05:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Club: Los Angeles soundtrack[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Topic does not meet either music notability criteria or general notability criteria. Per 15. at WP:VGSCOPE, merging the content to Midnight Club: Los Angeles would be inappropriate. The1337gamer (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. Consensus is this sort of stuff doesn't even really belong in the parent article, let alone a separate one. Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be fine to merge only if there were sources that even discussed this soundtrack... Until then, the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets (not even Midnight Club: Los Angeles). If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 18:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and there are no good independent sources to be able to create even a stub – without them it's just a track listing, and Wikipedia isn't a listings directory. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 19 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagos[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. I oppose keeping the article as-is unless evidence of independent notability can be provided. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. —Mythdon 09:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Jclemens, above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:34, 22 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) 05:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. Boaz[edit]

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

I'm not sure whether this is a hoax or just a GNG fail. An old version of the article does have some very poor sourcing but I am struggling to spot anything reliable, which isn't helped by the name that is used. A Cordelia Boaz is a doctor in Nagercoil but she doesn't seem to be this person.

From the hoax angle, I find it unlikely that an Indian resident is a member of the Pakistani ISI (which is a secret service of sorts) and also a member of the NAAM. Perhaps I am stereotyping regarding those, in which case my apologies, or perhaps they have alternate meanings. Sitush (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My guess would be alternate meanings. There are many different entities abbreviated as ISI. But if the creator of this article doesn't bother to indicate which one they meant, we're not going to find this to be a particularly useful biography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking sources to verrify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: On a hoax-scale of 10, I would rate it no less than 9. A social activist from Tamil Nadu and a member of Pakistani intelligence services is very unlikely to be one individual. Anup [Talk] 04:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No relation to Boaz or Boaz Yakin. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 26 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 Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsensine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the one I didn't bother to double check out of all the recent ones already had an AfD. I guess letting it run through again wouldn't matter. Or someone can just close it. TTN (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as Merge to the original redirect target, per BOZ, above. This article was already cleanly merged and redirected in the previous AFD and restored by an IP-only account shortly thereafter.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Vulcan's Forge, there's no reason to drag this out. Grayfell (talk) 08:45, 25 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) 05:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dulaiya road[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. The first two references are map entries, which are not reliable, and at best prove only existence. The third reference does not mention the subject, and seems to have been added only to pad out the sources. ubiquity (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Third reference has since been removed as not supporting citation. ubiquity (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I require at least some RS for WP:V purposes. This is not satisfied here and I would suggest a delete. Unverified information is best not kept. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, per WP:V. States it is a "secondary road" and not a main roadway. Claims it is historical but does not state how or why and has no RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 15:59, 24 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) 05:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand with facial hair[edit]

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

A good example of listcruft, but entirely non-notable. It's unreferenced and I would be rather surprised if reliable sources could be found that discussed the issue at stake - facial hair of New Zealand prime ministers. It needs to be acknowledged that there is a List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair, it is well referenced, they do have sources that discuss their presidents' facial hair, and the article has been to AfD three times, with a strong keep tendency. Whilst that article meets WP:GNG, this one doesn't. A separate issue is that this article violates WP:OR; given there are no sources, the only way to compile the list is by evaluating photos. Schwede 66 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would argue that all these articles make no sense in their naming. People can have large amounts of facial hair even at times when they regularly shave it off.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shave it off. Unlike US presidents, NZ PMs haven't had their hair scrutinized by scholars. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't appear to be a notable topic. Mattlore (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and unencyclopedic, based on original research, devoid of any independent sources. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This distinction does not appear to have been made by independent reliable sources, unlike for US presidents. Fieari (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic listcruft. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic and irrelevant topic and content. XXN, 08:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know a lot of people find this fascinating. It's a good example of how styles change over the years. Ksylatron. —Preceding undated comment added 08:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly stupid. E Eng 04:37, 26 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. NACADEMIC/NPROF appear to be met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B V Babu[edit]

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

Not notable but both speedy and PROD have been removed. Seems to be paid. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject most likely probably passes WP:PROF of all of the info given in the article checks out, but the article is currently written in such a way that I am sorely tempted to tag it WP:CSD#G11. Nsk92 (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at that, I think we'd need an expert. I don't know if he's made significant impact in his field or in higher education. I'm not sure his only notable award is prestigious, let alone highly prestigious, but do not think so. Basically the question is down to, the significant impact part. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep perhaps somehow, as any paid claims can be taken care by other paths, but the chancellor position itself is enough to convince us an article. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NACADEMIC. ..an h-index of 36 and i10-index of 82 and over 5225 citations. Source: Google Scholar. Anup [Talk] 03:54, 22 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Light2021 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vistasp Karbhari[edit]

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

Nothing significant written here. No media sources. Achievements are totally absent here. Notability issues. One is Resume and one is Press Release website. Light21 17:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Easily satisfies WP:PROF#6 The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. President of University of Texas at Arlington. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep per both WP:PROF#C6 (head of major university) and #C1 (highly cited publications). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the nomination is attributed to "Light21", but this is User:Light2021. Unscintillating (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep: WP:ACADEMIC says notability is established if "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Karbhari is the president of University of Texas at Arlington. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator still does not understand key components of WP:AFD, especially WP:BEFORE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:25, 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 Editorialist. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editorialist (magazine)[edit]

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

Written for the purpose of being in Wikipedia for promotional advantages. All media coverage seems merely Press Release exercise. Founders are notable for the company they worked earlier. Does not fit for notability in wikipedia. No significant coverage by media. Light21 17:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Light2021, I take offense to your guess regarding my motivations.--18:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete it does get a little attention, my search here: [7], but I have a hard time arguing for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge with Editorialist. Not enough content to merit separate entities, notability is intertwined. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Editorialist (web site); not independently notable. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Editorialist. Seems there's a notable subject, but we don't need separate articles for both at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Editorialist. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Editorialist, per everyone above. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:32, 19 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 Train_Simulator_(Dovetail_Games)#Sequel. Merge from page history as needed. czar 04:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Train Sim World[edit]

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

Redirect was reverted so I've nominated for deletion. Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. I'm fine with this being redirected either to its predecessor Train Simulator (Dovetail Games) or the developer Dovetail Games. The1337gamer (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Train Simulator (Dovetail Games) until released. Nordic Nightfury 19:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 19:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 19:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - and only spin out into its own article if it gets GNG meeting coverage. (Not ever sure a "merge" is warranted, as the article is short, and those charts aren't really appropriate at either location...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 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 Transformers: Generation 1. And other articles as discussed. Sandstein 09:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crosshairs (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has numerous sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be used in a meaningful way to be relevant. Even if every single source is reliable, that means nothing if they're not actually being used properly. Ever citation in this article is either for primary fictional information or extremely basic facts. TTN (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge into Transformers: Generation 1, Transformers (film) and Transformers: Dark of the Moon (striking previous vote, see below) - as I stated in the other AFD, this is a notable character from a notable television series and its clear these things exist. The television series is notable ~~and there is more than enough information on this character to substantiate its own article~~. Notability of this character is established by the notability of the TV series, which this character is an aspect of. —Mythdon 23:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. As in the other discussion, you are basing your stance entirely on completely subjective ideas of notability that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's standard of notability. The character is probably notable in the context of Transformers, but that does not always correlate to Notability. You want to find sources describing the character's critical impact and reception of the character. TTN (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As what is an aspect of a fictional work, Crosshairs is still going to be covered some form or another on Wikipedia regardless of this AFD. What you are suggesting is not whether this topic should be covered, but rather, whether it should have its own separate article. If you are concerned that Crosshairs does not warrant its own separate article, but still believe its notable within Transformers, a merge discussion probably should've been done instead of starting this AFD, since with or without its own separate article, Crosshairs is still going to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. That way, a group of editors can discuss whats appropriate content to merge (or even just redirect it if there isn't any). Deletion is a method for determining whether content is appropriate for Wikipedia, not whether appropriate content should have its own separate article. That is why often merges and redirects are decided at AFD. That is also why we have merge and redirect discussions. So yeah, articles can be improved while at AFD, but choosing to seek out this process when the content is still going to be on Wikipedia isn't the best course action in this case, in my opinion. My suggestion would be to propose a merge if you think the content simply doesn't warrant its own article, to give others enough time to discuss, rather than have to go through the timed process of AFD. —Mythdon 00:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That has nothing to do with the deletion discussion. This is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with articles, especially ones that have failed to establish notability for about ten years now. Any outcome is fine so long as the outcome is that the content is removed if notability can not be established. TTN (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mythdon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge somewhere useful if anyone feels the need- offer some suggestions. No evidence of independent notability and the article's a mess. Mythdon's keep argument does not seem to align with any Wikipedia guidelines; if the argument is instead that there is a better way to clean up the disaster that is Wikipedia's coverage of Transformers, then, again, offer some suggestions. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (reasoning for striking keep vote) - Merging down into Transformers: Generation 1, Transformers (film) and Transformers: Dark of the Moon to address the notability concerns whilst still establishing an argument for preserving the content. After further consideration and in taking into account J Milburns suggestion and in view of my comments at similar AFD's, character is notable within Transformers and while that establishes notability of Crosshairs within Transformers, there's absolutely no reception on this character in independent sources that would make this article not written entirely on plot summary or read as a toy guide. Much of that content can instead be merged somewhere into those articles. And while I still stand by my arguments that articles on fictional subjects shouldn't be AFD'd if there's still going to be a mention somewhere on Wikipedia and the content still has a place somewhere on Wikipedia (situations where a merge/redirect would suffice), I stand corrected in that I made no serious attempt to address the notability concerns and my initial arguments to keep made no serious attempt to fix the issues at hand. All things considered, the way I approached this particular AFD with regards to my position is where I went wrong, and merging is a reasonable compromise to preserve appropriate content while fixing the issues at hand and addressing the valid concerns raised by the delete voters. —Mythdon 05:08, 21 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 and redirect to List of Sunsoft video games. The other redirect did not gain consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hissatsu Pachinko Collection[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. The contesting editor did not leave a reason, so I'll just repeat my rationale from the PROD: Fails to meet WP: Notability (video games). This game was never released in English-speaking countries, and has been tagged for notability for over seven years. Of the two sources cited, one of them (GameFAQs) has been deemed unreliable by consensus due to its reliance on user-submitted content, and the other (Sega Saturn UK) is a fan site. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese wikipedia has only passing mention. Not enough for article.Fruitmince (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sega Saturn games Fruitmince (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since List of Sega Saturn games (like pretty much all articles in Category:Video game lists by platform) consists entirely of a simple table list, I'm not clear on how the content of Hissatsu Pachinko Collection could be comfortably merged into it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Sunsoft video games ((R to list entry)). We don't have a single reliable review on source for this game, so that's the reason to delete. It is listed as released by Sunsoft. As long as someone can confirm its existence, it could be a useful redirect here, but not if someone will recreate the page without sources again in the page's future. I agree that there is nothing sourced to merge. czar 15:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 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. This has been open long enough. Although this was close to a "no consensus" result, the arguments that much of the coverage constitutes routine local coverage of the subject's candidacy are persuasive. Vanamonde (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene McArthur Albarran[edit]

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

Albarran is a candidate for the US house, but candidates at this level are only notable if elected. So unless she is elected come November, she is not notable. Her previous role as Miss Idaho USA is also not enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You mean they only satisfy WP:NPOL#1 if they are elected. WP:GNG notability does not require being elected, and is the sum of attention to the topic from all sources. Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and source a credible claim that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article independently of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not merely run in it, to collect notability from the election itself. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but nothing written or sourced here makes her notable enough to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You mean they only satisfy WP:NPOL#1 if and after they are elected. Being elected adds to previous contributions to WP:GNG notability, and previous contributions include the candidacy, which you state elsewhere is sufficient for WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a largely unsourced BLP and a vanity page for an unelected candidate. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in-depth and in-depth and in-depth and mention and mention and in-depth and four paragraphs here and in-depth and in-depth and in-depth. So contrived non-rules like 'candidates only notable if elected' don't apply when the general notability guideline is met.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a single candidate for any elected office in the entire United States who would fail WP:GNG if "media coverage exists" were all it took to give a candidate permanent inclusion rights just for being a candidate. But unelected-candidate articles have a very disproportionate tendency to get turned into campaign brochures rather than neutral articles, and they don't have the size of potential audience needed to keep them properly compliant with Wikipedia's content policies — which is precisely why WP:NPOL has to restrict politicians' notability to the actual holding of office and not the mere running for it: we simply don't have the resources or the personpower needed to keep them neutral and policy-compliant on top of all the work we have to do just to keep elected officeholders neutral and policy-compliant in the face of partisan editwarring. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This makes no sense, as you stipulate that this topic satisfies WP:GNG. If you want to argue to merge or redirect a notable topic, that is allowed under WP:N. Even if you were to add "WP:IAR" for the maintainability aspect, that would only argue at most to redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Utah, 2016. Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't "stipulate" that the topic satisfies GNG; I explain why it doesn't: coverage of a non-elected candidate for office does not pass GNG except in the rare event that it nationalizes into something far beyond the WP:ROUTINE level of coverage that all candidates always get. Bearcat (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By invoking WP:ROUTINE, your post is saying that the topic has sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG, but not sufficient coverage to rise above the level of WP:ROUTINE. Otherwise, you could just say that the coverage was insufficient to satisfy GNG. The part I don't get is why you say that WP:GNG is unlike "media coverage exists". Unscintillating (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because GNG is different from "media coverage exists" — media coverage only adds up to GNG when that media coverage has satisfied certain standards of volume and range significantly greater than has been shown here at all. One or two or three pieces of local coverage, of a person who would be expected to garner one or two three pieces of local coverage because local coverage of local elections always exists, is not equivalent to passage of GNG: it's WP:ROUTINE coverage that doesn't add up to a GNG pass. An unelected candidate for office does not pass GNG because a few pieces of local media coverage in her own district exist, because then no unelected candidate would ever fail GNG. A smalltown mayor does not pass GNG just because a few pieces of local media coverage exist, because then no smalltown mayor would ever fail GNG. GNG requires a range and volume of sourcing greater than has been shown here at all. For an unelected candidate for office, GNG is not satisfied until the coverage nationalizes into sources that would not be routinely expected to be covering that election. All media coverage that exists is not an automatic GNG pass just because "media coverage exists": for GNG to become met, the sourcing has to surpass certain standards of range and volume that have not been surpassed here. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and source a credible claim that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article independently of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not merely run in it, to collect notability from the election itself. Rniterjr (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please formulate your own rationale in your own words, rather than simply copying and pasting somebody else's. In addition to technically being plagiarism (not that I'm actually going to sue you or anything, but still), it makes your contribution look like something less than fully good faith. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither page, nor sources brought to this discussion, nor my (admittedly brief) searches turn up anything to support notability beyond routing campaign coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep Topic has received WP:GNG-level coverage for being a candidate for US Congress. While WP:SUSTAINED is a reason to discount WP:GNG notability, this particular topic has received sustained coverage, going back to 1975. The peak year for television viewing of Miss USA was 1979, with 38 million viewers, ref, and this topic won Miss Idaho USA in 1975. Winning Miss Idaho meant that there was additional nationwide television coverage during Miss America 1977. Both of these television shows count as published sources with significant in-depth coverage for WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, she has not received "GNG-level" coverage for being a candidate for US Congress: if her congressional race were getting so much national attention that articles substantially about her were appearing in The New York Times, that would be GNG-level coverage. But if all you can show is one media source about her congressional race, and it's in the local paper whose job it is to cover that congressional race, then that is not GNG-level coverage. And the pageants do not count as "published" metasources for themselves, either. Bearcat (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changing my vote. I had missed the Miss Idaho thing. Sourcing, writing of could be better. What else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither winning a state-level beauty pageant nor running for congress is enough to establish notability. I find all the "in depth" coverage cited above is just routine coverage of her announcement that she was running for office. This does not get her past WP:GNG. If she wins the election, or if there was something unusual to happen during the campaign then she would become notable. But at the present time, this is routine. MB 01:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is an event guideline related to WP:NOTNEWS. See WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sustained coverage. Per WP:SUSTAINED, "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability." A brief burst in 1975/1977 about winning Miss Idaho, and another one 40 years later for an unrelated event are not sustained coverage - just two brief bursts. In the intervening four decades she was a college student, statistician, businessperson, etc. but did nothing notable in that time. MB 02:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you withdrawing your claim that there is routine coverage during the election cycle, which is a WP:GNG pass even if not a WP:N pass. Unscintillating (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage? Bearcat (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you !voted delete, so even without considering the two 1970's TV shows, your !vote is out of step with community norms which is to redirect otherwise unknown candidates, without sufficient coverage for the election, to the article about the election (reference, see Matt Bevin AfD). As for your question, I've already covered that in my !vote. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't covered that. You've simply asserted that the general concept of beauty pageants being televised inherently constitutes its own circular metasourcing for itself, which it doesn't — the existence of a television program does not inherently reify itself into its own metasourced evidence of its own notability, if reliable sources that are independent of the program aren't being brought to support its notability. You haven't shown any evidence of doing the work to show that any "sustained" RS coverage of her actually exists — you've simply asserted that the pageant's existence metasources itself — and not a single source present in the article shows any evidence of anybody else having dug out the kind of sourcing it takes to correctly support notability as a beauty pageant contestant either. The only source in the article dated any earlier than 2016 is an article which entirely fails to even contain a single solitary mention of her name at all, and is present only to source the tangential fact that her predecessor chose to run in a different district — thus failing to be coverage of her in any way, shape or form. And for the record, that fact takes the number of reliable sources here down from two to just one, thus putting it even further away from the GNG finish line. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A good example of what we mean by candidates getting actual GNG level coverage can be found by looking through the article on Mia Love. The fact that she is an elected member of congress today, should not obscure wise use of some of the sources. The New York Times made substantial mention of her in an article in May 2012. National Review, National Journal, LA Times, Fox News, the Washington Times, The Daily Caller and others also ran articles on her. Here [8] is an article from the Washington Post that mentions her by name in the headline from 2012. If one can dig up this level of coverage for Albarran I think we could maybe consider her passing GNG, but as long as the coverage is localized I see no reason to. And then there is this article from the Wash Po by George Will from September 2012. [9]. Where is similar coverage for Albarran?
Comment This article has 2 reliable sources, one from the Deseret News (although since the subject is Mormon, some would even argue against this) and one from the Salt Lake Tribune. The problem is that her district is clearly within their home coverage area, so they have a procative duty to produce something on major party candidates to give their readers a chance at an informed decision. Some papers might neglect such duty, but the Deseret News seeks political neutrality and the SL Tribune does all it can to promote Democrats, but occasionally has to throw them under the bus because they are idiots like the current Democrat candidate for Governor in Utah and do things designed to outrage active Latter-day Saints who are a majority of voters in Utah. To pass GNG we would need at a mimimum 2 articles that do not include the congressional district in play in their local coverage area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about sources outside the district is not a policy-based argument. You'd be making a better argument to argue to incubate until after the election. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have a standing rule that premature articles about unelected candidates who don't pass WP:NPOL are not draftspaced pending the election, precisely because we can't allow draftspace to turn into exactly the repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates that NPOL is designed to prevent mainspace from becoming. If she wins the election in November, the article can be undeleted at that time as the notability equation will have changed — but allowing every candidate in every election to have a sandbox draft in place for the duration of the campaign is not a road we want to go down. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I take your point about WP:POLOUTCOMES. But it doesn't change my point that a !vote to incubate, which you note goes against the essay WP:POLOUTCOMES, would be a better argument than one that is not policy-based. Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "not policy-based" about an unelected candidate for office having to be based on more than just purely local sources that would be routinely expected to be covering elections taking place in their own coverage area — as I already explained above, we would always have to keep an article about every single candidate in every single election that happens at all if purely local campaign coverage were enough in and of itself to satisfy GNG. Policy statements sometimes lag behind the actual state of consensus — but AFD does have an established consensus in place that because routine local coverage of local elections always exists, and therefore every candidate could always be claimed to pass GNG, unelected candidates for office do have to pass a standard similar to the WP:AUD restrictions on companies and organizations: the coverage does have to explicitly demonstrate them as significantly more notable than the 50,000 other people who are also unelected candidates for office right now, namely by nationalizing well beyond the purely local and routine. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the above; I don't see any reason to incubate this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I discount the expected (local) coverage of the election, I don't see anything that is left to pass GNG. (Note that POLOUTCOMES exists because otherwise every candidate would inherit notability from the coverage about the election. This is important per WP:NOTDIR - Wikipedia cannot become a directory of election candidates) As for the coverage about the Miss USA - that is firstly a primary source. Secondly, assuming that there was "nationwide coverage" goes against WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED. Who knows, maybe the TV just showed a 5 second glimpse of her among other candidates? Note that she didn't win the competition. This is not convincing enough to be kept. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the pageant was the event. It cannot be used as a "source" itself. That's a bit too meta. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahlra[edit]

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

I've been unable to locate sources about this topic and see no indication that it meets the general notability guideline. However, there's a decent chance that sources written in non-Latin scripts exist so I'm hoping to find people at AfD who can check this. Pichpich (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quick search in urdu-wiki comes up with no matches. (Suggests 'Malta' as closest match.) Fruitmince (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find anything. Even searching the Urdu name doesn't return anything. Considering a total lack of citations as well, I will go for a delete per WP:V. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:49, 23 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolachi (film)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL - unreleased film, no substantial coverage. In development for five years with apparently nothing but a YT trailer. MSJapan (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's very little out there to show that this movie is ultimately notable enough for an article. By all accounts it looks like it was planned and then dropped or indefinitely shelved. I'd normally suggest a redirect but this looks like it gained so little coverage that I don't think that it'd be worthwhile. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's just WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL I think. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KGirlTrucker81. —Mythdon 10:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there are films that have seen prolonged development that have pages on Wikipedia, they at least have substantial coverage. I can't see anything here. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 09:27, 23 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. —SpacemanSpiff 08:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Habibur Islam[edit]

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

No sources to show any notability just social media links. Looks like self promotion along with Mobile Chai, Atongko and Natok Holona. KylieTastic (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note these have all been deleted before (plus Mega Entertainment), some multiple times. Raihana12 appears to be a single purpose account to promote this person along with their work. KylieTastic (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing a thing that would suggest WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Anup [Talk] 22:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 17:16, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Ursuliak[edit]

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

filmmaker who doesn't seem very notable. the films that were supposedly made either don't seem notable or don't have articles. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few references to sources in English. I'll have a look for Russian ones later. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The English-language sources that I have cited in the article show that Ursuliak is a notable director, and those found by the Russian news and books searches confirm it in spades. The fact that we don't have articles about most of the films is simply an indication that this encyclopedia is far from complete rather than any reflection on Ursuliak's notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes GNG per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 22 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) 05:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almostfamous[edit]

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

Rely critically on non-credible media sources. Merely Press Release on media. Article is written only for website promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the website to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 16:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, not even almost-notable. Also apparently dead for at least the past year - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: judging by the founder's LinkedIn profile, the company ceased operations in June 2012. Richard3120 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does anyone have access to the cited Wall Street Journal source? I'm not a subscriber so I can't see the article, but I'm wondering if anyone else can so we can see if it's a good source. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you search the first sentence, you'll find copies on other News Corporation properties, e.g. Fox News. It doesn't mention Almostfamous at all - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, Delete: With no WSJ source, the only remaining plausible RS is the Miami New Times blog, and that's not a particularly strong source anyway. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Safehaven86, David Gerard: I'm not sure whether the Fox News copy is the entire article. If you look at the bottom there is a link that says "click here to read more on this article", which suggests that there is more available on the WSJ website. Richard3120 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I googled on the second sentence and that let me view the entire article if I went to it from the Google search results. Almostfamous, Tedd Bernard or Jon Barchan aren't mentioned in it - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Also, when I search wsj.com for Almostfamous, Tedd Bernard, or Jon Barchan, I get zero hits (hits would come up even if they were just previews for subscriber-only content). Safehaven86 (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: David Gerard, you are correct – I did a Google search on the first sentence, and that didn't bring up the same results as you got with the second sentence. But I can see now that the whole article talks about the University of Miami's entrepreneur support fund, which financially backed AlmostFamous among other start-ups... but doesn't mention Almost Famous itself, so it's no use as a source. Given that the company no longer exists, appears to have had no lasting notability, and there are no good sources available, I agree it fails WP:NCORP. Richard3120 (talk) 20:53, 19 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) 05:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and Decorations awarded to RNZAOC members[edit]

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

I believe that this is a case of LISTCRUFT and a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This list is attempting to document awards made to RNZAOC members but the decorations and awards, while admirable, are not exactly top awards. The list contains names of people who are also unlikely to be notable for WP articles. There may be some historical interest but that seems like a memorial to me. Gbawden (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The majority of the individuals on this list do not meet notability guidelines. ~~That and there seems to be few reliable sources for this information.~~ WP:LISTPEOPLE gives pretty good guidance on this, and if applied to this list it would be a list with only one person, maybe a couple of others. EricSerge (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the refs, these individuals still, for the most part, do no seem to meet notability. EricSerge (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet GNG and content fork with Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps, as well. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT; the subject lacks notability for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 20 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. Notability appears to exist (might be better supported with specific sources), promotionalism issues can be fixed in other ways. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt-a-Pet.com[edit]

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

Rely only on non-credible media sources. Merely Press Release on media. Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the site to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 16:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete, sadly - a good cause, but this is a blatantly promotional article with mostly promotional sources - what RS coverage there is probably isn't enough to swing it - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More source search options provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' A bit weak, but passes WP:GNG by virtue of being the largest of it's kind non-profit in North America. Not sure where nominator is getting "written only for promotional and advertising purposes" from. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Current sourcing not ideal, but WP:NEXIST. This is a large national organization and sourcing appears to be available, including under the organization's former name (1-800-Save-a-Pet.com). Safehaven86 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quality is poor, but passes GNG. Nationwide, sourcing adequate. Might want to do some searches under the old name for refs. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 20 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. Sandstein 12:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska[edit]

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

I could not find any significant coverage or major accomplishments in searches. Seems like a regular architect in all honestly. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Women of her generation with a career where she apparently won awards for her work (Gold Medal of the SARP) makes me suspect that most source material is going to be non-digital and in Polish. I found a couple other obituaries that mirror what's in the article already, plus this. Montanabw^(talk) 03:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any sources, the only one is the cited page of the Polish Architectural Society which did award her a Golden Medal for her work, but it is a very niche award with no coverage outside said organization. Pl wiki uses only one source, an obituary sponsored by the said Society. It does not seem like she reached the level of recognition to be included in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per Piotrus. There appears to be an almost complete dearth of coverage in Polish sources, except for the death notice from the Polish Architectural Society cited in the article. Even making allowances for the fact that she lived mainly before the digital age (although she died in 2010), for someone genuinely notable I would have expected to find more. Nsk92 (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find more -> see p. 30-32 Electron (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a valid source but I am still not convinced. From the title of the source it appears to be a parish magazine published by the Parish of the Nativity in Komorow (perhaps some Polish speakers can either confirm or correct this supposition). For someone genuinely notable I would expect a lot more coverage, both more instances of in-depth coverage from non-obscure sources, and at least a sprinkling of brief mentions here and there in a variety of types of independent WP:RS. I am just not seeing that here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read Polish fluently and can confirm that this is a parish magazine. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Also it does not talk about her architect career, focusing on her hobby as an ameteur painter. It mentions she had her work shown in few galleries/museums, but I do not believe this one source is sufficient for WP:ARTIST. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source says also that her paintings have participated in over 30 collective exhibitions and 3 individual in the country and abroad (including the Royal Baths Park in Warsaw and in the library at the Royal Castle in Warsaw, in the Polish capital). Electron (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the gold medal does not appear to be the highest award given by SARP. At least I can't find a list of winners on that organisation's web site, but it does list recipients of its honorary award, implying that that is a higher award. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been unable to find any coverage in reliable sources, and, per the above, the gold medal doesn't seem to be major enough to imply notability. I don't think that a parish magazine, even though probably perfectly worthy as a publication, has a reputation for fact-checking as required to be considered an independent reliable source. The "obituary" is clearly a paid death notice, in a similar format to those routinely posted on notice boards for everyone in Poland who dies, rather than an independently written obituary. I note that there is also a deletion discussion at Polish Wikipedia, so those of us who read Polish can monitor that to see if anyone comes up with some better sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I add the info about her art activity. Correct it, please if there are spelling mistakes. Electron (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any spelling mistakes. If you want to beat yourself up about your English then I think that there might be one misplaced comma, but I'm sure I would make far more mistakes if I tried to write in Polish. I can converse in Polish and read it but writing to the standard of your written English is beyond me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks for checking. I edit here rarely, so I can make mistakes... Electron (talk) 20:52, 19 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. WP:V compliance and therefore reliable sourcing is not optional, contrary to what the "keep" opinion says. Given that the article itself says that "most of the sources are unreliable", the matter is quite clear. The "merge" opinion must be disregarded because it offers no argument and in any case a merger does not resolve the sourcing problem. Sandstein 12:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest grossing Indian Bengali films[edit]

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

Largely unsourced article. Could have been vandalised but without sources still unreliable and/or WP:OR The Banner talk 08:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Call for better sourcing, sure, but this is a basic kind of list about movies. It already does have disclaimer in its text about the numbers possibly not being comparable / sources being unreliable. Would anyone delete a list of highest grossing American films of some period? I think not. --do ncr am 01:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Article has existed for more than two months and it still is not sourced? I have no problem with it being recreated in draft space, and being sourced, but a disclaimer in the lead of an article in main space that basically disregard WP:V, that is not acceptable. Delete per WP:DEL6/WP:DEL7. — Sam Sailor 04:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Highest-grossing_Bengali_films.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Sam. Take a look at the very first edit to this article (IE the page creation) here. It's started by someone who admits that the sources may not be reliable! That was the user's fifth edit (fourth in mainspace) ever. They seem to be familar with creating complex tables (see if a real newbie can do that) and using existing in-house wiki templating as the submitted their article. That user has made about a dozen real edits in total, and reeks of a WP:SPA. Yes, strike me down for not WP:AGF, but at best this fails WP:V, and at worst is an unsourced mess that damages the project by remaining here. The burden is with the article creator to a) at least find some reliable sources and b) demonstrate the small matter of notability. If by some miracle this article is cleaned up in the next 24-48 hours, then by all means, keep it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:57, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Goes On (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable, never-aired TV series; no significant RS coverage can be found. Most of the content is based on a press release: The N begins production. FoutonCritic quotation comes from the same press release. So this is a dated WP:PROMO. The AfD in 2009 closed as a speedy keep due to a mistaken nomination, but I'm not convinced that the subject was notable at that time either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we're counting Hollywood Reporter as reputable (I'm not familiar enough with it to say what the consensus on that is), then this might I imagine be worth merging to the writer, Sri Rao, as I found this very nice feature article on him. However, I still have to through the rest of the google hits - he shares a name with a spiritual leader, which confuses things. Yvarta (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably enough to make a biography stick, actually: [10], and shorter mentions: [11],[12], [13]. He wrote Baar Baar Dekho, which came out two days ago and seems to be getting reviews. Yvarta (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm not sure what would be worthwhile to merge as the article under discussion is based entirely on a press release (i.e. not an independent secondary source). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to say "merge" instead of "redirect" so I don't accidentally insult the page creator by insinuating all their work was worthless - and press releases can be useful for dates, etc. But either way, a redirect might still be useful, and WP:Redirects are cheap. Yvarta (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the suggested target? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Rao. With the new press, I suspect a few minutes of stub-building could have a page with a solid claim for notability up. Maybe someone will be inspired. Yvarta (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, if anyone gets around to writing an article on the author it can be redirected there but there's nothing here to save - David Gerard (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any compelling reason for keeping this. The series was never even aired. It never picked up substantial coverage. That it exists in some form attracts mentions here and there, but that's not the sort of thing that we can build a good article on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Has been open for too long, and the article has changed enough over that time period that some of the initial arguments are no longer applicable. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nesreen Tafesh[edit]

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

Promotional biography. One primary reference, one RS. If kept, this would per WP:BLP need to be cut to a sentence. Very little in GNews. David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs a lot of work. Clearly a promotional article now, but with such a large number of TV appearances there must be a lot of Arabic sources. Some secondary sources can be seen in the Arabic article about her. Zero^talk 12:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't keep a BLP on hypothetical sources, per WP:BLP we need the actual sources right there for the article to even exist - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs a lot of work and the cruft tossed, but we have to review Arabic language sources and need time to work them in. We have a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability. At present, the article does not appear to contain anything libelous or even contentious, so there is no need to immediately delete anything other than the PR tone... WP:BLP requires sources, but per " contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" does not mandate every single factoid be sourced and material be removed simply because it is not footnoted ... Montanabw^(talk) 06:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Classic WP:PROMO; no secondary sources at all; tagged for sourcing since 2014. But I have run out of patience with sourcing articles on wannabe singers, artists, and actresses, even one who has "unique diversity in my genetics... (which leads her to) self-elevate and rise above bias... (and whose) "ultimate pertinence is to the humanity.” Sheesh. Flag me if anybody has the patience to search for actual sources and put them on the page. Otherwise, delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)
Delete. Not seeing significant, in-depth third-party coverage. Speculation that "there may be sources out there" in another language is simply that: speculation. This article has been tagged for years and no proper referencing has been forthcoming. Get rid of this. Neutrality^talk 02:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Did a quick google search to find additional references that could be used and found a few. This article needs some time to incorperate them and to rewrite some of the information already presented on the page. Chase (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has had enough time to uncover WP:RS and has failed to do so. Chase (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revisiting and, after a closer look: absolutely delete. a search turned up a little gossip from a couple of years ago about whether she was dating an actor, but even this was in the self was in Al Bawaba, a Jordanian "a news, blogging and media website" - not exactly a RS. Nothing I can find supports notabilit, or passes WP:ACTOR Odder still are the iVotes recommending that we keep because "there must be a lot of Arabic sources," because sources "could" be found, or because "We have a presumption of notability." No, we don't. We do not presume that every aspiring actress is notable, nor do we keep articles that lack so much as a single reliable, secondary source. No objection to the creation in future an new article in the event that this young woman someday does something that becomes notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note that article is sources solely to her personal website http://www.nesreentafesh.com [14] which is non-functional. I am at a loss to explain why this discussion is continuing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a self-cited promotional BLP with no indications of notability or significance. No prejudice to recreating should RS manifest themselves. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One difficulty in looking for English-language sources is that they are not consistent in how the subject's name is spelt (and variations exist in both the given name and the surname). I found a few, but I concede that were largely of the "tabloid-y" type. This is also true of the Arabic language sources that appear in the article in the Arabic Wikipedia. But at least two are more substantive, especially this one (click on reference #4 near the bottom of the page). I'll be adding that one as a general reference to the article here. After that, the article will still need work, but the hurdle of notability has been met. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC) amended by NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Montanabw. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the main concerns here are the fact there's not only anything actually convincing for applicable notability, but the concerns of substance, which are important, the article contains nothing actually convincing to suggest her career has had significant and can be meaningfully improved. The Keep votes comment that improvements and time would help, but this itself cannot be guaranteed therefore delete is in fact the option for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've located some Arabic-language coverage of the subject in print publications. Not being a speaker of Arabic, I am unable to assess the contents of those publications. But I've placed links to them on the article's Talk page. If there is anyone watching this discussion who can read Arabic, perhaps that person would be kind enough to place a synopsis of those articles on that Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:06, 30 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) 05:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AddressTwo[edit]

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

Rely only on non-credible media sources. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 15:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it looks at first glance like a promotional article but for a potentially-notable company ... but then you get to the sources, and they are literally all bad - David Gerard (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Who is the nominator here? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Light2021, who only just got their signature working properly - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only RS I can find is this, which isn't enough. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:58, 19 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) 05:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adblade[edit]

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

Rely only on non-credible media sources. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 15:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might be notable, but it's not evidenced from the references, which have minor RSes at absolute best (amongst all the press releases and directories) - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After research, the only substantial coverage I can find is in unreliable sources (mostly press releases). There is some coverage in RS, but it is WP:TRIVIAL. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:50, 19 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) 05:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aap3[edit]

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

Rely only on non-credible media sources. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete what RS coverage there is is clearly promotional-push churnalism and not evidence of actual newsworthiness. Lots of press releases in the refs too - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as the worst section, of course, is the Services section which essentially states what there is to know about the company's business, none of that actually substantiates an article; nothing else listed is in fact acceptable, as it only serves to tell the viewers about the company and what there is to say. This company's environment is PR so the sources are going to be PR....and that's exactly what the sources are, all 1 to 10. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After research, I could not find enough WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; sections include Activities, Product & Services, and Sponsorship which clearly marks this as "corporate spam{. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 26 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) 05:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caia Koopman[edit]

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

Failing WP:ARTIST Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What immaculately uncheckable sources - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "rising members" is code for "this person is not yet notable".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would also encourage a good look at other pages created by this editor. Todd Huston & Shawn Kent Hayashi for example seem to be in similar circumstances as this page... @Arthistorian1977, Johnpacklambert, and David Gerard: --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I just reference-checked and PRODded Shawn Kent Hayashi and Joe Wein. The latter is particularly egregious - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 24 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 Mirra Alfassa. Unclear whether there's consensus for a full delete; the redirect allows interested editors to merge any worthwhile content to the author's article. Sandstein 12:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Agenda[edit]

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

Shameless NPOV violation, fringe content about an obscure cult work which barely (if at all) merits a sentence in the Aurobindo article. Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a typical book article. I don't find any NPOV violation. It's true that there are no third party review of the work, but that should not hamper the merit of this book series. Moreover, the article is mentioned in both, Aurobindo's page as well as Mother's page. HemaChandra88 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- reply - You don't consider a lede stating the book "narrates her experiences in her yoga of the cells (or transformation of the body's consciousness)" to be an NPOV violation? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the author believes. Are you saying that you would edit the Quran or the Bible as not the exact words from God? HemaChandra88 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, yes. No article on a religious text should suggest that it is literally written by some god. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note apparent COI editing in article history, including substantial contributions by someone called Themother1 as well as the book's translator. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. Mother has been dead for long. It's just someone using her name for editing purposes. HemaChandra88 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite that dumb... it's an indication of potential COI, not a claim of mediumship. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia claims to be a neutral place, right. Are you saying that a person affiliated with the subject matter of an article not edit it? HemaChandra88 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They should read and follow WP:COI. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being mentioned in the other articles is nice but doesn't make the book notable, How does it meet WP:NBOOK? Doug Weller talk 15:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet our notability requirements for books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
obvious merge to Mirra Alfassa, the author. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 23 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. This is a test

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:RoySmith/test page 1[edit]

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

Please ignore this -- I'm just testing something. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 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 and redirect to Nexstar Broadcasting Group. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lakana[edit]

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

Rely only on repeated sources. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 14:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands - they feel like they should be notable, but the evidence isn't here - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several minutes of research yielded enough substantial coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, including this and this. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect if needed, as the two listed sources above are essentially simply local news stating the local company's activities, none of that would substantiate a convincing article and the one thing listed is that the company article is in fact acceptable, therefore this company is likely best connected to that said company. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to parent company Nexstar Broadcasting Group. The coverage I'm finding about Lakana is just under the borderline for WP:CORP.[15][16] I'd probably be swayed to go KEEP if more significant independent coverage turns up. Until then, this company is already mentioned on Nexstar Broadcasting Group and further expansion can take place there, if people so desire. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to parent company Nexstar Broadcasting Group. The article is overly promotional as it stands and the subject lacks individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 26 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 UK2 Group. Don't usually close on one !vote (more or less) however participation's extremely low so closing as Redirect, Merges can be discussed on the talkpage if required (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WestHost[edit]

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

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to UK2 Group - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: article into parent company, UK2 Group. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:45, 19 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) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WebpageFX, Inc.[edit]

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

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. Does not site media references but random links to uncountable achievements. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the WP:REFBOMBing, this is mostly press-releases, press-releasey or trivial passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as the article itself goes to specifications about not only the company's business but what there is to say about it inside, including of its work environment and employees; that is by far PR and that's what's accompanied by the sources, PR and what there is to advertise about the company. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find enough substantial coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough RS, corporate spam. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:00, 23 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) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vordik[edit]

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

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom there's nothing here - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this is all essentially PR; the article goes to specifications to actually not only state clients and connections, but to go from services to then mentioning the company's memberships. None of that is convincing and certainly not the accompanying sources, which are also PR. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After research, I can't find any WP:RS about this company to establish notability. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also no claim of significance either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:09, 20 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) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mediatrope[edit]

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

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one RS, Forbes, fails verification - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as several things here: 1 is that any article that states, beginning with "award-winning [location] company that [specializing in]...." is PR; the sources themselves are accompanying PR with the listed information, information that in fact states what there is to advertise about the company and what the company's business and activities are, none of that substance at all. SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any WP:RS that cover this company in any significant sense. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO as "corporate spam". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 26 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) 05:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuperbNexus[edit]

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

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete a complete lack of independent sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A firm going about its business; no evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability and WP:PROMO page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining this has entirely found PR one way or another, the awards or connections listed are entirely trivial and there's not a single substantially convincing source that would be both sufficient and non-PR. I frankly consider this A7 and G11 material. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find a single WP:RS mentioning this company. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:56, 19 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. Consensus for removing the page, no consensus on a merger or redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Studios[edit]

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

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there's nothing here - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Article should be merged into Nazarene Publishing House. See relevant articles about why a merge makes sense. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like it violates WP:ADV to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance, and insufficient RS. I don't think that a merge / redirect is necessary since the company is thoroughly non notable. The magazine that it published is not notable either. The source offered above is from Biz Journal which ranks rather low in terms of being RS, and mostly providing routine coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 26 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) 05:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opace[edit]

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. References are merely blog written on various media by affiliates of company. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands terrible sourcing that would see it culled to maybe a paragraph under WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poorly-sourced article lack substantial 3rd party references about the firm. Nor are my searches identifying anything better to suggest that this is more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough reliable sources available to establish notability, including this and this. Adaksntarni (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the first of those says right at the top that it is literally a press release, I hope you won't take it amiss that I must point out that your understanding of WP:RS appears to be inadequate - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any WP:RS that substantially cover this company. Most hits are just press releases. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO & no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 26 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medium (company)[edit]

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. 25 Employee strength. Not Public listed company. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the RSes are dead links or fail to mention the company at all. Note also not to confuse this company with the much more famous Medium (website), which is the one with all the blogs - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Company got a fair amount of press under its former name, Coptix. Coverage in RS includes this and this. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above sources are unconvincing. The first link is coverage of a publicity stunt by the company. The second link is coverage of the same, appearing in Washington Times which is not considered RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:PROMO and my note above. The article is largely built around the publicty stunt by the company and the rest is advertorial content. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gary Jr., Bob (2006-08-19). "Coptix touts service in Web site design". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Jeffrey Cross majored in computer science at Covenant College and worked in software development before starting a company that designs and runs Web sites for clients.
  ...
  But computers clearly like Mr. Cross, now president of Coptix Inc. He said his company's sales have grown by an average of 30 percent for each of the last eight years and are on track to hit the $1 million mark this year.
  Mr. Cross said he started Coptix after four years at Olan Mills and one at UnumProvident, all in software development.
  ...
  Mr. Cross said that as he added to his company's payroll - Coptix now has a payroll of 17 - he also broadened its focus.
2. Smith, Ellis (2011-06-09). "Geeks gather to share knowledge, build network in Chattanooga". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  The timing of the conference roughly coincided with an ownership shakeup at Medium, a Chattanooga-based web design and development company, and long a leader in the local technology market.
  Josiah Roe, founder of medium and of DevChatt, said it had been "an eventful week," with some of the partners splitting away to pursue other ventures and some workers leaving.
  "There just wasn't something like DevChatt in Chattanooga," he said. "We wanted this one to be by geeks, for geeks, we wanted it to speak to that culture, and be sort of representative like that."
  Others took the reins from Josiah this year, a development he calls "a good thing," as he was busy spinning off a number of divisions from the company to form new entities.
3. Trevizo, Perla (2010-01-02). "Local companies thrive, listed among state's hot 100". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Other local companies include Medium, previously known as Coptix, which recently opened an office in Chicago and also announced a partnership with Chattanooga's EPB and Alcatel-Lucent for a $226.7 million Smart Grid project in Southeast Tennessee.
  "Medium is really, truly, duly humbled to be on BusinessTN magazine's Hot 100 companies for the second time," said Medium President Josiah Roe.
4. Davis, Michael (2007-04-07). "Morphing a conspiracy?". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2007-04-06. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  A Chattanooga Internet firm doctored a photo of White House aide Karl Rove to show him holding a folder with the company's logo, fueling speculation in the blogosphere that the president's top adviser is running White House correspondence through a nongovernment e-mail system.
  "It's easy for people to plant disinformation and misinformation out there," said Josiah Roe, executive vice president of Coptix, based in St. Elmo.
  Mr. Roe said the company altered the photo and placed it on the Internet after bloggers implied that Coptix was involved in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" because the company -- along with another local firm, SmarTech -- provides an Internet service for the Republican National Committee.
5. "Rove 'e-mail scandal' makes April fools of blog readers". The Washington Times. 2007-04-05. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Josiah Roe, an executive vice president at Coptix, said a small group of Coptix executives doctored a photo of Mr. Rove and, using computer software, placed the folder under his arm. They then planted the photo on a local Chattanooga blog, they said, and allowed the conspiracy to disseminate.
  ...
  Coptix is tangentially associated with the Republican National Committee (RNC) and had become a topic of interest to left-wing blogs even before this prank. Coptix is affiliated with another Chattanooga-based Web company named Smartech, which is employed by the RNC.
  Mr. Rove and other White House officials do use outside e-mail accounts, owned by the RNC, which are hosted on Smartech’s Web servers. Coptix backs up some of Smartech’s information, which is called “backup DNS hosting.”
6. Walker, Alissa (2007-04-07). "The Little Design Firm That Caused a Big Political Scandal". Adweek. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  For the Washington-clueless, it’s recently been suggested that Karl Rove and other administration officials were doing business via email hosted by Chattanooga company Smartech, rather than on federal servers. Bloggers began blasting Smartech as some underground right wing computer network and also implicated Coptix, a nice little graphic design and web development company that provides backup DNS hosting for Smartech.
  But it was this photo of Rove leaving a Chattanooga restaurant, with the Coptix name tucked under his arm, that got people really riled up. Since the image was originally posted on a right-wing blog, it couldn’t have been Photoshopped, reasoned bloggers. It got picked up everywhere from Wonkette to DailyKos as proof of Rove’s direct link to Coptix.
  The whole thing, however, was a cleverly executed April Fool’s joke, orchestrated by Coptix (if you squint, you’ll see a still from the show “Land of the Lost” superimposed on the TV in the upper right corner). The Chattanooga Times Free Press covers the story from beginning to end, and Coptix VP Josiah Roe comes clean, and gives us this follow up report:
7. Gewirtz, Gewirtz (2007). Where Have All the Emails Gone?. Palm Bay, Florida: ZATZ Publishing. p. 91–100. ISBN 0945266200. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The book discusses Coptix's Karl Rove hoax on pages 91–100. Here is a snippet from page 91:
  As the report shows, TRESPASSERS-W.net appears to be operated by Jeffrey Cross, who is listed as the registrant with Cross Computer Consulting (at CROSS-CC.com) and with Coptix Inc. (at COPTIX.net). Coptix, it turns out, is a Web development firm, also located in Chattanooga.
8. http://web.archive.org/web/20090414125220/http://rove.thisismedium.com/ contains more sources about Coptix's Karl Rove hoax such as articles from The Telegraph and The Chattanooga Pulse.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Medium to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I find these sources unconvincing per SisterTwister's analysis - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What's listed above is bare-bone thin of actual significant information and substance; what is listed as an example are simple and thin mentions, there's no actual substance and anything that is actually mentioned of the company is shown to simply be the business talking themselves or simple name mentions, including of other companies. Then we also have to consider that any information too closely about the company would be company-supplied PR of course. The WashingtonTimes link offered earlier is nothing but a simple one-time mention by that news, nothing at all else than a simple article about an event, nothing actually largely about this company; the next link, the TimesFreePress only mentions them (a simple one-time 7 times each, it never goes beyond basic mentions) because the company was involved with those political events, that's hardly actual focused substance about the company itself. Considering this is close to either relist or close, it seems clear to say that the Keep vote have not substantiated themselves with actually better sourcing, because one thing is clear and it's that none of the above links are close to significant or convincing coverage. It says something that a company has existed nearly 20 years and has not gained any actual coverage apart from simple mentions. The article itself is then only about the basic company information, the clients and then the largest item of all, the political event. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above analyses of SwisterTwister and David Gerard. It's a smallish, obscure company and the article is more about a silly hoax than the company itself. The coverage is all routine, run of the mill stuff, and far less substantial than the extensive use of space-hogging block quotes would suggest. Reyk _YO! 10:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the above listed sources are unconvincing as they mostly serve to emphasize how insignificant the company is, such as:

"Trevizo, Perla (2010-01-02). "Local companies thrive, listed among state's hot 100". Chattanooga Times Free Press", or
"Mr. Cross said that as he added to his company's payroll - Coptix now has a payroll of 17 - he also broadened its focus".

So I'm not changing my delete !vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to buck the trend and find Cunard's sources to be valid. If this was just about the business, I could possibly agree, but the hoax appears to have been found a notable event and gained significant coverage. In the articles about the hoax, they mention, even emphasize, that it is notable that such a small company made such a big ruckas with their photoshop. This, backed up with some coverage about the business itself, should be enough, combined, to establish notability. I have read ST's arguments and disagree with them... I don't find the sources to provide purely routine coverage, but rather targeted, and focused on the subject. The "silly hoax" may be a "silly hoax", but Wikipedia covers silly hoaxes that have been reported on in the media. I might consider a rename to reflect this, except that there is some reporting on the business itself, so I think that justifies keeping the current name. Fieari (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- not every hoax warrants an article in an encyclopedia, and especially not when it was executed as a publicity stunt. With content such as:

Medium gained attention throughout the design community when in January 2007 it produced and distributed via YouTube a series of video spoofs of the Cahan & Associates promotional video featuring noted designer Bill Cahan.^[1]

References

^ Alissa Walker, Billy Cahan, Keymaster of Gozer?, Unbeige, January 04, 2007

... this article is not in compliance with WP:PROMO as the content shows that the page exists to highlight this company's successes in garnering media coverage. The page also attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from the better known subject (Bill Cahan), while informing the readers about a non-notable entity of Cahan & Associates.

Wikipedia aims to work to an academic standard, and accepting thin sources and promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project, IMO. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, which this article appears to be as it stands. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not every hoax warrants an article in an encyclopedia – I agree. Only hoaxes that pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline should be included in the encyclopedia.

especially not when it was executed as a publicity stunt – I disagree. If sources like The Telegraph cover the publicity stunt, then it is notable and suitable for inclusion.

I do not consider minor promotional issues in the article to be sufficient to violate WP:PROMO. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.

The article does not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE because it not "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of statistics", or "Exhaustive logs of software updates".

Cunard (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I want to note that the Delete votes, including myself, have been staunch and clear with what, where and why the concerns exist here, I'll even note that some of the Keep votes have been as thin to simply contain the mere essence of "Hey, there's sourcing, that's enough, and other Keep votes think so too!" without actually substantiating themselves especially after such analyses have been listed. What still stays about what this article actually is, an advertisement and only that, and if we should at all start compromising to accept such blatant articles, will be when Wikipedia became a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Merely being responsible for a possibly notable hoax, and one done as a PR move at that, doesn't give the kind of foundation needed for a good page. Yes, the hoax got mentioned by some publications. That doesn't really give that much to go on for detailing things about the organization itself. I also question to what extent this one event has any lasting relevance. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whilst there is agreement that the article is currently sub-optimal and needs cleaning up, AfD is not for this and there is no consensus to delete. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kampyle (software)[edit]

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, terrible sourcing and of the three RSes only one checks out - and that's not enough to swing an article on - David Gerard (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be a notable Israeli start-up. Coverage in TechCrunch and VentureBeat. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

TechCrunch
TechCrunch
TechCrunch
VentureBeat
TechCrunch
Landing Page Optimization. John Wiley & Sons. pp. pt187 – . (subscription required)
Performance Marketing with Google Analytics. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 216-217.

Delete - I'm commenting since this is close to relist; everything listed here is still PR in of itself, see the 1st TechCrunch for example, "Kampyle realized that all along, they were actually sitting on top of what could be a potential goldmine for their customers. The epiphany occurred when Kamyple began noticing that customers were employing user feedback as lead-generation....This meant that Kamyple could completely revamp their sales strategy and pricing. From a nice-to-have feedback analytics product for Marketing departments, they could now market the product"; that is entirely PR because it's thinly veiled "journalism" but is in fact clearly words from the company itself, because like anything else that involves a company's history and activities, who knows it better than the company itself. The concerns of PR outweigh anything else here in the fact that if we accept any particles of PR itself, it's only a snowball clause for a PR article itself. The VentureBeat article says "Kampyle lets you know when no one likes your desktop software....Kampyle lets you know when no one likes your desktop software", which not only then shows a photo of what the business looks like but then shows how to use it that's then the end of the article. Years ago, we may have looked at this and thought that's suffice coverage, but considering how PR-bombarded Wiki has become, we simply have to be careful about what we actually consider as sufficient or acceptable; especially if the said PR causes damages. The next one, the other TechCrunch then shows, albeit not blatant explosive PR, but still only mentions expected and unsurprising company information with each and every of its 5 paragraphs, which is essentially to simply show what the business is and how it works; that's not actually outstanding coverage. The next TC article then says [Kampyle] has developed a feedback management platform aimed at assisting site owners better manage this feedback loop and, along the way, increase customer loyalty and satisfaction. The underlying premise here being that users expect not only to be heard, but also responded to. This is especially true when providing feedback on services, products or customer experiences. Sites that manage their feedback right end up with deeper customer engagement, lower shopping cart abandonment, and better usability" and the next information goes to talk about what the business is and how it works....that's it. Essentially, it's simple to say that any of that information would imaginably come from the best source about it, which is the company itself. The next TC article is a blatant PR one, "Kampyle Confirms Funding, Kicks Off Beta Test For Application Feedback Product....Last year was a pivotal one in the life of Kampyle, which complemented its round of financing with a blow-out year across all KPI’s. Customer growth rate surged 600%, up 25,000 for a total of 35,000 (although Finkelstein did not share how many of these are paying customers)....Kampyle is enhancing its current feedback products....Kampyle believes it’s able to provide the holistic, end-to-end view software developers require to effectively understand their user flow....Kampyle is extending its 20% discount"; none of that information comes from an actual journalist, because it's all PR and PR alone, because not only will the company know best about its own company activities and sales (of course), but they will want to talk about it....in the fact that the article began with an interview with its CEO! To (perhaps) say the worst, that's where the article ended! The next one is a book that although published, is still only a guide showing what it is and how it works, those medias can never be guaranteed to be non-PR especially if the best source of information would have been the company alone. The next book also the contains these hints at either being involved or having the company publish it with involvements, because simply of the information it contains alone. Comparing all of this with the current article finds nothing else convincing as the current article alone is not only simply stating expected information about the company, but there's essentially nothing else of actual substance (note how the listed sources themselves are PR; when would be ever pile PR with additional PR? Never, that is unless we want Wikipedia as a PR platform). If that's honestly the best there is, that would not be an article, and it certainly would not have even been accepted at AfC; at best, it may have been accepted ten years ago, but that's not the encyclopedia that exists and hopes to exist now, that's why we must be careful about what we call coverage, because there's never a guaranteed it's been touched by the company itself as PR. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sources that provide positive coverage about topics are not automatically "pr" as a default. This simple, two-letter acronym that is often used much too liberally to dismiss entire swaths of sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage offered in the article and above is routine (product announcements, partnerships, etc) and is what's expected of a venture-backed company, with headlines "Kampyle converts insights into lead generation" etc, which is typical of WP:TOOSOON articles.

The article exists solely to promote the company and is not adding value to the encyclopedia at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The news articles I posted above are bylined and written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that regarding the latter, these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites.

Likewise, the book sources I posted above are also reliable and independent. The books' authors and John Wiley and Sons are not out to promote the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and John Wiley & Sons sources found by Safehaven86 (talk · contribs) and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) provide significant coverage of the subject. The article is not promotional; it is neutrally written.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kampyle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is important to actually look at the sources rather than just believe that they are totally independent. A rewritten press release is still a press release and can never be accepted as an independent sources. Let's look at the sources.

Techcrunch 1, 2. 3, 4. - Doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. Firstly note that for the purposes of notability, we consider all of these are 1 source. From WP:N a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
Every single of these "news" articles are written a certain Roi Carthy who is "known in the Israeli and Brazilian startup communities as a connector and advisor." Let's also look at 4 which says I had a chance to sit down with Kampyle CEO Ariel Finkelstein who officially confirmed that Carmel Ventures led the company’s $1M Series A round, closed back in January 2009. Let's also look at 3 which says When I met Kampyle CEO Ariel Finkelstein last week, the first words that came out of his mouth were.... Sorry but using the company's CEO as a "news" source doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. These articles on Techcrunch are exactly what is called WP:SPIP.
Venturebeat Patent WP:SPIP again. Venturebeat publishes literally every small event about startups, often submitted by affiliated freelance writers. It essentially functions like a directory and thus cannot be used for notability per WP:NOTDIR. More importantly look at the language of the article. You gotta be kidding if you believe this is an independent news report. This is "not a bylined, staff report". The author is not mentioned in the list of Venturebeat writers (even in the archived versions of the article). Anyone can submit "news" to venturebeat and it seems they run almost anything.
The book sources are not any peer reviewed books. They are essentially the numerous books on technical subjects (with titles like 101 ways of web analytics, how to optimise your website: for dummies). With these books being over 300 pages long, they usually tend to give brief coverage to almost any tools. Btw, this brief coverage is usually a screenshot and a 100 word manual about the software. There are not indepth coverage as required in WP:CORPDEPTH. The books sources essentially confirm that the software WP:ITEXISTS, but not how they are notable.

Apart from the problem with the sources it is also important to look at the type of company. This is a technology startup and tech startups tend to receive disproportionately high coverage in general. Much of this coverage is essentially redressed press releases/lead generation in techblogs like techcrunch, gizmodo and venturebeat. When looking at notability, it is important to look at the baseline coverage for a particular type of entity. A notable tech company will have no shortage of sources in mainstream media and these article are always indepth coverage, not routine coverage. If I compare the sources available for this company, I literally see none. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The TechCrunch articles written by Roi Carthy satisfy WP:ORGIND. Nothing you've quoted has demonstrated that he is not independent of the subject. That he is "known in the Israeli and Brazilian startup communities as a connector and advisor" doesn't make him not independent. That he interviewed Kampyle's CEO as part of his reporting for TechCrunch is good journalistic practice; it does not make him not independent of the subject. His TechCrunch articles are written in his own words with several quotes from Kampyle; this is also standard journalistic practice.
Regarding the characterization of VentureBeat as publishing anything for startups, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91#Venturebeat.com, aumag.org, uscops.com, and positivelyaware.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105#VentureBeat have concluded that it is reliable because it has editorial oversight. This is a "bylined, staff report". The author is not mentioned in the list of VentureBeat writers because he no longer works for them. He now works for TechCrunch: https://techcrunch.com/contributor/dan-kaplan/.
It is not necessary for a book to peer-reviewed to establish notability. The book discusses Kampyle in detail, so it is enough to establish notability. From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
Cunard (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you've quoted has demonstrated that he is not independent of the subject Independence has to be demonstrated, not non-independence. Do you have any proof that Roi Carthy has had absolutely no contact with the company or it's employees? A background search indicates that he is pretty well affiliated with the startup industry in Israel. More importantly, isn't it strange that he is the one who is getting all the news? As for Venturebeat and tech blogs, RSN only says they may are reliable for verification, not notability. Oh yeah, Venturebeat published an interview with a person who didn't exist. Oh and TechCrunch got criticised by Venturebeat for "ethical reasons". We have a right to be sceptical of sources, particularly niche media such as these where the lines between disinterested reporting and product placement have been blurred. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independence has to be demonstrated, not non-independence. – I disagree with this burden of proof. If you claim that the writer is affiliated with the company, you must provide proof of that. It is impossible for me to prove the negative that he is not affiliated with the company. I would need to know and discuss every detail about Roi Carthy's life here to prove he is unaffiliated with the company. That is unfeasible.
Do you have any proof that Roi Carthy has had absolutely no contact with the company or it's employees? – I can prove he did contact the company. From this article:
When I met Kampyle CEO Ariel Finkelstein last week, the first words that came out of his mouth were: “Can you tell me who the hell are these people that sit over there in the Valley and invent all these stupid terms like ‘Pivot’ … ?!” He then went on to tell me about the company’s most important product insight since launch and how it is changing their business.
That he met the CEO of the company as a journalist writing about the company is good journalistic practice. He does not become non-independent of the company just by meeting the company's employees to do reporting.
More importantly, isn't it strange that he is the one who is getting all the news? – he is a journalist. There is no evidence that "he is the one who is getting all the news". But that he is "getting the news" only means he is doing his job as a journalist.
As for Venturebeat and tech blogs, RSN only says they may are reliable for verification, not notability. – I disagree. Tech blogs that have editorial oversight and that publish corrections and clarifications like TechCrunch and VentureBeat can be used to establish notability.
Yes, VentureBeat has made mistakes. So have reputable news organizations like The New York Times (the Jayson Blair "Plagiarism and fabrication scandal"). I do not consider occasional mistakes to render VentureBeat unreliable.
The VentureBeat article about TechCrunch discussed the ethical issues regarding TechCrunch founder Mike Arrington. VentureBeat called it the "conflict of interest between Arrington the investor and Arrington the editor". According to this article from TechCrunch, Arrington left TechCrunch in 2011, so this is no longer a concern. Those articles were published in 2008 and 2011, however. I searched for a connection between Arrington's venture capital firm Crunchfund and the company Kampyle and did not find any connections.
Cunard (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "it is neutrally written"-- I do not get the same impression. With content such as this:

Kampyle's feedback analytics enhance the capability of a company to understand their website users.^[1]^[2] Kampyle has processed more than 12 million feedback forms in over 60 languages in 191 countries.^[3]

Kampyle offers a free (very limited) product, a small-business product with differing levels of functionality, and a full-function Enterprise solution aimed at medium and large businesses.^{[citation needed]}

References

^ "Yahoo!7 Selects Kampyle's Enterprise-Level Customer Feedback Solution". Yahoo!7 Australia. Nov 3, 2011. Retrieved Nov 3, 2011.
^ Carthy, Roi (February 9, 2011). "Kampyle Transforms User Feedback Into Lead Generation". TechCrunch. Retrieved 19 September 2016.
^ "Kampyle and ClickTale Partner to Deliver Next-Gen Customer Feedback Analytics". Business News Articles. July 9, 2011. Retrieved Nov 3, 2011.

... this page is not in compliance with WP:NOT, which is a policy. "Enhance the ability" it typical advertorial language, while "12 million forms" are claims by the company. Do reader really need oto know that the company "offers (...) Enterprise solution aimed at..."? (Also note the strange capitalisation, which looks typical of COI editing).

The article exists as WP:PROMO content only serving to advance the business, not provide encyclopedic value. If Wikipedia starts accepting such promotional pieces, it would lose its value as an encyclopedia. Keeping this page is not in the best interest of the project, IMO, as it would also waste volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"enhance the capability of a company to understand their website users" is a description of what the company's product does. While it can be better worded (I reworded it to "intends to improve the company's ability"), I do not consider it promotional. The second sentence is a statistic about how many feedback forms Kampyle has processed; I do not consider the inclusion of this statistic to be promotional. However, since the statistic is sourced to a press release, I removed it since it is not corroborated by a secondary reliable source. The third sentence is a description of the company's product. I have revised the article.

Cunard (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.
Cunard (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take that away and there'll hardly be an article left - the source analysis (mostly PR) stands - David Gerard (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROMO cannot be improved through copyediting; when the entire article is promotional, there's no point in copyediting it to make it "more neutral". The subject lacks notability or significance, hence the "poetic" language employed.

I'd also like to point out that the article has been previous been deemed "neutral" but at least two changes had to me made most recently: "enhance understanding" and company claims re "1.2 mln forms". Here's more:

In November 2011, Kampyle had more than 45,000 companies using Kampyle's feedback forms and analytics reporting.^[1]

References

^ "Kampyle introduces Ad Feedback to connect brands with customers". Internet Retailer. Nov 16, 2010. Retrieved July 5, 2011.

More claims by the company that cannot be meaningfully verified since the company is private. This comes directly from the corporate blurb, apparently via a redressed press release at the Internet Retailer link provided:

About Kampyle: Kampyle has pioneered the field of online feedback analytics, delivering websites, online retailers and companies a powerful software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform to collect, analyze, measure and manage online user feedback on services, products and customer experiences. Founded in 2007, Kampyle has processed more than 12 million feedback forms in over 60 languages, and amassed more than 45,000 customers in 191 countries.

As David Gerard says, there will be nothing left when such content is removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is weak on useful content and heavy on PR, but the company doesn't seem to fail WP:CORP. FalconK (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IndigoVerge[edit]

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete of the few RSes, there's pretty much nothing actually about the company, and the large swathes of promotional text are pretty much unsourced - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial to showcase the company's capabilities and past clients. Wikipedia is not a portfolio hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 22 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) 05:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extractable[edit]

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. 50 Employee company. Not even public company. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete of the RSes, one is a promotional quote and one is an op-ed written by the company - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 22 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. There doesn't appear to be any clear consensus, nor evidence that a consensus is forming on whether or not the sources are sufficiently in-depth to push this organisation past the WP:GNG. The discussion around potential COI is a bit of a red herring here, as the article has been edited quite a bit by longstanding editors and COI is not in itself a reason for deletion if the organisation is notable anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

References are written by popular media as Press Release not for significant coverage. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said in a previous nomination I have trouble finding anything to demonstrate that the company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or GNG.— Rod ^talk 16:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has received enough substantial coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. See BBC, Bristol Post, and The Guardian. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable digital marketing agency going about its business. I'm not finding the sources above to be WP:SIGCOV; these are rather trivial mentions and interviews with the founder. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only is the current information advertising its services and PR awards, something that the own company would want of course, the links above are also this in exact essence of only talking about the services and what the company wants to say; none of that is substance, none of it is significant, it's only PR. Looking again, not only had I myself participated at the 2nd AfD of course, but that was actually a clear delete in that there was only 1 keep vote and it was not even a confident one (which acknowledged the listed sources were still note enough). SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Knight, Jenny (2004-03-27). "E3 Media - Focus". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  E3 MEDIA is now one of the UK's leading independent digital agencies: an astonishing success for a company launched in the cellar of a student house while the joint managing directors were busy taking their finals at Bristol University.
  That was seven years ago. Last year the agency made the first ten in Design Week's Top 20 UK Digital League Table, with a turnover of Pounds 2.2 million.
  ...
  Mike Bennett, the joint founder with Stuart Avery, said: "We found Bristol was a vibrant, cosmopolitan student city. I don't think we would have been as successful so quickly if we had launched in any other place."
  E3 Media specialises in web, internet, extranet and CD-Rom development. It is also in the forefront of viral campaigning: gathering information via internet games.
2. Smale, Will (2005-06-23). "From bedsit to bluechips". BBC. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  Few would equate undergraduate student digs with business acumen.
  Yet, in 1997, Bristol students Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery defied everyone's expectations when, while revising for their final exams, they started digital communications company E3 Media from their bedsit.
  Since then, the two men have turned 30 and their company has matured into a diversified business offering everything from website design and CD-Roms, to marketing campaigns and computer-based presentations.
  Marching steadily through the late 1990s bursting of the dotcom bubble, today E3 enjoys a number of bluechip clients.
  These range from mobile phone giant Orange, to clothing firm French Connection, car care products and bike shop Halfords, and the National Express bus company.
3. Iziren, Adeline (2005-01-08). "What happened next?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  Mike Bennett is now an entrepreneur, with a multi-million pound digital media company he set up with his business partner, Stuart Avery, at university.
  Bristol-based E3 Media provides internet, intranet and multimedia design services to the likes of Orange, National Express and Cadbury. Mike and Stuart credit their 35-plus creative team with helping them land and keep big name clients. They also praise their team with helping them win awards, including a best charity website of the year award.
4. "Bristol firm e3 helping big firms set out online strategy". Bristol Post. 2014-05-21. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  WHEN the internet was just becoming the next big thing, everyone wanted a website, although many didn't really know why.
  Things have changed. Now being online is a given but more and more people and businesses are asking, what can the internet do for me? What problems can it solve?
  Growing digital agency e3's story parallels - or perhaps leads - that trend. Founded in 1997 by Mike Bennett (who went on to found the See No Evil street art festival) and Stuart Avery, it began life as a web design business.
  Now, as managing director Neil Collard, right, explains, building websites is still part of the business, but not the purpose.
  ...
  They launched the 50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4 campaign, using the internet and social media to encourage children to become more active. Other customers include Orange (an early client, having it on the books helped build the firm's reputation), Unicef, Bristol Airport and Clark's Shoes.
5. Rigby, Chloe (2001-02-15). "Booming Media Firm Taps the Irish Market". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  NEW Southville media company E3 Media is growing out of its Bristol base and has opened new offices in Dublin and London to support work coming from across the UK and Ireland.
  The company, which has grown from six to 40 members of staff and seen turnover grow by more than 600 per cent in the last year, specialises in digital communications and recently launched a consulting arm.
  ...
  The site, which is currently receiving three million hits each month, has also just signed a major partnership deal with the Bank of Ireland and a leading Irish insurance company.
6. Dunn, Sam (2000-03-16). "Western Daily Press: Incubator goes online". Western Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  TWO West graduates are poised to launch the region's first Internet 'incubator' start-up firm.
  Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery, of Bedminster, Bristol-based e3 Media, are looking to help set up websites for fledgling Internet firms by providing start-up funding, business strategy advice and securing investment from venture capital firms.
  By acting as an incubator for seedling companies, they hope online entrepreneurs will flourish across the region instead of turning to the City for support.
  Investors have already slapped a GBP20 million price tag on the firm should it choose to go public but e3 Media plan instead to expand privately.
  The new firm will draw on the technical expertise of three-year-old multimedia and Internet firm New Generation Productions, also set up by Bennett and Avery.
  By bringing on board the entrepreneurial skills of Bristol City football club chairman Scott Davidson and Dougal Temperton, publisher of Venue magazine, e3 Media plans to nurture creative talent from across the region and turn it into potential Internet businesses - hand-in-hand with jobs and growth.
7. Rigby, Chloe (2000-11-13). "Focus on Growth". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  FAST-GROWING new business E3 Media, which operates from Southville, has grown to five times its size in less than a year.
  Now it has unveiled a contract to work on the launch of a state-of-the-art camera which is being produced by Canon.
  The company was founded in 1997 by Mike Bennett and Scott Davidson, who initially worked out of a cellar in Bedminster.
  It has grown rapidly over the past 10 months, expanding from eight workers to 40 and is still recruiting.
8. Rigby, Chloe (2001-01-15). "Website Gives Lowdown to Would-Be Students". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  SOUTHVILLE new media company E3 Media is behind a new website which aims to give young people deciding on a university the lowdown from current students.
  The company, based in the Tobacco Factory, says every UK and Irish university is covered on The Student Guide, set to go online on January 25 and be officially launched in March.
  ...
  Graduates Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery set up E3 Media in 1998 with Scott Davidson, director of Bristol City Football Club and founder of Trade-It and Dougal Templeton of Venue magazine. Now it has 40 staff.
  The company approaches internet strategy in the same way as an advertising or marketing agency would approach their markets and its clients include household names such as Orange, Canon, Motorola, and Oracle. The new student website venture, which has so far seen investment of around GBP100,000 by E3 Media, is fully owned by the company and it now plans to take on board commercial partners.
9. Tyler, Richard (2010-02-01). "Businesses give their verdict on the banks". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes:
  Digital media designers Stuart Avery and Mike Bennett completed the management buy-out of their profitable business, E3 Media , last year. They had to move banks – from NatWest to HSBC – to do it, but both are happy with the outcome. "This year we kept our heads down and got the numbers to give them some confidence in us," said Mr Bennett. "They took a gamble and it's worked out well. Now we are talking to them about another loan because we want to acquire a business."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow E3 Media to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Media has received sustained coverage over more than a decade in national sources like the BBC, The Times, and The Guardian.
The Times in 2004 called E3 Media "one of the UK's leading independent digital agencies: an astonishing success for a company launched in the cellar of a student house while the joint managing directors were busy taking their finals at Bristol University". The subject clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. It also clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.
Cunard (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - Exactly with the comments stated including my own, all of that is PR: "E3 MEDIA is now one of the UK's leading independent digital agencies: an astonishing success for a company launched in the cellar of a student house while the joint managing directors were busy taking their finals at Bristol University" (only something the company would know, and to go to specifics, that's PR and that alone) which is then followed by extra interviewed information and then ends at (you guessed it, interviewed) "E3 Media specialises in web, internet, extranet and CD-Rom development. It is also in the forefront of viral campaigning: gathering information via internet games", all of these words are what the company wants to say about itself. The next source also contains loads of all-interviewed information, see "Bristol-based E3 Media provides internet, intranet and multimedia design services to the likes of Orange, National Express and Cadbury. Mike and Stuart credit their 35-plus creative team with helping them land and keep big name clients. They also praise their team with helping them win awards, including a best charity website of the year award" (all PR and company-supplied). The next source talks about the company's plans for itself, and says "By bringing on board the entrepreneurial skills of Bristol City football club chairman Scott Davidson and Dougal Temperton, publisher of Venue magazine, e3 Media plans to nurture creative talent from across the region and turn it into potential Internet businesses - hand-in-hand with jobs and growth" (all PR and what the company wants to say about itself). Also, "(before was interviewed) They launched the 50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4 campaign, using the internet and social media to encourage children to become more active. Other customers include Orange (an early client, having it on the books helped build the firm's reputation), Unicef, Bristol Airport and Clark's Shoes (following are interviewed parts also)". The next one, "FAST-GROWING new business E3 Media, which operates from Southville, has grown to five times its size in less than a year...." (note the ALL-CAPS "fast-growing" which is essentially to invite clients and investors, because no honest journalist would ever put that) which was followed by all interviewed information by the businesspeople themselves, there was no journalism efforts. The next one also contains interviewed information, some of the blatant parts are: "SOUTHVILLE new media company E3 Media is behind a new website which aims to give young people deciding on a university the lowdown from current students....company approaches internet strategy in the same way as an advertising or marketing agency would approach their markets and its clients include household names such as Orange, Canon, Motorola, and Oracle. The new student website venture, which has so far seen investment of around GBP100,000 by E3 Media, is fully owned by the company and it now plans to take on board commercial partners.", all of that was PR and PR alone, the journalist never actually made efforts of self-work, because it was all company-supplied information. The last source is yet another interview with the businessperson, so here's what it all boils to, the sources all had interviewed information and then also what the company plans are, there were no actual journalism efforts at all (certainly not significant, substantial or PR-immune), we need to stop kidding ourselves that having a mere news source name is sufficient to sugarcoat PR, because if we accept any forms of coated PR, that means we are still accepting advertising, which is the last thing we would want to accept, lest we become another PR platform like these news websites.SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly with the comments stated including my own, all of that is PR – your suggestion that the very reputable sources the BBC, The Times, and The Guardian are publishing PR for E3 Media is unconvincing. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's that it is in fact PR, the BBC article goes to extreme specifics to actually not only state what the company's plans are but to list what the businesspeople's plans are also, not honest journalist would ever put that, because it's not a journalist's tasks to put that, the only people who want to talk about their own company....is the company itself. The BristolPost is then another PR piece because it actually only ever consists of interviewed information, the worst part of all is "The business has been growing at 20 per cent a year, with a turnover around £4.2 million, and the aim is to continue that, with aspirations to expand across the UK and eventually overseas" because that's only something that company would know and therefore advertise about itself. There was never any actual journalism there because the company supplied everything about itself (the BP "article" name even begin with a flashy quote about the company, "E3 helps big firms set online strategy", and to complete it, it contains a company gallery; then the article is so thin, it's not helping the contents are interviewed and company-supplied information). Therefore, none of that is, again, substantial, significant or PR-immune. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's that it is in fact PR, the BBC article goes to extreme specifics to actually not only state what the company's plans are but to list what the businesspeople's plans are also, not honest journalist would ever put that, because it's not a journalist's tasks to put that – I disagree. It is proper journalistic practice to discuss the company's and the businesspeople's plans. To say that no "honest journalist would ever put that" is unfairly maligning BBC journalist Will Smale's reputation.
Cunard (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There would not even be one example to show about the BBC because it's all in fact interviewed information (although, now looking at it yet again, the closest blatant would be "has matured into a diversified business offering everything from website design and CD-Roms, to marketing campaigns and computer-based presentations" which is essentially going to specifics about what its services are, such close information belongs only at their own website, since that's what it serves for), that's what "no journalism efforts" means because the businessmen said everything, therefore it's primary information coming from the subjects themselves, the articles goes as far to then talk about of the businessperson's personal interests, that had no relevance for the company therefore it was not necessary, next to this said "interests", it then goes to talk about what he thinks and his philosophy, again, that's not something relevant to the company, none of it actually is because it's all their own thoughts, not news. The bottom line is here at none of that has been both without PR or actual substance beyond trivial and unconvincing information about either what the company wants or plans. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

which is essentially going to specifics about what its services are, such close information belongs only at their own website, since that's what it serves for – what information belongs in BBC articles is for the journalists and editors of the BBC to decide, not Wikipedia editors. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly and this is why churnalism also exists, to illustrate the sheer PR connections between companies and "news". Also, any company can claim whatever they want, but that's never saying it was PR-inmune. Also, it has been established that journalists themselves, like paid PR and media, will attempt to persuade and woo the clients in attempts for a good word and appearance; after all, that's exactly what business us about. SwisterTwister talk 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although possibly on a weaker level (I am unable to access some of the sources posted by Cunard above; some of the pages are requiring a login). Any minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing this stub-class article. Also, I agree with Cunard's view about the BBC, which is a reputable news organization. For more information about BBC's journalistic objectivity, check out the BBC's Editorial Values and BBC Academy's Journalism Values pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re what information belongs in BBC articles is for the journalists and editors of the BBC to decide, not Wikipedia editors -- this is exactly what we are expected to do as editors. Not just repeat what the news media says, but use the sources to build encyclopedic content. News media are at the lower end of the RS spectrum, and yes, their fact checking is not always up to par. A subject does not necessarily warrant a Wikipedia article because it was covered by news sources. That's the decision that Wiki editors need to make based on the assessment of notability.

With content such as

In 2014, e3 won 6 awards for its re-design and launch of the Royal Navy website.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] In 2015, e3 was ranked 14th in The Drum Elite Digital Census with a staff between 51-99.[17]

References

^ "Top digital industry award for Bristol agency e3 Media's ground-breaking Royal Navy website | Bristol Business News". www.bristol-business.net. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "e3 - 2014 Awards". The Drum. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "Digital Impact Awards 2015". www.digitalimpactawards.com. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "Communicate Magazine". www.communicatemagazine.co.uk. Retrieved 11 December 2015.

...this article falls under WP:NOT, which is a policy, not a guideline. There is no encyclopedic value to this article as it stands and sources presented do not amount to encyclopedia notability. Accepting such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that content. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing. Still, the article as it stands is WP:PROMO; it exists solely to promote the business and offers no meaningful information. The article is literally this:

E3 Media was known as New Generation Products before rebranding as e3 Media in 2001.^[1] Originally established in 1997 by Mike Bennet and Stuart Avery^[2] as a digital communications agency. In 2004, the company acquired London agency Butterfly Effect.^[3] The founders left the company in 2012 and Neil Collard was appointed Managing Director.^[4] E3 currently works with such clients as Royal Navy,^[5] Arthritis Research UK,^[6] National Trust,^[7] Unicef^[8]^{[better source needed]} and Bristol Airport^[9]

References

^ "E3 Media Limited in Bristol, BS4 3EH". www.bizdb.co.uk. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "From bedsit to bluechips". BBC. 23 June 2005. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "E is for evolution: The Drum catches up with e3 as part of 20/2000 visionaries series". The Drum. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "Neil Collard appointed new MD of digital agency e3". The Drum. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "Digital agency e3 announces responsive web design campaign for Royal Navy". www.bristolmedia.co.uk. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "Digital agency e3 hopes to make a difference working for Arthritis UK". www.southwestbusiness.co.uk. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "National Trust uses gamification with e3 for '50 Things To Do Before You're 11 ¾' campaign". The Drum. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "e3 Media and Unicef UK Win Digital Impact Award". www.prnewswire.com. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
^ "Bristol firm e3 helping big firms set out online strategy". Bristol Post. Retrieved 11 December 2015.

There are no indications of notability or significance, and the article also attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from the company's clients. Do readers really care which non-notable company is acquired (Butterfly Effect), or that a non-notable person (Neil Collard) was "appointed new MD"? Again, I don't see value in having this article, and in wasting volunteer editors' time trying to maintain its neutrality. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that no matter what supposed improvements are alleged, this would still not actually help because of the exact advertising intents and contents overall, to state the obvious, this has in fact been established at AfD, that no improvements, no matter what they are, are a compromise for keeping and accepting advertising. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol + and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bennett (businessman). The page under discussion appears to be the sole survivor related to a likely walled garden associated with this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The depth of coverage in WP:RS is very slight, and the only sources cited that are truly reliable are the BBC and the Bristol Post. They each only profiled the company and didn't even really discuss what it did in any depth; the articles were more "Oh wow, a successful startup in Cornish!". There's really nothing to say about this company right now; I don't think it's notable. FalconK (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs), the BBC article published in 2005 did "discuss what [the company] did in any depth". It noted that E3 Media was started in 1997 while founders Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery were studying for their final exams. It then notes that the company's clients:
Marching steadily through the late 1990s bursting of the dotcom bubble, today E3 enjoys a number of bluechip clients.
These range from mobile phone giant Orange, to clothing firm French Connection, car care products and bike shop Halfords, and the National Express bus company.
The article also discusses what the company does: It "offer[s] everything from website design and CD-Roms, to marketing campaigns and computer-based presentations".
The Bristol Post article published in 2014 also discusses what the company did in depth:
One example is the National Trust. Paintworks-based e3 has helped the firm look at the problem of children sitting at their computers all day and not getting out into the great outdoors.
They launched the 50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4 campaign, using the internet and social media to encourage children to become more active. Other customers include Orange (an early client, having it on the books helped build the firm's reputation), Unicef, Bristol Airport and Clark's Shoes.
The sources provide "deep coverage" about the company that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage).
Cunard (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The BBC listing its customers doesn't really establish a lot of depth or importance, and I'm not sure I could write more than a stub about this company from the sources I can find. The only thing one could really do is list the customers and staff and show that it exists. I'm looking at the second paragraph of WP:ORGSIG here, which calls for consideration of whether the company has had "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" -- I don't think the sources noted show this, nor does anything else I can find. FalconK (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That paragraph also says, "However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." I don't think it is necessary for a company to have a significant impact on society to be notable. Significant coverage should be sufficient.
    However, E3 Media has had a significant impact on society. That E3 Media worked with the National Trust to create the "50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4" campaign shows they have had a significant effect on society. The campaign received significant coverage in Design Week (link), which discusses E3 Media's involvement in the campaign:
    Bristol based consultancy e3 has produced the interactive website for the National Trust’s new ‘50 Things To Do Before You’re 11 ¾’ campaign.
    Launching today, the site is aimed at 8-10 year olds. It challenges children to complete 50 activities like catching a butterfly, going abseiling and cooking on a campfire.
    ...
    e3 also researched popular children’s websites like Club Penguin and considered the tastes of their own children to develop a site that it hopes is fun and interactive. Users can change the backgrounds and the characters’ clothes.
    The consultancy has worked with the National Trust for nearly five years and this site is the first of three new projects it is working on.
    The project started in December 2011 when the Trust approached e3 to design the website to accompany a ’50 Things’ scrapbook. The consultancy says that as the project developed the digital side became the focus because children like to play computer games. Now the campaign and scrapbook are based around the online content.
    It also received coverage in the Daily Mirror (link), the Daily Express link), The Guardian (commentary by journalist Ally Fogg), and The Telegraph (link). There are other sources about the campaign here.
    In this article, a National Trust assistant director wrote on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's website:
    Over 90,000 children have logged their adventures on the 50 things to do before you’re 11¾ website and app.
    ...
    Two years ago our Natural Childhood report painted a bleak picture of children become more and more disconnected from nature and the outdoors. The number of kids who regularly go to their local ‘patch of nature’ has halved in a generation. 9 in 10 kids can spot a Dalek when they see one. Yet a third of kids can’t identify a Magpie.
    I think getting 90,000 children to participate in a campaign that encourages them to explore the outdoors shows they have had a significant effect on society.
    Cunard (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot that doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. Quotations from employees as story sources are not acceptable. And that onetime event (about a "first world problem") is not really a significant effect on society. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Media has had a significant impact on society. That E3 Media worked with the National Trust to create the "50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4" campaign shows they have had a significant effect on society -- This is a non sequitur. Okay, E3 Media had a client that it worked for. And that is significant how? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This overlooks the last sentence of my comment: "I think getting 90,000 children to participate in a campaign that encourages them to explore the outdoors shows they have had a significant effect on society." Cunard (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an achievement by the National Trust; E3 media was the vendor. That's an attempt to inherit notability from a much better known client. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Design Week article says "e3 has produced the interactive website for the National Trust’s new ‘50 Things To Do Before You’re 11 ¾’ campaign" and that "in December 2011 ... the Trust approached e3 to design the website". It further notes the significant impact E3 Media's interactive website had on the campaign: "Now the campaign and scrapbook are based around the online content." By designing and producing this website, E3 Media has encouraged 90,000 children to participate in the 50 Things To Do Before You’re 11 ¾ campaign. This is E3 Media's significant impact on society. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you can paste the entire coverage here, it is not significant coverage whcih can satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. More important, I am amazed that so many of the sources use quotations by company employee as story sources (or are basically interviews) - which doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. There is no way this satisfies WP:NCORP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's noteworthy that the comments here in protest of the deletion are an order of magnitude more lengthy than the article itself... are we maybe dealing with a WP:COI here? FalconK (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely. The delete comments aren't exactly pithy themselves. If you check out his/her contributions, Cunard (talk · contribs) is a frequent participant at AFD who typically posts comprehensive and thoughtful comments in discussion. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that is possible at all. Cunard has participated multiple times at AfDs and has always brought sources to the discussion. I don't see a COI here at all. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can paste the entire coverage here – I did not paste "the entire coverage" here, which you would know if you read the articles.
I am amazed that so many of the sources use quotations by company employee as story sources – there is nothing amazing about journalists' interviewing the subject of their article. It is good journalistic practice to interview the article subject. The articles contain some quotes from E3 Media employees but are mostly written in the journalists' own words. The articles also will have been fact-checked. Reputable sources like The Times, BBC, Design Week, and the Bristol Post have strong reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
My response to Falcon Kirtaran's WP:COI ad hominem is here.
Cunard (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ORGIND Sources used to support a claim of notability...except for the following: other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. What you are calling as a "good journalistic practice" clear doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the comment "nothing amazing about journalists' interviewing the subject": "I believe the (...) statement confuses investigative journalism with the practice of redressing press releases and / or taking briefings set up by PR firms." (from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeek). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely curious about whether there was a WP:COI, Cunard. It seems there is no evidence of that; OK. We still have to establish WP:RS that satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. So far, nearly everything mentioned is just an incidental mention of the company (that is, holding it out as an example, or mentioning it in passing), coverage that only addresses raising capital, or coverage in WP:RS that doesn't explain what exactly the company might be notable for. The only pertinent source I can see out of all of these is [18], and that coverage is very minimal. FalconK (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Interactive[edit]

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. Mentioned awards are not credible and won by repeated entity. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatantly written like a press release, and the WP:REFBOMBing is mostly primary sources and press releases - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious adspam is obvious. Ravenswing 20:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After research, I can find no WP:RS for this company. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and lack or RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 21 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art. Lebedev Studio[edit]

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internationally famous design studio (though the article needs work) - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ditto. Needs better refs (esp in English) but a moment's search turns them up. – SJ + 17:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of Russia's most well-known design firms. See this and this. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- appears to be a leading web/graphics design in Russia with many state contracts. Here's another source: Moscow Times. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 22 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. Hut 8.5 21:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basecamp (company)[edit]

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

Article is written like a company leaflet and its feature. No significant coverage for specific products. The article more about the founder and people related to organization. Seems like founder or its associate made this page for credible appearance. Books are mentioned from the author, does not relate to credibility point of view but promotions. References cites only does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They're pretty well-known as a company so I'd expect there to be sourcing, but the sources presented are terrible ... at present it's TNT material - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:ARTN. Plenty of WP:RS establish WP:GNG. Whether or not these sources are currently in the article (and a number of them are) is not the question--the question is whether such sources exist, and they do. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be 100% more convincing if you actually presented any instead of merely asserting their existence - David Gerard (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seemed reasonable to me that editors commenting here might be looking at the article and the references there. See Chicago Tribune, Wired, Time, and Bloomberg for good examples. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources described above, as well . The nominator User:Light2021 is strongly encouraged to SLOW DOWN and re-read Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability before they again become disruptive. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as argued above. For the record, as article creator, I am not an "associate" of anyone at the firm, although we have mutual acquaintances in common. I created the article as I was investigating Ruby on Rails development for my own ends. Given its importance, especially in the 00s, as a web development platform, it seems nonsensical that this article should not exist or be sourceable. I don't see anything unduly promotional in the pre-AfD article, although yes, it ended up being a laundry list of products in the deprecated 'brochure' genre. It's been a long time since I could actively edit here at the project. I hope the edits undertaken since nomination will suffice to pass muster. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear that WP:BEFORE was not undertaken prior to this nomination. Specifically, point C says that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." This article was easily fixed through normal editing. It should have been tagged for improvement rather than nominated for deletion. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually as this is still PR-based advertising even if it is notable, because the article contains namedrops and consistently shown information about how Jeff Bezos invested it; if anyone thinks this is improvable, it should be Drafted, not kept at the current mainspace where chances are slimmer of it being improved. Another thing is that the sources listed themselves consist of announcements, such as the TechCrunch "37 Signals", that was hardly journalism if it was simply compiled information. The first link listed here is not an article stating what the company's and businessperson's plans are, but it's an actual interview. Yes, I see that the company has 2 products listed, and they have their own article, but that's not a sole convincing statement of this automatically staying. Containing any close forms and attempts at advertising is damaging to this website and what it signifies. The Wired article itself contains not only PR-speak but something that only the company and its PR agents would say, "BaseCamp will change how think!". SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this is "PR-based advertising even if it is notable", then fix it. Make some edits yourself, or tag the article and start a discussion about your concerns on the article talk page. But AFD is for establishing notability, not for fixing perceived issues with promotional language. Everyone here, even you, seems to agree the company is notable. It's a waste of the community's time to hem-and-haw here. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I stated was the concerns of PR and advertising beyond the mere expected thoughts it would actually be improved, there's noticeable history and other cases of articles that were not improved at all even though pegged for it; simply letting that happen is not fixing anything, so what I said was if the company is notable, it's best Drafted if at all to allow these improvements, not simply let the article stay where it is, and hope for it. Essentially suggesting "tag it [for improvements] or start mentioning them at the talk page" is also then saying "Well, let's peg the thoughts for them and hope they actually happen". There's also no "perceived" PR concerns if I stated them above as I have with any other PR article, sourced by PR itself. These concerns were stated at the nomination also. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Easily passes WP:GNG. AfD is not for article cleanup. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 24 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) 05:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purple, Rock, Scissors[edit]

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

Article is written for only promotional and advertising purposes. 50 Employee and not public listed company. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the WP:REFBOMBing is substantially primary, press-release and promotional, and the article reads like a press release. If kept, would need to be culled to a couple of sentences on RSes - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT; strictly an advertorial page, with a hallmark sign of promotionalism: ext links in the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 22 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. Seems like there are numerous independent sources available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Internet Technologies[edit]

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

References are very poor. Mentioned popular media references are written by close associate of company. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep this, actually - their collapse was definitely noteworthy and attracted a great deal of attention, per refs supplied - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as very obviously notable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Light2021: And, just to address the false claims that all the sources are close to the company and are not independent media:
  - Utah Business is an independent company that publishes a magazine about business in Utah. It has no connection to the company in question.
  - Inc. Magazine has no connection other than placing the company on its lists once or twice.
  - Shoestring Venture: The Startup Bible is a book written by people with no connection to the company and published by a publisher with no connection.
  - Entrepreneur Magazine is also independent
  - The Deseret Morning News is a local (to Utah) and national (it publishes a national edition subscribed to by thousands of people across the country) paper that has been in existence for far longer than this company. There is no connection between them, business or otherwise.
  - KSL has also been around far longer than the company, and has no connection to them at all.
  - The New York Post is very obviously not connected to the company.
  - The rest of them (BBB, Utah.gov, etc.) have no connection either. The only iffy one is "The Economic Report", which was a scam which duped many companies, including Heritage. Please do a little more research before making assumptions which can so easily be proven false. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable for its collapse, as per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 22 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 Thomson Reuters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emochila[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional and advertising in nature. References are very poor. No credibility in references. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Thomson Reuters - they look like they could be notable, but the sourcing is very bad - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomson Reuters; exceedingly promotional article, so I would recommend a delete first. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 22 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. Housekeeping closure. (non-admin closure). Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 12:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SWiE[edit]

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

Speedy delete has been removed by creator whose only contributions have been creating this page. However this is blatent promotion of a very insignificant youtube channel and the entire article is in german, making it further inappropriate for en.wiki The creator is not supposed to remove the speedy deletion tags, but they have so hopefully this is the next quickest way to get rid of it. I've put placeholder text in the article in the meantime, but this is how it looked previously. Rayman60 (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Just a line, of course it must be speedy deleted. Not a popular channel as well and no references provided. Per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've speedy-tagged the page (A1 and A7). Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 14:41, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hajduk Split 0–0 Ajax (1995)[edit]

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

This particular game fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. There is no coverage by reliable sources except routine coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this may have been considered a success in Croatia, there is literally nothing notable about this match. Fails GNG and SPORTSEVENT. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this match, and I find it hard to buy into the (unsourced) claim that holding Ajax to a draw in the first leg of a two-legged tie only to then get thrashed in the second leg is really regarded as one of the greatest achievements in Croatian football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claims in the article that this is the greatest moment in Croatian football are entirely unsupported. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT, no indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:02, 24 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, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Safehaven86 (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Police Department (Massachusetts)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG as noted. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cambridge, Massachusetts#Police department instead of deleting. Per Brea Police Department. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using ((ping))) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Do so here, per MorbidEntree. Fieari (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Redirect would be a satisfactory outcome. John from Idegon (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a paltry article, however, Cambridge is a significant place not at all comparable to Brea California. It is emphatically not a "suburb". It is an old industrial city (a factory in Cambridge brought you Fig Newtons, another brought you Polaroid) now a city of over 100,000 adjacent to but not a suburb of adjacent Boston, rather, it is a hotbed of tech start-ups with a number of major corporate headquarters located there, not to mention the campuses of 2 of the world's leading universities - MIT and Harvard cause security problems unknown to most far larger Amercan cities. Like regularly cooperating with other security services to protect assassination/kidnapping targets like scions of the families that run whole countries in Asia and Latin Americs (Benazir Bhutto) they do their studies; cooperating with the feds on security when heads of state drop in. Cambridge police deal routinely with international and national security that lots of much bigger cities never see. Plus, there have been in the national news cycle for arresting Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy and chasing down the Boston Marathon bombing who lived on a quiet side street in Cambridge. This is a significant police dept that needs a better article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of that have to do with notability? Every police department cooperates with other agencies when needed. If they didn't and it was written about that might be one piece toward notability. Crime stories are not sources in detail about the subject, they are passing mentions, quite akin to story about an athletic event. A particular player may be mentioned in said story, but the story is about the game; not detailed coverage of the player and of no use to show the players notability. A place where something might turn up for notability would be the department's long existence. If a book (note I didn't find any) has been written on its history, that would show notability. The size of the city is not a factor, altho some have argued that in other discussions. But Cambridge isn't even that big of a city. The Gates thing seems to be a one event thing and again not coverage in detail, altho I've only cursorly investigated it. It's possible a story came out of it that discussed the department in detail. But without other sources separate from that event, I'm still not seeing notability. John from Idegon (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up size because User: MorbidEntree asserted that Cambridge is comparable to Brea, California. It's not. "all of this" matters because the security problems Cambridge police cop with are more comparable to those of major cities, including neighboring Boston, than to those of cities it's size, or of larger cities without the constant comings and goings of major international figures. You are correct, someone needs to bring sources, but, this Dept. underwent intense national scrutiny in the wake of the (very very different) Gates and Marathon bombing incidents.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, any assertions about the importance of this department are inappropriate to this discussion. There is no notability guideline that equates importance with notability. Coverage of events generally do not provide the coverage in detail required to show notability. Show me three plus sources covering the department in detail, at least one of which is from outside metro Boston (which, despite your unreferenced assertion, Cambridge is a part of. See Metropolitan Boston), and I'll withdraw this. Despite a fair search, I found none. Hopefully your results are better. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Norton Smith, The Harvard Century: The Making of a University to a Nation, Harvard University Press, 1969, covers the events of April 1969, when undergraduates took over Harvard administration buildings to protest the Vietnam War, and were removed by the city police
Liberation, Imagination and the Black Panther Party: A New Look at the Black Panthers and their Legacy, Kathleen Cleaver, George Katsiaficas, Routledge, 2014 covers the Cambridge police response to the 1970 Black Panther march. The Campus and a Nation in Crisis: From the American Revolution to Vietnam; Willis Rudy, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1996, Chapter 5 also covers this incident. It was a Black Panther protest march that got out of hand and turned into a significant civil disturbance, with stores set on fire in Harvard Square which is not part of the campus, but a downtown shopping district. Extensive coverage of the way the Cambridge Police handled it exists.
Bringing the War Home: The Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction, and Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies, Jeremy Peter Veron, University of California Press, 2004, p 153, covers charges brought against the Weather Underground after shots were fired at Cambridge Police building
Although our article on the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy is so inadequate that it cites the wrong police Department (Boston instead of Cambridge, the incident has generated a mini-industry of academic analysis, much of ti focused on racism and policing: ("Afterword: The Inescapable Socio-Political Weight of Race: A Critical Analysis of President Barack Obama's, Professor Henry Louis Gates's, and Sgt. James Crowley's Racial Controversy." Counterpoints 351 (2010): 203-11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980556.)
I suppose most major American cities have police departments that have been the subject of significan media and scholarly attention. Cambridge certainly does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Largish (over 300 employees) police department of a significant city. No good reason here for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not acquainted with any notability guideline on any subject that equates size with notability. Please educate me. John from Idegon (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's that one that's increasingly absent from Wikipedia: common sense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hadn't realized that the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy is associated with the Cambridge police department, but I immediately thought of the policeman shot after the Boston Marathon bombing.
I looked at WP:ORG and it doesn't use the word "government", so the argument in the nomination may be bogus because a police department is a part of the city government. As part of a larger organization, and given the requirement that WP:DEL8 deletions are subject to the WP:ATD, there is never a theoretical case for deletion of a city department.
A WP:BEFORE review of the "What Links Here" shows the MIT Crime Club, which might have been a clue that a city police department receives more attention from the public at large than a university crime club that relies in part on the Cambridge Police Department radio transmissions.
The results from WP:BEFORE D1 are numerous. A search on Google books for ["Cambridge Police Department" Massachusetts] yields the top link as

David J. Degou (1 April 2009). Cambridge Police Department. Arcadia Publishing. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-7385-6201-8.

One shouldn't be surprised, knowing the schools in the area, to find academic attention at Google scholar. Google news is rich with sources. The article itself shows that the topic has existed since 1859, and the nomination shows no evidence of checking the archives of the leading Boston newspapers for 150 years. Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Finally, a reliable source on the department as a whole. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 22:35, 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 no consensus. This discussion has been open for over a month with no clear outcome or agreement on whether the sources get this person over WP:GNG. Some sources have been presented by User:Vanamonde which may be helpful in improving the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Udayanga Weeratunga[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being a former ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability. Also just because he is the first cousin of a former president does not make him notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Dan arndt (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe an ambassadorial position makes him pass WP:POLITICIAN. I believe any ambassador is notable, and I am not aware of any AfD deleting their bio. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are definitely not inherently notable, quite a few have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus as per WP:DIPLOMAT any individual (including any diplomat) needs to meet the criteria under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO and not just be solely reliant on the fact that they were a diplomat (in this case an ambassador). After going through the article there is little there that supports him being considered as notable. Dan arndt (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:DIPLOMAT and it is an essay, not a policy. In my opinion ambassadors pass WP:POLITICIAN and should be auto-notable by the virtue of their position. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

again you are arguing inherent notability. in fact there was a discussion to give ambassadors inherent notability which gained no consensus. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in being ambassador. Coverage merely confirms he held the role. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If being ambassador to Russia and notoriety about illegally selling arms in Ukraine isn't notable enough, a quick Google search shows that he passes WP:GNG.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an accusation of Arms selling only. Please show us the outcome of actual sources from your "quick google search"? LibStar (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 30,000 results on Google.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS. number of hits does not mean automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassador passes GNG, or it should. We can change the notability rules if that's unclear. Ambassadors exert a huge impact on bilateral relations and their work becomes history.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors exert a huge impact on bilateral relations and their work becomes history . Many in fact do very little. do you have actual evidence that Udayanga Weeratunga exerted a huge impact on bilateral relations. I'll happily change my !vote to keep if you do. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the subject of the article appears to be currently under investigation in his home country for fraud relating to purchase of MiG fighters:

A warrant is out to arrest Weeratunga on charges of financial fraud, alleged to have taken place when seven MiG-27 ground attack aircraft were procured for the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLFA). The FCID launched investigation on Weeratunga following a complaint lodged by defence columnist and political writer Iqbal Athas on the financial irregularities that had taken place.

Whether this falls under WP:NOTNEWS or makes him notable, I'm not sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassador of any country to Russia is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here we go again. Maybe you can actually look for sources which you never do in ambassador AfDs . There is no inherent notability of being ambassador to Russia. Several have been deleted including where you have previously !voted.

LibStar (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The unsupported keep comments based on inherent notability of ambassadors have been disputed by other editors... and past Afds have been showcased to support their oppose/delete assertion... The Afd is therefore re-listed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, per WP:POLITICIAN. Simply because the statements of inherited notability is disputed by deletionists in this case does not mean they are correct. also per fraud relating to purchase of MiG fighters, just as an example of this persons notabilty beyond "just another diplomat".BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. has held no political office. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this discussion relisted again. It is clearly a No consensus result, or leaning towards keep per rationales for Delete such as Non-notable individual., utterly pointless.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being an ambassador is not default grounds for notability and we lack adequate sources otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per the source I listed above, the MiG scandal is not sufficient for encyclopedia notability at this time. WP:TOOSOON possibly applies; the subject is not yet notable, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable and holds office. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. None of the positions held confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly not convincingly notable as a politician and honestly nothing else otherwise, nothing to suggest what would need to actually happen for a confident fixing and keep. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the consensus, based on many past deletion debates, is that diplomats do not normally pass our specific standards, in this case an ambassador to a world power would probably be notable. I'd agree to "userfication" until better sources were found. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote contains zero demonstration of actual sources to establish WP:BIO is met, instead trying to argue inherently "probably notable". Nice try but seriously not an argument for keep. LibStar (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this just narrowly passes both WP:NPOL and WP:CRIME, and his corruption case seems to have generated substantial press coverage. FalconK (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he was never a politician. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and several more available via a search for news sources. Vanamonde (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nom is advised to read and follow WP:BEFORE before nominating any articles here, Consensus is a clear keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Patriots Front[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This organisation is clearly a nothing organisation and has, and will have, no historical significance what so ever. I therefore am nominating this article for deletion for a second time. Geelongite (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm personally entirely against the stances that these types of groups perpetuate, but the group nevertheless meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Merge into Reclaim Australia. The UPF was born originally as a splinter group of Reclaim Australia and as such, it is probably better suited to be included in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.148.142.46 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, Reclaim Australia should be merged into United Patriots Front. Reclaim Australia was very short-lived, and no longer exists. UPF seems to have got much more media coverage. Orthogonal1 (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, considerable RS coverage. Even if they turn out to be a flash in the pan, they're clearly encyclopedia material and well-sourced - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where to debate this ... but although I disagree with absolutely everything this organisation says and does, it is a part of the political landscape in Australia at the moment, and should remain listed in Wikipedia. Its historical significance cannot possible be judged at the moment, but I suggest it had already played a hand in shaping the current Federal Senate, via the election of three One Nation senators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.75.141 (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep – the VFD here seems vexatious and based on an assessment of the historical significance of this organisation. I agree with this assessment, but it is ultimately POV and not a criterion for deletion. esperant 00:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- appears to be a notable group, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- numerous references. TripleJ did a live podcast involving the United Patriots Front today with 30k+ viewers. Aeonx (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: They're clearly notable, even if they eventually die out. (See, for example, One Parliament for Australia.) Orthogonal1 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- United Patriots Front Could be a future government in the making. Timjones86 (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not a reason for keeping. See WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of sources chronicling their thuggery and other antics, separate from the thuggery and other antics of Reclaim Australia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:39, 25 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Seidel[edit]

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

She starred in a horror flick called The Final, but it is not clear what is her leading roles in the voice acting / anime world. Not finding much coverage in papers outside of the one film. Only 2 conventions, ~~one was~~both are local. All the ANN articles are just cast announcements. WP:TOOSOON? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC) updated 20:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kyoko is a major character in terms of plot in the anime series Is This a Zombie?. She also provides the voice for Hecate in Shakugan no Shana (seasons 2-3), these would pass WP:ENT as they are two major antagonist roles. I also found this: [36], Constant Contact isn't a minor thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the roles mentioned seem to qualify subject. I'm close to thinking WP:TOOSOON but leaning keep. Will watch this discussion. ArchieOof (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two anime conventions.Therainbowsend (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as IMDb itself actually summarily states her works and there's nothing actually substantial or major to actually suggest independent notability; there's no inherited notability about anything from the listed films, if it means there would not then be a both substantial and improved article of her own. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In just a few clicks I found a good number of online sources about the subject. Passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are those good number of sources? I've only seen cast announcements outside of the one interview. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? anyone can say there are good sources but if you don't supply them how can we believe you or trust their neutrality or reliability?

Weak keep: Substantial filmography, adequate sources. Voice actors don't get coverage live film actors do, so I'd say she passes GNG for her field. Would like to see source material used to improve article, though. Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few flaws in your argument. The filmography is a matter of opinion sure. While the sources are fine they only serve as confirmation of those roles, not the notability of the article's subject. Voice actor coverage has been sufficient for many years, easily long enough to cover the subject's time in the industry, never mind that you are assuming live action actors are all notable.. Giving a pass based on her field as if it somehow should have lesser requirements than any other actor is misguided.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, cast announcements generally are just that and do not denote or suggest merit.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is true that voice actors generally have less coverage. (Actually quite a few of them do have coverage, but many of them are in fan websites which are not exactly RS for our purpose). The way to decide notability is to look at their contributions. If they voiced any major role in an anime I tend to give them a pass. The problem here is that the subject has done a bunch of minor roles, none of which are exactly significant. Considering the lack of coverage and the lack of a significant role, I am going with a delete here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I have not been able to locate any of the sources being talked about in the discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fan websites tend to have primary source interviews, which only help beef up some self-published facts about the person like where they went to high school, or what is their favorite part of voice acting, but doesn't establish whether they are notable since they tend to grab any upcoming voice actor for an interview. The interview for The Final is over at BridgeThink [37] That one's got a little more credibility, coming from the general acting/production industry. But still, that's about it, and it only helps her notability for The Final. She's cast in a web series called Morganville that itself barely has notability for being an adaptation of a book series: The_Morganville_Vampires#Morganville:_The_Series [38] and another web series that isn't Wikipedia-notable called Throwing Stones AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Yup, it seems like a case of TOOSOON. She may become notable in the future, but not now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure about how notable but she did win a "Staff Choice Award for Voice Actress of the Year at the 4th Annual BTVA Anime Dub Awards. [39] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC) [40][reply]

I'm a bit on the fence for that one as BTVA staff choice is a nice accolade for their resume, and the voice actors do brag about being selected. But it doesn't give the winner any physical awards and there's no award ceremony like Annie Award or National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers (NAVGTR) awards. The BTVA People's Choice one is non-notable as it's a user-generated poll. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the only other one I could find is a "Fright Meter" award. [41] I will continue trying to look for interviews. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 27 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. J04n(talk page) 14:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy M[edit]

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

No indication of importance, no indication of meeting notability guidelines, orphan article, sources may be paid and it has been like this for several months with no improvement. Rizhopper (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment FHM is an article, Billboard chart is very minor but exists - this leads me to consider her likely marginally notable per NMUSIC, and that other sources are likely to exist (but that's hypothetical, so this isn't a "keep" yet) - David Gerard (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the FHM source in this article is legitimate because the actual FHM goes by FHM dot com but this one goes by FHM dot ph. Also there is nothing on Billboard that mentioned her name. When I look up Juicy M, I only see Juicy J (rapper). - Rizhopper (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still appears to be a minor RS (but not one that would swing it for me). The Billboard ref was [42] which may or may not be any sort of actual chart, though it's listed in the charts section. Electronica Life also looks like a minor RS. The sources don't look sponsored (I could be wrong). Looking through Google News, this is IMO not bad: [43] These are fluffy fact-of-touring coverage, but suggest she's actually somewhat noteworthy in her field (not quite NMUSIC #4 because they're not serious critical reviews, but they are international touring getting coverage): [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] There's a lot of "World's Sexiest DJ" fluff, but I'm leaning marginal keep for actually being noteworthy in her field, and I think we could have an article on the sources there are - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion though, it doesn't qualify for WP:MUSICBIO. - Rizhopper (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the lower reaches of GNG. Bit of a stretch admittedly and may well be a WP:TOOSOON. But I think that's sufficient sourcing for a quite okay BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a link here that shows that she works under Armada Music label [52]. I don't know if its of any importance or if it complies with the guidelines but, Armada Music is notable record label. Other than that I couldn't find more references than the ones already here. If the article still doesn't fulfill the criteria then I think it should be deleted as per norms. (Nipun Nayar 21:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipunnayar (talk • contribs)

Comment: WP:MUSICBIO number 5 says "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" and she has not released even one album yet. Being signed to a notable label does not make an artist notable. - Rizhopper (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Not notable enough per WP:MUSICBIO - Rizhopper (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the bottom line here in the nomination and article itself is that none of the sources listed are actual convincing substance, in fact they simply consist of her own album listings or otherwise discography websites; that's nearly always a guaranteed factor of what an article only uses if there's no actual in-depth sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is not notable as a musician. However, she might be notable as a model but still the references doesn't prove it. JohnBangBang (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Media coverage in numerous countries, over 3.75 million followers on FB, similar counts on Youtube channel, and the first female signed by Armada Music. Notable. Article could use clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having many fans on social media is not a criteria for notability. Being "the first female signed by Armada Music" in some way is sexist to be considered good enough for notability and I have been trying to expand this article for more than 6 months but I could not find much relevant sources. Just because you personally not want it to be deleted doesn't mean it shouldn't. There is not much media coverage. This article fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, WP:NRV - TheMagnificentist (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new one in so many ways! LOL. Hmlarson (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Business Evaluation and Management[edit]

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

Promotional article for quite not notable framework. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands - I'm willing to be convinced, but one journal article from 30 years ago doesn't cut it - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I don't believe that this concept is established enough as Google books return nothing. Possibly a new business concept not quite ready for prime time. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 23 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. Opinion is divided between stubify and redirect. So I guess it's stubify at a minimum for now. Sandstein 09:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hikmah[edit]

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

"Hikmah is an Arabic word meaning wisdom" - I don't know if this falls under WP:NOTDICTIONARY or if this is a potentially legitimate article topic, but this should obviously be WP:TNT per gross violation of WP:NOTWIKIQUOTE.

I googled the sources. The majority of them are literally dictionaries, and everything is ancient. Typically 400-600 years old. Ref#1 looks recent, but even that source is just quoting someone who died 400 years ago. The entire lead being nothing but inline external links to the Quran, and the entire page is effectively proselytizing ancient in-religion-POV. WP:TNT WP:TNT WP:TNT. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legitimate Islamic philosophical concept as demonstrated by the included quote from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but the article is poor and I tagged it with ((Cv-unsure)) in 2015 because it seemed to be cut-and-pasted from some unacknowledged source. I think it should be reduced to a stub (there is one good reference) or changed into a redirect pointing to the wiktionary entry hikmah until someone can develop it. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce to stub. Most of the citations are meaningless without edition information and probably not helpful for an encyclopedia article. gren グレン 21:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its entry in Glossary of Islam. I cannot really see this developing beyond a dicdef. --HyperGaruda (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce to Stub - An analysis of the concept within Arabic cultures is worth exploring, and all these quotes makes it clear that the subject has been studied extensively, so it CAN be expanded. That said, Wikipedia is not wikiquote, so cut all that out and let the article regrow with proper encyclopedic text, properly sourced of course. Fieari (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's still nothing actually confirming there's the needed information for its own confirmed and established article, there's simply listed explanations about what the word means. SwisterTwister talk 01:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce to stub as the the current content consists overwhelmingly of primary sources that are very far from reflecting any sort of research on the topic, and these can still be transwikified to wikiquote. The topic however is notable, and there isn't a shortage of secondary sources, for example [53], [54], [55]. Uanfala (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 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 delete. The validity of the sources provided have not been successfully argued that they meet our notability guidelines. J04n(talk page) 13:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeviceAtlas[edit]

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

Software company that does not meet WP:CORP or the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 10:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets WP:CORP or the GNG. Loads of coverage from multiple independent sources including references to five books on web design. It definitely belongs on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawelpiejko (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources cited and others I could find are press releases/announcements, routine coverage, unreliable, and/or don't cover DeviceAtlas in-depth. WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I disagree, there are plenty of examples of in-depth coverage, and even if you don't find them "substantial", the WP:CORPDEPTH says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There are multiple independent sources who wrote about DeviceAtlas and this coverage is not "routine coverage". If you search "deviceatlas" in Books.google.com you'll get 612 results. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=deviceatlas The book "Programming the mobile web" contains an in-depth analysis of how DeviceAtlas works, p. 324-326. ^[1] An even longer analysis can be found in "Beginning Smartphone development", p. 111-123^[2]. Other notable examples of books where DeviceAtlas is covered include: "Professional Mobile Web Development with WordPress, Joomla! and Drupal", "Social Media Marketing For Dummies", "HTML, CSS, and JavaScript Mobile Development For Dummies", "iPhone and iPad Web Design For Dummies". You can find them all in Google Books. Examples from the web, other than then ones listed in the entry, include: nooshu.github.io^[3], The Whir^[4], an academic paper from Universidade do Porto, Department of Computer Science^[5], DZone.com^[6], GSMArena^[7], PhoneArena^[8], and a lot more. — Pawelpiejko (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firtman is not an in-depth analysis; there isn't any analysis. It doesn't have any more information than I would expect to find on the official website: pricing, features, available data. Frederick also isn't an analysis. Nooshu is a blog, so it is not a reliable source. The Whir is a press announcement. Queirós, DZone, GSMArena, and PhoneArena do not have in-depth coverage, mentions only. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Firtman is not an in-depth analysis;" --> This is very subjective. Now you're claiming that a good few pages on a subject in a book(!) is not a substantial coverage -- this is very odd. The fact that Firtman uses information similar to what you think he was able to find on the website at the time of writing doesn't make the source unreliable or less substantial. However, even if this is true, again WP:CORPDEPTH says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There is enough books and web articles that talk about DeviceAtlas to establish notability here. Pawelpiejko (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You confuse mentioning/description with analysis. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Firtman, Maximiliano (2013-03-15). Programming the Mobile Web. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.". ISBN 9781449334970.
^ Frederick, Gail Rahn (2010-01-14). Beginning Smartphone Web Development. Apress. ISBN 9781430226215.
^ "Using the DeviceAtlas API with WordPress". nooshu.github.io. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
^ "Nginx Web Server Adds Device Detection at Server Layer with dotMobi DeviceAtlas Module". The Whir. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
^ Ricardo Queirós and Mário Pinto. "Using Mobile Device Detection Approaches to Augment the Accuracy of Web Delivery Content" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-09-14.
^ "Screen Size: Bigger Isn't Always Better". DZone.com. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
^ "Apple's iPhone web share shrinks, MacBook sales grow". GSMArena. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
^ "Analyst says Apple iPhone 7 "will disappoint"". PhoneArena. Retrieved 2016-09-14.

Keep : Pretty well known and has been around a long time, plenty of references to their data around the web, just do a search eg http://mobileadvertisingwatch.com/worm-in-the-apple-iconic-devices-actually-drop-in-market-share-in-many-countries-24028 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.96.59 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That source does not have in-depth coverage of DeviceAtlas. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow me to state exactly what is happening here; the first vote states WP:CORP is met given the sources, but even the sources themselves are not entirely acceptable. The sources include simple PR links, take the phonearena.com for example, which not only lists "report" at the name header, but the last sentence says "information given by DeviceAtlas", essentially a press release! The other sources listed even include elements of this, so we cannot blindly confide they were not either paid PR or PR supplied by the company itself. The Keep vote above my comment here then actually states "Google it and you'll see" instead of substantiating their own comment with analysis of why, how and where it can be kept and improveed; especially with these stated concerns including about PR. The first Keep vote then states afterwards from WP:CORPDEPTH, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability", but an article containing PR or otherwise advertising is always still open and able to be deleted if the PR concerns outweigh or otherwise becoming outstanding. Therefore, simply saying sources exist and may be substantial cannot be ascertained without then actually guaranteeing there's no risks of PR. The article seemingly goes to specifics about what the product is and then how to use it; the books themselves have concerns of simply being guides themselves. SwisterTwister talk 00:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Sources you mentioned, such as PhoneArena, GSMArena, DZone, TheNextWeb, Ubergizmo, etc. are not "simple PR links" -- These are independently written articles commenting on DeviceAtlas data (yes, data released by DeviceAtlas, and this isn't something unusual -- companies release reports and other information, and then media post articles commenting on what they receive). A "simple PR link" (copy/paste) would be this -- http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160815005070/en/Airpush-Chooses-DeviceAtlas-Provide-Device-Awareness-Mobile There's a huge difference. There are plenty of other sources apart from these ones, including books I linked to before, which are obviously independent even if you don't find them substantial (e.g. the "For Dummies" series). "The books themselves have concerns of simply being guides themselves" ---> And what's wrong with a source being a guide? A guide can be a perfect proof that the entry's subject is notable, given that people write books on how to use it, what to use it for, how much it costs, what it takes to implement it, etc. "Therefore, simply saying sources exist and may be substantial cannot be ascertained without then actually guaranteeing there's no risks of PR" --> Every single coverage on a company/product used as a source on Wikipedia has "PR risks". And yet companies/products are covered on Wikipedia. In this light, the "risks of PR" is not a sensible argument in a discussion regarding a commercial product. Pawelpiejko (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : A couple of points on the noteworthiness and issues raised with depth of sources. There are a great many independent, scholarly, citations of DeviceAtlas in a whole range of peer-reviewed books on the topic of web development for mobile, and other topics relating to web design, programming and marketing. Many more references than were included in the initial article, so some of these should be added. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=deviceatlas#q=deviceatlas&tbm=bks&start=10
DeviceAtlas data plays an important role in one of the most important web analytics platforms Adobe Marketing Cloud (and by extension the very large corporations who use a proprietary web analytics solution instead of free analytics solutions such as Google Analytics) - the argument here is not for inclusion by the reference to Adobe, but by reference to the fact that DeviceAtlas' data is being used to interpret the devices behind many millions of web requests every day in a Gartner magic quadrant listed platform. https://marketing.adobe.com/resources/help/en_US/insight/dataset/c_deviceAtlas_update.html
There are many notable integrations and hooks available for DeviceAtlas including Varnish (software) https://www.varnish-cache.org/vmods, NGINX https://github.com/Sydsvenskan/opportunistic-device-detection and HAProxy which are all widely distributed.
Access to the device data is open and free via the deviceatlas.com website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flanncha (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC) — Flanncha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Notability is not inherited from associated topics, platforms, etc. Usage by many does not imply notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I must agree with User:JJMC89's analysis here; while there are sources they are either not reliable, not substantial coverage, or not independent. This is no commentary on the quality of the product, but I don't see anything more out there than the standard marketing copy of any corporately developed IT product. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as, since the user themselves is not stating anything else other than "no notability" (which is in fact convincing for WP:PROF, considering the dean position but also a national "CDC position", which is enough) and then concerns about a resume (which can also be taken care of if in fact notable); there's then nothing to suggest deletion. The "notability" tag itself should have been removed considering the listed information, not nominated for AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Trevathan[edit]

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

No indication of notability/reads like a resume Woodshed (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is indeed somewhat poorly written and SPA-created, to boot. But the subject has an enormous, well-cited research record (h-index around 25). No question that he is notable. Agricola44 (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. Very strong citation record which shows significant impact in his field. Joe Roe (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- qualifies under WP:NACADEMIC. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 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 Deleted (G11) by Sphilbrick . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TH&C[edit]

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

Not seeing any evidence of notability for this company. Its own website appears to be down, otherwise we could check whether the article was copied from there, as appears likely : Noyster (talk), 10:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As per nominator. No evidence of notability, not a single sentence is cited, and slightly promotional in tone. Failure of WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - blatantly promotional, no sources. If this wasn't three years old I'd have speedied it - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; advertising only. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam from Day 1. (I often look for a sound version. There ain't one.) Peridon (talk) 19:04, 19 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. Hut 8.5 21:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZunoZap[edit]

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

Concerns with notability FASTILY 08:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hi. The notability concerns are valid. The article does not meet the notability requirements. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N; finding no coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 10:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, if you go to the references they show what it needs to show, in fact I will update them version 1.0 is out - ZunoZap Dev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiah James Patton (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NA1000, not notable. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:54, 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) 06:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit Media[edit]

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

References are written as a blog on independent sources by the close associate of the company. Nothing significant coverage or references are given. Misleading popular references presented as media coverage. References are very poor. Does not meet notability criteria. Light21 07:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Blatantly promotional, deceptive sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO as "corporate spam". The page exists to promote the business. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 22 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) 06:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HeBS Digital[edit]

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

Definitely self promotion by company itself. Promotional website content article. References are very poor. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here or covered by independent media. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 07:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced, explicit promotion of their services - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; obvious "corporate spam". No independent sources and the article exists strictly to promote the firm's services. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 20 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) 06:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Cog[edit]

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

Promotional website content article. References are very poor and not even given enough independent coverage. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 07:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional article, terrible sourcing, this is the only RS presented. Even if they were notable, the present text requires WP:TNT - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete peer WP:PROMO with a good doze of WP:TNT. The lead unabashedly states: "Happy Cog’s influence is widespread due to Founder Jeffrey Zeldman’s well known work on establishing..." in a paragraph that is cited to the company's website. Delete as "corporate spam". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 22 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) 06:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Island province (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, cobbled together Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the fact that the creator was able to find the term "island province" in a single source (the first reference does not use the term and the third is a dead link) does not mean the term in notable. The term seems self-evident, and the "rules" ascribed to it appear to have been made up. ubiquity (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR. Stuff like this requires scholarly sources to define the concept. I am unable to find any. I also don't see any value of keeping this kind of unencyclopaedic content on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:V; no RS sources and smacks of OR. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 24 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glocals.com[edit]

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

Promotional website content article. References are very poor. Nothing significant or notable about the website to be here. Light21 07:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and the gratuitously-uncheckable references are a red flag - David Gerard (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:GNG, sources do not have to be available online or written in English, and per WP:NEXIST, when establishing notability we should take into account all available sourcing, not just the article's current sourcing. Here are some RS I found: Tribune de Geneve, Le Temps, Wall Street Journal. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed they don't have to exist online; I'm sceptical they exist. Offline-only references for a website? - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to WP:SOURCEACCESS. You said above the article's sources were "uncheckable", which I took to mean that they weren't easily accessible online. In this article's case it looks like that's not because the sources weren't available online, it was because whoever did the referencing on the article didn't include URLs for newspaper articles. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. The sources above are passing mentions (WSJ, Tribune) and an interview (Le Temps). These articles do not address the subject directly and in detail, and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I believe it's too soon for an article, which currently only serves to promote the business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH. Websites are some of the easiest entities for which sources can be found. This one falls far short of the requirement. Note that sources need to be reliable, secondary and indepenent of the subject as well as offer a certain depth of coverage. Among the sources I found

tdg.ch - Not independent, trivial coverage which is essentially a quote by founder
letemps.ch Not independent, founder's interview
WSJ expat commentary Brief coverage and source is a WSJ blog which are not subject to the same editorial standards as the regular columns. (I'm sorry but after my last experience with a paid editor who wrote columns about people and then created Wikipedia article using these as "sources", I see newsblogs as WP:SPIP).
GenevaLunch Self published source Site is owned and edited by a single person making it a WP:SPS, non-RS.

Looking at the sources, this is a clear delete at this time. This is essentially a local online expat forum and these exist in almost all places. I don't see any claim of significance here either so I don't see why this needs to be kept. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I examined what the sources said above, and they are simply advertising what there is to say about the group including its background and information; that is simply PR attempts and there's been historical established consensus here at AfD that simply having that, but still no actual significant substance is not enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 20 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. GNG appears to be met, a merger suggestion can be handled on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editorialist[edit]

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

Promotional website content article. References are very poor. Press coverage questionable in nature. Nothing significant or notable about the website to be here. Light21 07:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the page because the subject passed WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There looks to be a notable subject here, but will just comment that in looking at the sources we certainly don't need a separate article for the magazine of the same name launched by the same group which is the subject of some of the sources in this article. That's not nominated here, though -- just a suggestion one be merged into the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not a slam dunk for WP:GNG, the coverage reasonable given that this is a niche topic area. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing GNG, but barely. I had also !voted to redirect the magazine to this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because of this. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 25 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 High Gear Media. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheCarConnection.com[edit]

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

Promotional website content article. References are very poor. Press coverage questionable in nature. Nothing significant or notable about the website to be here. Light21 07:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to High Gear Media - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High Gear Media where it's already mentioned. Otherwise, not independently notable and reads like a WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to High Gear Media - No sources on Google however imho it's better off redirected. –Davey2010^Talk 13:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as the fate of this company was sealed when it was acquired and ended its own independence, the fact one of the comments above states it's currently mentioned there, it would in that case be unnecessary to save any contents if there's enough information at said article; certainly the other article would not need to be expanded any larger if it's simply an acquired company now, thus no need for any other information other than what's listed. Essentially what's listed here as it is was only the basic information about the company, that then talked about its normal company activities, that's nothing outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to High Gear Media. Some sources cover this (e.g. [56]), but the depth of coverage available is not enough to qualify a standalone article. Bits of content could possibly be selectively merged. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 25 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Goldberg (food writer)[edit]

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

Self promotion nothing else. References are not in biographical in nature. Press coverage questionable in nature. Light21 07:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - refs are passing coverage and/or promotional, if cut to good RSes this article would be very short indeed - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable for early Facebook history (see Slate), and now a popular food writer/photographer. Per Epicurious: "These days, the list of people primarily known for taking pictures of their food is pretty long. But one of the first people on that list would definitely be Adam Goldberg." Plenty of substantial coverage in RS including Eater. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm doubtful of notability; the subject gets an extremely passing mention in The Facebook Effect (exactly one), so I can't say he's "notable" for early Facebook history. Not very notable as a food writer either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 26 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) 06:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3Dchat[edit]

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

Written like a promotional website article. References are poor, and written like paid press coverage. Light21 07:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - all RSes (that still exist) are publicity around the launch - probably not paid, but also very aspirational as far as actually documenting the thing itself - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems like the best reference, but I'm not finding much else besides that. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not assert notability independent of other social media sites. The only source, as linked above by Safehaven86, does not establish independent notability seeing as how its the only independent source which talks about 3Dchat. —Mythdon 09:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial content. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 26 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. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Spraggins[edit]

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

PROD removed (despite my massively detailed analysis and commentary) with the apparent basis of a few improvements but the honesty is that the article is entirely still PR and questionable for notability; as I mentioned with my analysis, there's still nothing actually convincing for his own substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Unmute as a valid search term, and the subject is already mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia needs to defend itself against being used as an advertising billboard. The sources for this article are merely advertorials of the kind that almost every middling app designer gets. Reyk _YO! 09:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reyk's comment. Clearly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and the article is obviously intended to be promotional. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable computer software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every kid and his app does not get an article until they meet notability levels. W Nowicki (talk) 20:11, 19 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. —SpacemanSpiff 08:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Abbhi[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources available to meet WP:BASIC. And not in the news Marvellous Spider-Man 01:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is substantial coverage but unfortunately not in "multiple" reliable sources. Anup [Talk] 21:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her work is praiseworthy, but Wikipedia does not exist to praise those who do good. Her work must be covered in a significant way, and we lack sources that show that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 20 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 and redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Know Sorry[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Yet another non-charting single from an as-yet unreleased album. MSJapan (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. Meatsgains (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nikki Yanofsky: no evidence of notability for an individual article on this song, fails WP:NMUSIC. Richard3120 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NSONG. No need to redirect it either because I cannot find sources to verify anything about the song. (The only available source, popmatters.com, seems to publish user submitted content and I cannot use it for verification purposes). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nikki Yanofsky Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 26 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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Reed[edit]

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

The references this article provides don't show that the subject is notable. Furthermore, the article consists of one sentence. CatcherStorm ^talk 15:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. The sources, this and this as well as this and this indicate that singer Madison Reed did exist but these mentions are too minor to pass GNG, in my opinion. It's amazing that this content was allowable "back in the day." Today's NPP would flag this immediately and there's no way this would pass AfC today. Note that this individual does not appear to be identifiable with piano player John Madison Reed, also active in this music scene at the time. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today (magazine)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) beyond cursory directory listings and a brief NYT blurb. Best known for sharing its name with the better known news operation. Apparently its parent "Society for the Advancement of Education" exists solely to publish the occasional magazine. czar 15:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While obviously not as prominent as the newspaper of the same name, the magazine is held by something like 1,800 libraries, is indexed by the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature [57], and has a history dating back over 100 years under its former names Intellect and School & Society. I would give it the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around for a long time, but it doesn't mean we have any extant sources with which to write about it (the general notability guideline). If it helps, according to Ulrich's, ISSN 0161-7389 was published as School and Society 0036-6455 until 1972 and as Intellect 0149-0095 until 1978, whereupon I suppose it became USA Today. Those older incarnations might have mattered much more and even possibly had an affiliation with Educational Review ISSN 0190-4191 between 1891 and 1928 (did the periodical spin out in 1915?) But especially as USA Today, I'm not sure how this paper inherits that history with little to nothing to say about it. czar 05:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The article needs more citations in order for this article to be kept alive. It is a newspaper that is not related to the more famous USA Today. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a single secondary source right now... czar 19:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest cities by area[edit]

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

This list appears to have been copied from a single source, and it does not define its terms. It does not say whether the area is of the city proper, or the metropolitan area; or of land or land and water. In either case, the values do not correspond to the values given in the infoboxes of the cities listed: for instance, the infobox in New York City says the city proper is 1,214 km² and the metropolitan area is 34,490 km², but this list says the area is 8,683 km². The article does not say what population qualifies a city to be included in the list. Several Alaskan cities have rather large areas; for instance, Juneau has an area of 8,430.4 km². Should Juneau be included, or does it not qualify as a city since it only has 32,000 population? On the whole, I think the article is a mess and would be best deleted rather than laboriously cleaned up. — Eru·tuon 06:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: List of cities proper by population is also sortable by area, is much better sourced, and does a much better job of defining its terms. ubiquity (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per ubiquity, this list is a poorly-sourced duplicate of an already existing list. As a sortable table with additional fields, "List of cities proper by population" adequately covers this subject, in greater depth, with a better-defined scope and superior sources. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unreliable and original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs significant cleanup, but AFD is not cleanup and it's clearly a notable topic that can't be properly covered just by the population article. As others have pointed out, a city like Juneau should be on this list, but wouldn't be on the big population list. So it's not just a duplication, or at least it shouldn't be. And per WP:POTENTIAL, it should be kept and cleaned up rather than deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP mentions that if content is not usable, then deletion is a better option. I don't think this list is usable, because the areas are unsourced and incorrect, and it's very difficult to determine if the cities listed are actually the "largest cities by area" in the whole world. Both the title and content are flawed. (Better titles for an article on this topic would be List of cities proper by area or List of metropolitan areas by area, in line with List of cities proper by population that ubiquity mentioned.) — Eru·tuon 19:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; absolutely useless content. Juneau definitely belongs on this type of list; it's a city, as is Hulunbuir, with an area greater than a quarter million square kilometres. The People's Republic of China has lots of area-massive cities; Prefecture-level city includes 192 cities with areas greater than 9,078 km2, the area of London as given on this list. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a perfect candidate for WP:TNT. Lists require a well defined criterion and this one is ambiguous. Keeping this article violates WP:NOT#OR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:35, 24 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. Not (substantially) contested; the one comment by a WP:COI editor does not satisfactorily address the problems identified in the nomination. Sandstein 09:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AMT Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Topic lack significant coverage from reliable secondary source. Also a WP:PROMO article written by the company's head of marketing. The1337gamer (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From author

Hey, just want to comment on adding my article to the list for deletion. I'm aware of the COI, and I tried to only add data available publicly without any promotion materials, there are only facts in this article, all games developed by the company can be found in the appstore and play market. Please consider to keep the article, it was actually created to give more information about the developer for the users who read about it's main project - battle for the galaxy, as there was a red link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 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. Not substantially contested. Sandstein 12:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Marantz[edit]

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

This is almost certainly an autobiography, as the previous very similar speedied version also was. The sources are thin to the point of translucence: the claim to notability amounts to having won a minor award (we have no article on it, or the body that awards it, and I can't trace any other articles on winners). This is a promotional article by a WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:00, 4 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) 15:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not sure - the article is a promo and needs to be culled to a paragraph, but as it notes "Marantz has been the subject of many articles, including “Life, passion and all that jazz,” which ran in the Dallas Morning News in August 2010, and a cover article for the November 2009 edition of JAZZed magazine." which would suggest prima facie GNG. That last is linked in the article. At present this is a badly sourced BLP, but that's a real source for notability in his field. I'd like at least one or two more. (Then we can cull it to a paragraph.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the source for that seems to be Marantz, who is the sole editor as far as my best guess goes. This is a real reach for WP:PROF. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandviwalla Entertainment[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. MSJapan (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 11:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has been an official distributor of three major films (including blockbuster Waar, that in my books is sufficient grounds for notability. Mar4d (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be satisfied and it doesn't happen here. A company cannot inherit notability from the films it distributed. Among the sources I found, not one had an in-depth coverage of the company. Literally every single source had a quote from an employee which cannot be used to demonstrate notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:00, 26 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) 21:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hogerzeil destileria (rum)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Page created by user with probable WP:COI who has been warned previously about spam (User talk:Timmhogerzeil) Derek Andrews (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to have been written by the founder of the company. I made a good faith search for coverage in reliable, independent sources. All I found was an article in a Paraguayan newspaper, where the company is based, reporting that they had exported 3,200 bottles of rum (a tiny amount) to the United States. That local small business press coverage was almost certainly the product of promotional efforts by the company, and is insufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete: yes I am the owner of the company and yes I tried to list different topics before without luck. This is not because the listing is not legit, but looks like because I am not doing it correctly. to me as a person … just google my name: Timm Hogerzeil. I have written a couple of published books, directed and published over 40 DVDs and Blu-Rays, a documentary was shot on my life that is considered cultural heritage by the German culture ministry etc etc This new listing of Jules Verne is legit as we are the first Rum of Paraguay that exports to global markets. What is your background that you know how big or small 3200 bottles are? Do you read spanish? This export is the initial of monthly 5000 bottles. Not sure how many micro distilleries globally sell as many. Next month we have our first export to Europe. Further Jules Verne Rum is the first global SteamPunk spirit brand next to Kraken Rum. Probably you do not know what SteamPunk is. Some of the biggest computer games recently released, movies, bars, hotels etc … This trend is not in the media or public eye, but huge around the geek world (you are probably no Geek - otherwise you would know) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk It does not make any differences commercially to be in Wikipedia or not. Still my life and all products I have done so far are of public interest. I designed many opening titles of big Hollywood movies, a commercial I designed became the most ever broadcasted ad in US TV history. (nothing I want to list here) Family background: my grandfather was a famous actor, director of the Nazi area. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Wemper Me and my brother (Caspar Hogerzeil) are now 3rd generation directors of relevance. Many awards in Cannes, Art Directors Club etc … many important productions. Instead of deleting … maybe help me to put it in a way it works with your requirements as I seem to be not doing it well. Hope you can help and make this work as I truly believe this is of public interest and should be in Wikipedia. I should put me in as well again … just do not want to try again without knowing how or if I do it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.52.178.24 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Response to Timm The problem with your article is not so much the content but the subject. For an article to be acceptable to the English Wikipedia it must be about a subject that is sufficiently notable. In general, this requires that independent sources have published content about it. In this case we have more specific notability guidelines for businesses and their products which details such things as the depth of coverage required and the independence of the sources. The size and niche of your market are irrelevant unless these independent sources have made note of them, as too are the background of the author of the article. I hope this helps to clarify what wikipedia is about and how it works. If you can find suitable references that demonstrate the notability of your distillery you are welcome to add them. Maybe it is just too soon? There are of course other opportunities online for you to write about your company and products such as steampunk wikia. Best wishes. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:57, 22 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 Sussex Senior Challenge Cup. A redirect seems the most sensible solution as a plausible search term Fenix down (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Sussex Senior Cup[edit]

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

County cup seasons are non-notable Kivo (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sussex Senior Challenge Cup - As per WP:NSEASONS, redirect is preferred to deletion where individual seasons fail the test. Smartyllama (talk) 17:10, 20 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 Sussex Senior Challenge Cup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Sussex Senior Cup[edit]

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

County Cup seasons are not notable Kivo (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sussex Senior Challenge Cup - per WP:NSEASONS, redirection is preferred to deletion where they fail notability test. Smartyllama (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sussex Senior Challenge Cup per Smartyllama. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Sussex Senior Cup for very recent precedent. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - certainly doesn't merit a separate article. Giant Snowman 08:02, 24 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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTrade Solutions[edit]

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

Doesn't qualify WP:COMPANY notability standards. Badnaam (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; an advertorial page & no indications of notability and significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Hindu is RS, but I'm unconvinced - David Gerard (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as entirely PR and advertising, this is honestly speedy material if not for the ridiculously thin claims of "an award". This is a business listing regardless of intentions or not, and it's unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 20 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) 06:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Prescott Loop Freeway[edit]

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

Delete—No real citable sources Greggens (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted—until this is more than a line on a map, it doesn't warrant an article. When there are additional sources with concrete proposals, then we can revisit this. Imzadi 1979 → 09:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Besides, this road is only an idea now. (See also WP:SPECULATION) Greggens (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. BTW, I have struck a 'Delete' vote above - nominators get one vote only, being their nomination; also not signed. Pinging Greggens Nordic Nightfury 10:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Greggens (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Until we find more sources about this road and know if it's actually gonna be built. Dough4872 14:16, 21 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. A Train^talk 11:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assoun[edit]

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

acks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 16:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Much of the information is self-contradictory. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. With no sources, it's difficult to determine even whether this information is real or not, but either way notability isn't established (and would probably be very difficult to establish). FalconK (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

El Comercio de Colorado[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the standards of WP:BASIC Marvellous Spider-Man 03:51, 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) 04:44, 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) 04:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per WP:NOT. Fails WP:GNG. A single line with no references is just dubious. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Seriously, there isn't no need for such "articles" having one single line with no reference. Delete as lack of WP:NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democratics (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oppose speedy delete AfD is not the Wikipedia cleanup department. If there is no clear policy or WP:CSD violation, even though there is only the slightest bit of notability of a subject, a lack of references or quality of an article doesn't mean it should be deleted. Although I !vote deletion of the article (this article IMO fails WP:GNG anyway), I oppose speedy deletion in favour of community decision. Wikipedia:Process is important. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:47, 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) 06:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Gibson[edit]

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

I was actually PRODing again until I noticed McGeddon's PROD and it was also previously tagged by JJMC89. My own newest PROD was going to be: "Bombarded with overspecifications about his work and job information such as who, what and where he worked and there's of course no inherited notability from anyone or anything (this article goes as far to list either his own websites or other trivial links as sources); IMDb itself lists his characters as simply being trivial and minor; none of this establishes any independent notability and substance at all.". The entire article has hints of serving only for PR. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT. Badly written in incomplete sentences. A vanity page with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to fail NACTOR. Roles do not appear to establish notability. However, "badly written" is not a deletion criterion, so if someone can provide additional sources, I am willing to reconsider my position. Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 24 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 and the Anonymous Nobody.... (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn (De La Soul Song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG - we don't use the Bubbling Under 100 chart except as a last resort, and there's no reason to use it for a single. MSJapan (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't? News to me. In any case, since there are no sources for the song itself, obvious redirect to the album - David Gerard (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, per Wikipedia:Record charts#Single charts it's acceptable to use it if it doesn't crack the regular Billboard 100, but it's not ideal - there are several charts that are "higher-level" alternatives. It's not ideal because of exactly what we're finding - it's not really a huge hit and there's not the sort of coverage we'd expect off an actual Billboard Top 100-type chart. MSJapan (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to and the Anonymous Nobody... Clearly not independently notable. I fine with a redirect here. As for the bubbling under chart, I usually do not consider it as "charting". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and the Anonymous Nobody...; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:16, 25 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) Natg 19 (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Fletcher[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones, of a businessperson and motivational speaker. While she might certainly be eligible to keep a properly sourced article, the referencing here is parked almost entirely on primary sources like her own website and a YouTube video of her giving a TEDx talk; the only piece of media coverage shown here is not enough to get her over WP:GNG by itself, and is being used to source one of the most blatantly advertorial statements in the entire article rather than any of the content that might make her eligible to have one. Also possible conflict of interest, as the original creator has never made any edits to Wikipedia under that user name about any other topic. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The page needs some cleanup and additional independent sources for verification but subject is borderline notable. I've added ESPN piece on her. Meatsgains (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Media Citation Added - I've added another independent print article from Atlanta Business Journal profile of her. Rokenbk97 (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think the article has a promotional tone that needs work, but she has unique accomplishments and the coverage meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough significant coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, including Detroit Free Press and ESPN. I addressed some of the promotional concerns as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC) (comment made on 02:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC), but I forgot to sign)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article could use cleanup and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: my !vote below somehow never registered due to an unnoticed edit conflict about 20 minutes before Looks like there was an edit conflict and somehow my !vote never registered and the AFD was closed before that. Anyway, I'm still pasting it here for the record. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Keep (borderline) The coverage is not great in terms of numbers, but the sources which are available do have in-depth coverage which is required. What tips me over is that the coverage is not a one time coverage but has been distributed over a period of time. Although one of them is essentially an interview, the sources are still adequate.

ESPN - Reliable and in-depth coverage.
2005 ESPN coverage - brief coverage but explains achievements and shows that there is a certain enduring claim of significance.
CNBC - Reliable and actually explains the subject's role in the incident.
Detriot Free Press - This is essentially an interview so I don't really use this source for notability. But it seems that she has received attention as an author for her book. (See this as well).

The rest of the sources like the Business Journal and the Forbes/sites (note: these are not Forbes article, they are simply user contributed content) cannot be used for notability purposes per WP:SPIP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:10, 26 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. Sandstein 09:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky (Don't Breathe)[edit]

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

This fictional character is not written about enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found the following sources that discuss the actress and her approach to the film, through a simple Google search: 1, 2, 3, and 4. This is an interesting source here of the director’s interview, which includes some aspects about the character as well. Not sure if this is enough to determine notability either way so I am not going to vote, but wanted to leave these sources here to help other users. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - The current sources do not show that the topic has the appropriate weight to exist as an independent topic outside of the main article.TTN (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: character has not generated sufficient commentary independent of the film. Interviews with cast and crew are not independent sources for the purpose of WP:GNG. of course any decent third-party film review will comment on actors, characters, and writing, but we need not delve into the nitty gritty per WP:NOTNEWS. Any relevant commentary on roles can be judiciously incorporated into Don't Breathe, as long as they don't give undue weight. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 26 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 Chord_progression#Minor_and_modal_progressions. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I–III–iv–VI progression[edit]

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

While I have heard this progression used in a billion more freaking electronic dance tracks than I care to count, the reliable significant coverage of the progression itself is shockingly tiny. I don't know if it's how I'm putting the keywords in the search bar, but after searching through Google, Google News, Google Books and even Google Scholar, the only discussion of it I was able to find was in this book that only said the progression was well known in rock, blues and folk music. At the end of the day, while it's understandable why this article would be made given what I said in the first sentence of my reason paragraph, the entire article is unsourced and just original analysis and research. At best, it should be a redirect to chord progression. editorEهեইдအ😎 07:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to minor and modal progressions in chord progression. This very progression specifically is mentioned as an example of such. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 08:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 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 redirect to Christian culture. The first "keep" must be ignored as offering no valid argument, so we redirect this unsourced article as a compromise: if somebody does get around to write an article based on reliable sources such as the one proposed by K.e.coffman, they can recreate the article. Sandstein 12:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian pop culture[edit]

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

This article does not meet the general notability guidelines that are in WP:NOTE. A possible solution could be a redirect to Christian culture. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did the filer not Google this before nominating? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect, or reduce to a dabpage -- I am an evangelical Christian, so that normally I would favour keeping worthwhile articles. However, my feeling is that this is not a worthwhile stub. It is a sort of intersection between Christian Contemporary Music, Christian rock music and Christian culture. The musical aspects are actually subcultures of secular music, and the other aspects mentioned by the article, probably differ little from contemporary secular culture: do many people cook differently because they are Christians, and if they do, this is not "Pop"? Christian literary forms (such as theology and biography) have little "pop" to do with them. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect including as a compromise, considering this currently is unsourced and unused with actual information. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep: there's a book written on the topic, Rapture Ready!: Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture, by Daniel Radosh. Amazon preview says:

"From Christian theme parks to Passion plays and comedy nights, Radosh combines gonzo reporting with a keen eye for detail and just the right touch of wit. Rapture Ready! is a revealing survey of a parallel universe, a unique perspective on one of America’s most important social movements." link

So it goes beyond music, i.e. Ark Encounter is just one such example. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 22 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. Sandstein 09:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Scandalous[edit]

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

No working references, fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Tagged since 2009 for improvement. Smithers89 (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. She was a reasonably well-known name within the UK Punjabi/bhangra scene at the time, but never broke out of that scene and crossed over to the mainstream, and I can't find any evidence of further recordings after her second album in 2008. There are some passing mentions in books such as here and here, but nothing that you could really use to write even a basic biographical stub with sources. Richard3120 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: "reasonably well-known name within the UK Punjabi/bhangra scene at the time" and making the charts seems adequate to meet GNG to me. Being tagged forever is not a reason to delete if GNG is met... Montanabw^(talk) 06:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw: that was just my opinion as an editor. And which charts did she make? Richard3120 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article states "entered the MTV Base top ten at no.4. " -- that might be a video countdown, not a chart, but same basic concept. Montanabw^(talk) 05:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that count as an acceptable chart under Wikipedia guidelines? As far as I know, it's a genre-specific chart voted for by viewers of the MTV Base programme. Richard3120 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another source [58]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have examined but found absolutely nothing actually substantiating any independent notability or substance; the listed sources themselves are trivial. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some additional references and cleaned up the article a little. WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 21:50, 23 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. MER-C 08:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITDunya.com[edit]

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

Web forum with very little coverage in WP:reliable sources. Not WP:notable. noq (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

only official ios and android app added,. why someone is editing without checking..— Preceding unsigned comment added by ITDunya WEB (talk • contribs)

Delete. No indication of notability; article seems designed to promote the website, being edited by someone with its name as their username. Would possibly qualify for speedy deletion as promotional(if not A7 notability). 331dot (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear i don't understand what u want,. only official app link added.. its not for promotional,. its only for information, if not allowed,. no issue,. remove it,.. and remove the deletion notice also.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITDunya WEB (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What we want are independent reliable sources indicating how this website is notable. Merely providing information is a form of promotion; Wikipedia articles must do more. If you are associated with this website, you should not be directly editing about it per the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok no issue,.. now it 'll be fixed,. i am the owner of the forum,. check it clearly now,.if anything required to edit ,.. edit that,..or remove that,.. so i can update accordingly please remove the deletion warning message — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITDunya WEB (talk • contribs) 12:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion notice cannot be removed until this discussion is concluded. As I indicated, since you are associated with this website, you should not be 'updating' the article. Please review this page on conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no issue,. i 'll not even open the page again,. nor edit thanks for the information, by happy — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITDunya WEB (talk • contribs) 12:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not 'happy'; I only want you to learn and understand how things operate here, if you wish to be a valid contributor. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok i understand each and everything now,.. thx for your cooperation — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITDunya WEB (talk • contribs) 12:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here states any form of actual independent notability or substance at all; there's no automatic inheritance from having whatever number of visits or members. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Speedy deletion process. Complete waste of time. Light2021 (talk) 20:27, 30 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 Primary schools in Singapore. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Methodist School (Primary)[edit]

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

Based on the premise that primary schools are not inherently notable, this totally unsourced article was redirected to its locality in the manner evidenced by the hundreds of junior school articles handled this way and documented in the cat. 'R from school'. This school fails WP:ORG,its age and notable alumni not being elements that lend notability to elementary schools. Thus the community should have its say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primary schools in Singapore per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES To be honest, the school is borderline notable here (although this may be a personal reflection in this case), and it shares a history with Fairfield Methodist School (Secondary). However the article is a magnet for COI editing and promotion. I personally do not see a good reason to keep this article and I would suggest a redirect here. The history section can be adequately covered in the article about the secondary school. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On looking further, this particular school actually is not really the same as the older school with the same name. So I don't see any claim to notability now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand User:Kudpung is referring to the article before it was cleanup-ed, but currently I believe that it meets WP:ORG and even WP:GNG, and possibly even satisfies WP:V. As an author of the article, I believe there are now multiple reliable sources that contain significant coverage about the school included in the article that have been added. Given that the school has been in existence for nearly one hundred and thirty years, and was the first Methodist School to go co-educational, I think the age and history of the school warrants it notable. Besides, in recent years there have been plenty of press coverage about this school, which lends support to it having its own article. Additionally, I believe its previous school building would let it fall under WP:NGEOG, though it would need to be expanded. Gs97 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same school as the original methodist school. This school itself is not that old. It is run by the same society and can be though of as a successor but it is definitely not the same school. Accordingly NGEO can only be applied for the buildings associated with this school itself, not the previous school. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the Keep vote, I presume, is not keeping to mind or considering how there has been explicit consensus stating that primary schools themselves are not automatically kept as their own article. Thus, with all of this said in the past, there's nothing to keep, but can in fact at least be relinked elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primary schools in Singapore per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as primary schools are not presumed to be inherently notable. WP:PROMO is also a concern, so a redirect (perhaps after "delete"), makes sense. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 25 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. As in the first discussion, if one leaves aside all the conspiracy theorizing and political invective, opinions are still divided about whether this is a one-event news story or an event of lasting significance; and there's also no agreement about whether or how to apply WP:BLP to this case. I repeat the recommendation made in the first closure to revisit this after the election when people will perhaps be a little bit less excitable about all this. Sandstein 10:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Seth Rich[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Topic was a breaking news event that has not demonstrated lasting significance, as shown by the lack of significant media coverage of this single event, on its own merits, since the middle of July. Likewise there is no evidence this single event has lasting, historical significance.

No significant analysis has occurred since the middle of July. It is not perceived as catalyst for something else of lasting significance. Hence, it fails WP:Event criteria and WP:Lasting. And, we probably should avoid Recentism. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material (WP: Not info) or a news archive (Not news) such as newspapers maintain.

News values and the criteria used by Wikipedia, and encyclopedias generally, are dissimilar enough to preclude inclusion of this topic. In other words, the criteria that at one time qualified this news story for prominence in the news cycle, does not appear to translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, per WP:GNG - based on current circumstances. The subject is notable for only one event and hence this topic fails WP:BLP1E and WP:1E. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, this diff might be of interest. [59].

Indeed we do not not have articles about persons notable for only one event which is why we do not have an article about Seth Rich. Most crime stories involve non-notable victims, and the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (events). Hence I voted to delete the article about Trayvon Martin but never considered deleting the article about his death. TFD (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That argument - that this is about the event, and not the person - is the only argument I have seen that might overcome the BLP argument. Am interested to see that addressed in the close. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I call TFD's response, muddying the waters. Seth Rich is the subject of this article, and the victim, and is intertwined as the topic. Heck, the title of this article is "Murder of Seth Rich. So WP:Event criteria, WP:Lasting, BLP1E, 1E, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:CRIME, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and WP:SENSATION are all relevant and all need to be considered as appropriate rationale for deletion. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it. Julian's Assagnge's comments were merely to cause a sensation and provide publicity for the release of his emails. And there is nothing to indicate that more than one event occurred, here. That one event was that Seth Rich was fatally wounded and died at the hospital. He was not a public figure - in that he did not seek publicity - he went about his everyday average life. All Assange succeeded in doing, back in July, was pile on by implying that Rich was involved in whistle blowing, while denying the same - this unfairly effects Rich's legacy and reputation that he leaves behind. This in turn is more of a burden that his family is compelled to carry, having no choice in the matter. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The murder happened on 10 July, 2016 and the article was created on 10 August 2016‎. It is now 18 September 2016, hardly enough time to show that the "topic was a breaking news event that has not demonstrated lasting significance". Newsweek covered it two days ago[60] so "No significant analysis has occurred since the middle of July" is wrong as well. It is significant enough for Hillary Clinton to talk about in in a speech. It is starting to be covered in the foreign press[61][62][63][64] (can someone who speaks the languages give a quick summary of what those sources say?). And the last AfD closed less than a month ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above source (claiming significant analysis [65], appears to be not that at all. This came up in the discussion on the talk page and the subject is Jack Burkman, a republican lobbyist, and not this topic. This does not cover this topic in significant detail. In fact, it receives only passing mention in this source. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Seth Ritch or his parents twenty times in a fifteen-paragraph article is "only passing mention"? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it mentions Seth Rich ten times, but in context, it is passing mention surrounding the subject Jack Burman. And his family is not included in the topic so, that is a strawman and has no relevance.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what is going on - Seth Rich is actually only mentioned three or four times in the article proper. The other mentions are in the title, two picture captions, 2 twitter feeds pasted into the article, some sort of outline on the left side, and a news feed at the bottom of the page. Also, this contains some heavy speculation later in the article (that I didn't notice before). To me it seems questionable a source. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, Seth Rich is mentioned incidentally, while coverage of the main subject is Jack Burkman. The article is about what Burkman is doing or did; what Burkman says or said; his reward; mixed in with naming the same old regurgitated fringe theories. This is not significant coverage. It does not demonstrate any possible historical value or lasing significance that pertains to this topic. This is a low quality source. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the first two of the foriegn sources. I don't think Guy is going to be happy. But nevertheless:

1. The first foreign source [66] is a history of hacking the computer sytems of voter registration in Arizona, and the National Democratic Commitee. It speculates the Russians are behind it. It mentions Crowdstrike, Cozy Bear, Guccifer 2.0, the emails, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and so on. Seth Rich gets a barely passing mention - as only mentioned twice

2. Second foreign source: [67] is a hatchet job about the Clintons and Hilary Clinton in particular. Seth Rich recieves barely a passing mention - as only mentioned once.

As an aside, Guy, I can copy and paste these translations to your talk page if you wish. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need. And I don't understand why you might think I would be unhappy. If the sources only mention Seth Rich in passing, then they are not good sources to establish notability. Good to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there is an urgent need to provide you with a translation of the passage slandering, repeat, slandering Mr. Rich, so I'm providing it in the blockquote. Hatchet job isn't a strong enough word for the piece whose writer is a known WikiLeaks associate.

Russian pirates having furnished the material to Wikileaks: But that can no longer be maintained because we know now that it was a member of the management/leadership of the DNC, the deceased Mr. Seth Rich, who leaked the DNC correspondence, that's why he was quickly assassinated by persons unknown". (French original: Des pirates russes auraient fourni de la matière à Wikileaks : mais cela ne tient pas debout, puisque nous savons maintenant que c´est un membre de la direction du DNC, feu Mr. Seth Rich, qui a fait fuiter la correspondance du DNC, ce pourquoi il a prestement été assassiné par des inconnus.)

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the hey, here's the rest of the story on this reliable foreign source: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/31/wikileaks-holocaust-denier-handled-moscow-cables. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what your alleged sources say, why bring them up at all? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources currently in the article is already enough. Foreign sources are just a bonus. Here is the Wikileaks offer covered in Puerto Rico[68], Columbia[69] and Spain[70]. This recent (September 22) source from France[71] has three paragraphs about Seth's murder. ZN3ukct (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previous AfD was less than a month ago. The close concluded: "this topic is probably best revisited a few months later when the election is over and the story's importance can be assessed at more of a distance."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just heard about this event and came to to Wikipedia to read more about it. The case is still open, so the article should be kept and expanded. -- Jtneill - Talk 04:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It has been over two months since the murder are there have been sources pubslihed after the last AFD which describe intrest in this ongoing event.[72] (August 26) and [73] (September 16) ZN3ukct (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Struck by me; this user was CU blocked today. Geogene (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

There’s also this request for adminship with this unacknowledged Trump paraphrase + quote: "They're bringing vandalism. They're bringing disputes. Their puppets. And some, I assume, are good people." Remember the quote TradingJihadist, the blocked creator of the article, used in the edit summary? Comparing their writing styles and both users obviously having a beef with Wikipedia admins and boards, I suspect we’re dealing with one individual. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep is not likely based on these sources. The first one [74] adds no new information and hence nothing of value to add to this article. Julian Assange merely regurgitated what he already said to the press in the middle of July. He is engaging in speculation, and conspiracy theorizing. This is on the level of titillation and gossiping. This not reliable sourcing - it is redundancy. He is not revealing anyone as a source, just like before. Why does any news organization give him coverage merely for this, I cannot imagine, except for audience share. Also, this publication has an obvious conservative bias, and probably clashes with mainstream press views much of the time.

The primary subject of the second source is, once again, Jack Bukrman. And, the second part of this article merely regurgitates and encapsulates drama that was already covered in the press in mid-July. Hence, it adds no new information and cannot add anything worthwhile to this article. Not a useful source - it is redundant Steve Quinn (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as single event per spirit of WP:BLP1E (although he's dead, BLP allows for reasonable circumspection in recent deaths). Moreover... it's a quite poor and uninformative and actually weird article which the usual remedy is to fix it... but we can't. It's impossible to fix for complicated reasons but if you're familiar with the article, you might have an idea.They only thing that might -- I say might -- be notable about the event is the conspiracy theories around it. But we can't mention those! The article is under discretionary sanctions, is partially controlled by an RfC, and has a constellation of dysfunctional interactions attached to it. Look at the length of the talk page, for such a new on article on a tiny and (probably not even) marginally notable event.

Functional organizations know what they can do well and admit what they can't do well, and avoid the latter. We can't do this. We can't cover this event and make a decent and useful article. In addition, it's a timesink. Look at the talk page. It's eating up editor resources and engendering dysfunctional interactions. In return for this, we get a bad article, which even it was any good it very marginally notable (not even that IMO). The return on investment is all off. This is just the situation that WP:IAR was made for. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability for this topic is derived from coverage of the WikiLeaks reward ($20,000), during the middle of July. However, the actual topic, "Murder of Seth Rich", pertains to a non-public figure (or subject) who became temporarily noteworthy as a result of someone else's actions, which indicates this fails WP:1E, WP:Event criteria, and WP:BLP1E. This also means, the sourcing for notability pertains to one topic, while the article purports to cover another topic and is essentially WP:Synthesis.

And BLP emphasizes erring on the side of caution, but using the WikiLeaks reward as multiple sources seems to contradict this policy - because their content focuses on unfounded conspiracy theories. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable figure killed around 4am in DC about a block from his house. Doesn't have legs at this time; if this changes over the coming months, not a problem to recreate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone killed in a high murder city is not the stuff a notable murder article is made of. Wikipedia is not news, and it is not a police leaders solicitation service such as crime stoppers, which is what the end of the article feels like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of great sources. latest AfD was quite recent with a No consensus result, having yet another one so soon is suspicious and POV pushing, the article keeps on growing as well. also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please post the sources you have discovered to back up your assertion of "plenty of great sources". And, I can't seem to find "Suspicious and POV pushing" in GNG, BLP, or WP:NOT notability criteria. Apparently, this is not a convincing argument for "keep". Actually, I haven't seen any significant growth or much in the way of added content since it was created on 10 August. It has stayed pretty small all along.

I agree with User:Herostratus (above) who accurately described the ~~continual~~ current state of this article ~~since August 10th~~ "it's a quite poor and uninformative, and actually [a] weird article, [for] which the usual remedy is to fix it... but we can't. It's impossible to fix for complicated reasons..." (commas and brackets mine). I think this is an incredibly apt description Steve Quinn (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article started out quite small on August 10 [75], and actually needed a lot of pruning due to various issues, and as a result, it presently is much smaller than that [76]. It appears to be a skeleton of its former self - and its former self, the article proper, was only a 260 word stub (really small). Steve Quinn (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I haven't seen any significant growth or much in the way of added content since it was created on 10 August. It has stayed pretty small all along." But its talkpage is longer than some countries articles.[77] Very strange indeed. ZN3ukct (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:ASPERSIONS. I will soon be leaving one of those informational placards on your talkpage if nobody else has already. Geogene (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete one can only acknowledge that there are plenty of reports in reliable sources about this murder. However, newspapers don't have a WP:BLP policy, and we do. And as someone recently dead, content about Seth Rich falls under BLP - and his living family does as well. This article is a violation of BLP-driven snippets WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:AVOIDVICTIM ~~and WP:BLP1E, and WP:NCRIME.~~ In addition, WP:SENSATION, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME apply here - this is 100% driven by election season internet-echo-chamber ridiculousness, and if no further information comes to light, no one will even remember this except for nutjob conspiracy theorists (and of course Rich's friends and family).

As I noted here at AN, most of the delete !votes in the first AfD brought up BLP issues, yet BLP was not addressed in the close; this is not good. As I also noted in that dif, the best mainstream media (NYT, LA Times) only discuss this murder in light of Julian Assange's declared intention to intervene in the US election; Assange's offer of a reward is what drove the creation of the pile of sources we now have on this. Finally, if the closer has not seen how ludicrous Assange's efforts to make hay out of this murder are, please see the short video here from Dutch TV where an incredulous interviewer cannot believe what Assange is saying (counter to WikiLeak's declared policy of not revealing leakers, Assange implies that Rich was the person who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks and that is actually why he was murdered and why Wikileaks was offering the reward) It is just so slimey. And that is the basis for all the coverage - per Guy Macon's note above, the murder happened in mid-July and the article was created the day after Assange offered the reward and gave that interview. This article is a BLP violation and should not exist today; when there are strong BLP concerns they overwhelm standard Notability arguments. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

So your argument is that Assange should not have offered a reward and the media should not have mentioned that he did and should have provided only cursory local coverage as they routinely do for thousands of murders of non-notable people every year. But notability is determined by reliable secondary sources, not by editors. What are the BLP concerns? Are you saying that Wikipedia should not publish articles mentioning living or recently deceased people? TFD (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is not my argument; another diff with regard to that misrepresentation. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point specifically to where the BLP violation is? You also dropped 6 policies that the article is in violation of, without mentioning specifically how. I have asked repeatedly on the talk page and on User:MastCell's talk page and have not received any satisfactory answer. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained so many times by now that anybody that doesn't understand the issue is just about at the WP:CIR point. If you can't follow the discussion, that's not anyone's problem but your own. There is no obligation to keep going over things until everybody understands it, especially not when it's obvious that some people simply won't ever understand it. Geogene (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have answered the same way everyone else has - by saying it's already been explained. Well it has to back up to a first explanation somewhere, and for this issue that never happened. You're also very good at disguising your personal attacks. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ernie, the surface language of those BLP bits reads directly on what is going on here - directly on their surface; you don't even need to dig beneath. (how is it not clear to you that Seth Rich entered the public consciousness for one reason and one reason only - namely Assange "linking" (with all the ugly garbage that word carries anymore) his murder to the DNC email leak? ) But more importantly, I haven't seen you engage with BLP or the notion that newspapers don't have a BLP policy but WP does, and what that means. We don't treat living/recently dead people like newspapers do. A pile of reliable sources talking about X does not mean automatically that X comes into WP, if there is a problem with BLP. All I can say to you is please read BLP (we all breeze through policies and become dangerous enough to use them) - but please take some time and actually read it, and reflect on it and what it means to WP, and how it makes us different from a newspaper that just prints whatever people are yammering about. (the NYT has ~some~ of this in its motto "all the news that's fit to print") (as i noted at AN Here in the entirety of what I found that the NYT had to say about this matter: "WikiLeaks, the group that put out the D.N.C. emails publicly last month, interjected itself into the hacking case again this week when it offered a $20,000 reward for information on the shooting death last month of a former D.N.C. staff member, Seth Rich, outside his Washington home. His killing fueled speculation on the internet that he was somehow tied to the hacked emails, but the police have not given any credence to that speculation.
The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has made it clear that he would like to hurt Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the White House, opposing her candidacy on policy and personal grounds. He has hinted that he has more material about the presidential campaign that he could release.") Not everything is "fit" for WP when it comes to content about living/recently dead people. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case has received more than passing mention, Hillary Clinton and [[Newt Gingrichcommented on it, Wikileaks posted a reward and most recently Jack Burman has posted a reward, all of which was covered in reliable sources. There are indeed various narratives on unreliable sources, but they have been reported in reliable sources and hence become part of the story. This article provides readers with a recounting of the known facts and public reaction all in one place. TFD (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember John Kerry visiting a middle school in 2004 and commenting on a textbook. Should we start on that article now? What about that nice person he said he was just talking to "the other day" Somewhere in Ohio, who had a typical-sounding family and was having trouble finding a job, or something? Does that person need an article too? Geogene (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How could a high-profile murder case be comparable to John Kerry's comment on a textbook? I hope you understand why. ZN3ukct (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a few minutes to understand the context of an argument before replying. Geogene (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh silly me. Well were those comments covered in (reliable sources? We shouldn't base our (encyclopedia just off of what you say. I hope you understand why. ZN3ukct (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Well sourced, notable, and does not violate any of the alphabet soup policies that are currently being thrown about. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC) strike as consensus doesn't seem to matter on this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would that "rationale" be Jytdog's BLP rationale that you had earlier queried by asking "Could you please point specifically to where the BLP violation is?" Would you care to answer your own question, since you must have decided it was answered now that you have changed your opinion. Mr Ernie has removed the wording that implied (incorrectly) that his opinion had changed thanks to Jytdog's BLP rationale. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scandal mongering by various people alleging that deceased stole from Clinton's campaign, and that Clinton's people had him assassinated in retaliation. No sources take the allegations seriously, and writing about it is a BLP violation. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, we should try to have some dignity. Geogene (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Geogene, Wikipedia is routinely put in the position of covering scandals, and the community at large has been pretty clear that it views this responsibility as completely consistent with our project's "dignity". On this project, a topic's WP:Notability is established by it's representation in WP:Reliable sources--and we have scores (if not hundreds) or reliable sources covering this topic in local, national, and global press. The policies for inclusion are specifically designed to avoid topics from being avoided because particular editors (or even all of the involved editors!) hold the subjective view that the topic is "distasteful" or otherwise objectionable in some way. The community has adopted this approach for a large number of reasons, including a basic concern with WP:Neutral coverage, but most relevant to the current circumstances is that, if contributors were each allowed to predicate their arguments for inclusion on their idiosyncratic notions of what constitutes a "dignified" topic (or other similar WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale), then every content disagreement would turn into a deadlock about moral judgements and semantics, and nothing would ever get done on any topic, anywhere on this project. Believe me, if there's one thing I've learned in my long involvement here, it's that people can have powerful opinions on just about any factual matter.

Nor is BLP a bar here--as you know, that (ambiguously invoked) notion has been forwarded and vetted at length on the talk page and rejected by the large majority of editors involved there in the recent RfC and related discussions. I understand your objection to the behaviour underlying the events involved in this topic and even agree with your assessment that it's propagation in the media has been largely fueled by cynical political ploys. But none of that is reason to avoid discussing the matter entirely--it's, at most, an argument to show extreme caution in making sure our coverage of the details is neutral--which we can, should, and will be extremely careful of. But there is no valid policy rationale for sanitizing the project of all reference to this clearly notable topic. We can reasonably disagree as to what that topic is (I think people on both sides of this debate have failed to understand that the notability surrounds the conspiracy theories more so than the murder itself, for example) but the coverage is simply too massive ins cope to turn a blind eye to. Acknowledging that unavoidable reality and deciding to cover the topic (as neutrally as we can) in no way turns Wikipedia into a "tabloid".

I am not just yet including my own "SNOW Keep" !vote, though that's my first impulse, because I think there's a merge/rename middle ground solution here that is not being explored by the two "sides" to this contest of wills, but I do think those who oppose inclusion of this subject--lock, stock, and barrel--need to accept that the scale and coverage of the topic are such that this subject will be covered somewhere on the project, to some extent. It's just a matter of how we will cover it. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Notability, thanks. Notability has little to do with the number of different sources that mention something. It's based on depth and persistence of coverage, both of which are absent here. Regardless of this AfD's outcome, six months from now, this article won't be here. The only question is how much of our time we waste before then. We've already wasted enough time entertaining the blocked troll that created this article to begin with. Geogene (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the number of sources is not a non-factor, especially when the sources are considered high-quality (and a great number of the sources in this instance come from major global news organizations). You are correct to cite depth as relevant, but I'm not sure you understand what that term means in the context of this project, because it rather cuts against your argument; "depth" here is a question of whether a source is primarily concerned with a topic or mentions it only incidentally and, in this instance, almost every source we have on the topic (and literally every one of the dozen or so sources currently cited in the article) are concerned solely with the topic of this article, and cover it at length. The fact that you, personally, feel some of those details are salacious and therefore should not have been reported upon to begin with does not translate to an analysis that the sources "lack depth" in the objective sense. As for persistence, this story has been in the news for months now--and, if anything, coverage of it is increasing at a substantial rate, with new news stories coming on an almost daily basis. So, I don't know what your definition of "persistent" is in this context, but I can fairly well guarantee the average Wikipedian would disagree with you on whether persistent coverage has taken place here. We could RfC that narrow issue, but I doubt you'd much care for that outcome and, more critically, I doubt the minority would accept that consensus anymore than they did that of the last RfC.

On the whole, I take the opposite view from you; regardless of this AfD's outcome, the sheer volume of sourcing means that this article (or at least some coverage of this topic, wherever it may be located) will exist in six months. I think by any neutral, non-emotional assessment of the coverage here, this topic qualifies as notable by miles. And, sadly, I think we're just beginning to see where the pundits are taking this hogwash, so there will come a point when even the current minority will have to bow to pressure from increasing community endorsement of the need for the article. I agree with you that it's a tragic state of affairs that the death of a young man who just want to serve the public interest is being leveraged for political gain in a vitriolic election. But at the end of the day, Wikipedia editors are expected to not be here to exclude or include content according to their own views, nor to WP:Right great wrongs, but rather to provide a neutral overview of what reliable sources say on a matter. If this were another context, I'd proffer a gentlewoman's bet with you as to whether Wikipedia covers this topic in six months, because I have a hard time believing you really do think it's inevitable that this article will be deleted, especially in light of how the consensus has worked out on the talk page--but as is, I can only appeal to you re-analyze the situation and consider which side is actually leading a time-wasting effort against the inevitable. Hint: when there's already a large number of editors involved, it's usually the side that is having a hard time accepting the consensus view. :) (meant with civility, not sarcasm). Snow ^{let's rap} 01:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone pointed out Wikipedia covers scandals - because it does, and even in an encyclopedic manner. Point well taken. Because the topic of the article under discussion does not pertain to a scandal. It is about the "murder" of a non-public person. So in advocating coverage of a scandal, as per the sources above, this means coverage of the WikiLeaks narrative, or something similar.

So this indicates a different article - something like "WikiLeaks narrative of events" or "Something similar" with a spin-off later entitled Related rumors - which are all unrelated to this topic - Murder of Seth Rich. This crime pertains to what police believe is a botched robbery (or suspected robbery) - not reward money - not speculation that he was a whistle blower - and not speculation that he was an FBI informant.

So, yeah, there are a lot of sources that cover the substance of the scandal - I don't know if it can be considered scores of sources given they all cover Assange's innuendos and actions and other right leaning speculation, which has been the same story repeated in how ever many media outlets, with no new analysis or any new insights emerging, even with Assange's second time around in the limelight. As an aside, WP:BLP has shown itself to be quite an effective bar or demarcation in regards to editing this article. It looks as though each one of User:MastCell's stated concerns [78], just prior to the RFC, has been left out of the article, and was backed up by the circumspect-extraordinaire RFC decision[79], and ironically recounted and reinforced by Jytdog in their above Ivote. So it seems to me that BLP works. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading Snow Rise's messages in their entirety (TLDR), but they think that BLP and Notability are WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Really? I can only hope that the closer will discount these unfortunate misunderstandings of policy and of what I said. Geogene (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as to the meat of your response there (what the actual relevant topic is, as covered in the first paragraph of your comment) I am in complete agreement. In fact, if you go back to my initial comment, you'll find I say much the same. (Funny that you may find someone is actually agreeing with you more than disagreeing with you if you don't TLDR--but given my verbosity, I can't complain if that happens here and there). I would absolutely, 100% endorse an approach that combined deleting this article and replacing it with something with a title that reflects the dubious nature of the topic. I think that can be supported by the weight of the sources easily. We are in agreement that the main topic is the political spin surrounding this murder, not the murder itself. I don't think it necessarily makes sense to have separate articles for the political story and the underlying murder, but at the very least, the article name should reflect the actual topic: the conspiracy theory about the death of Seth Rich.

The solution I actually think makes most sense (but which might be difficult to sell at this point, because everyone has retreated to their entrenched little piece of ground on this topic) would be to merge this article into List of Conspiracy Theories#Clinton Body Count, then briefly detail what is known about this (i.e. what investigators have said) and then discuss how this tiny bit of information got parlayed into a conspiracy theory--who that theory started with, and how it evolved--all condensed down to just a few sentences, for a one or two paragraph total summary in an article that clearly labels this story as an urban myth, but one which grew to noteworthy proportions. And we wouldn't even need to utilize any synthesis because Snopes and other reliable sources have already characterized this story (and similar stories that cropped up over the summer) as an obvious outgrowth of the Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory. Does that sound like an approach you might endorse? Snow ^{let's rap} 05:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one that wrote the post to which you are referring, and Geogene commented underneath. I can't see how such a merge would work. But, I could support opening up a new section on the "List of conspiracy theories" page regarding WikiLeaks reward and related right leaning speculation, in agreement with GNG and BLP. But I cannot support putting it under Clinton Body Count - if elaboration is needed I can do so, but I think here is not the appropriate venue. I think upon reaching a consensus for opening up a section, it should be started from scratch and built up from there. I think it is best to just leave this article behind. Also, I think the discussion regarding these matters should moved somewhere else - I suppose the "List of conspiracy theories" talk page - unless there is a better place. Well? Steve Quinn (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists are so funny, you always dictates how others should do, clearly there are no obvious Delete consensus as of today. There are no point in putting out demands before we have a AfD result.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is not and cannot be a demand. So, please do not mischaracterize what I am saying. If you're not interested then that is no problem. Maybe other people are interested in this or some variation of it - and this opens up the possibility - that is all. And I am not the one who originally proposed this as a possibility - someone else did, so I am only the second person. So, please do not try to put all of this on my shoulders. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I am not the first one that proposed delete - Snow did. And it seems we have been on opposing sides regarding this matter (I think). So, please look somewhere else to point fingers. Also, it seems there are only two or three sticking points, and I have to say that is an "8" on a scale of "10". Steve Quinn (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed the part about deleting this one and creating another appropriately titled article. Apparently, this is another proposal on the table. Well, let the people decide. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I can see the argument for not placing it under the Clinton Body Count subheader. That just seemed like a good pragmatic choice because some sources have linked it to a number of other murder conspiracy theories involving people who died in the last year, all supposedly in connection with the Clinton's, through some supposed circuitous route or another. My thinking was that this would establish the "conspiracy theory" classification of the topic. But, as I said, I appreciate there are some possible issues with that approach too--so I, for one, would still support the same approach under a separate section. But every one would have to come to terms on the neutrality of the wording, which could take some time. Anyway, as you say, we have a better place to hammer out these details. I was hoping that a merge vote might emerge at this point, but since this is looking like no consensus, might as well kick the issue back to TP, so as to not distract further here. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article does not explain why its subject is notable. The references do explain – you don't even need to read them to find out, just reading their titles is enough. Is it really correct that BLP considerations prevent the reason for the notability being mentioned in the text of the article, but allow it to be made plainly visible in the reference list? Maproom (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question that has been raised and debated at length on the talk page. It has been...divisive. I'm hoping the merge discussion above might represent a middle-ground solution that could bridge that gap and resolve exactly the dis-coherence you point out. The key concern of the vocal minority who have been fighting introduction of the notable elements of the story is that it could be interpreted as endorsement of the more salacious details, some of which have been reasonably classified as little more than wild speculation tinged with outright conspiracy theory. A majority have supported an approach of including such information, but only on condition of a strict effort to carefully contextualize and attribute the more sordid implications. They feel that BLP applies in that it requires a higher standard of sourcing, but that, given that all of the sources focus on these issues, they should be included.

Finding an approach to a consensus that wasn't objected to by someone within an hour has been elusive--and apparently has been since well before most of us were summoned by the most recent RfC. But I hope this approach has a chance. Since the information will be located in a namespace which clearly underscores the dubious nature of the claims, I hope we can move past the question of whether BLP prevents us from covering salacious details for any topic which includes a victim who is otherwise non-notable, even if every source used in the article is primarily concerned with just those facets of the topic. I personally think the minority made that call wrong, but if we can simply remove that question from the equation, by changing the focus created by the framing namespace, I think we stand a good chance of getting somewhere finally. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is the murder of Seth Rich. That event is notable. Seth Rich himself is not notable. However his murder was a notable event covered in reliable sources. Editors have worked to remove any mention of why this event is notable, which you can see from the talk page. I have asked several times for a concise explanation of why the article is a violation of BLP, but have yet to receive a response. Snow Rise's assessment is accurate. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a very spurious issue raised about a source, I made the observation that I felt "this article has been censored to the point that the subject's notability has been entirely removed - it would now almost qualify as an AfD candidate". [80]. The AfD proposer, along with many of those who have voted delete, have been amongst those editors who have persistently attempted to remove from this article the very content that would make it a notable subject. This article seems to have gained an extraordinary amount of attention, turning a minor piece of conspiracy theory connected to an otherwise non-notable murder into something of a national security issue. There has been a concerted attempt to delete sourced content, and now that the cracks are appearing in that attempt (see the RS discussion [81]) the new route is now to delete the article. I have just had a threat [82] posted on my talk page after reinserting some sourced content (from the source that the RS noticeboard decided was acceptable) - this is stooping to new lows. All past consensus involving those who are now voting here for the article to be deleted must be set aside - they can't have their cake and eat it. They cannot both want the article deleted and want the article retained but certain content excluded. And a AfD must allow editors the option to present sources and to improve the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attribute motives that did not exist to questioning the Telegraph source such as "spurious" (inauthentic, insincere). I happened to have worked with the editor who opened that Noticboard thread to which you have linked [83], [84]. This person's efforts have been sincere regarding the article. There were even other sources proposed in its place by other editors.

So, the combined sincere efforts of several editors were aimed finding a source of reasonably good quality as a reference for the sentence that needed sourcing.

If you read this section on the talk page of the Seth Rich article [85] you will see this is true. I'm sure you can understand trying to ensure a reference is of good quality. And this same person opened that thread on the talk page (just look at the opening). And this same person came out in support of the Telegraph source[86] after the discussion in the Reliable sources noticeboard.

I'll leave it to whoever reads this blurb to decide the sincerity of an editor who first questions a source and then advocates for it in the end. Also, again please don't attribute to editors motives that do not exist, such as "censoring". This is POV, but it also labeling based on other's editing practices (please see WP:NPA) and it is the same with "spurious".

And it is arguable as to whether or not this event, this murder, is connected to a national security issue. There has been no definitive proof that this is the case. Such descriptions are based on speculation that adds 2+2 but has not resulted "4" or any other number. All we are left with is the equation. The only things that are known is that Rich was killed and police suspect it was a robbery attempt (a botched robbery). The police support no other theories.

So without a definitive link to all these theories how can this be placed in a Wikipedia article? Our standards are either higher or just plain different because our content is not tied to the news cycle or newspaper practices. All the conclusions based on speculation appear to belong in another article that are covered as "theories". Sorry for the long post. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who could seriously bring a question to the RS noticeboard about The Telegraph being a suitable source is either doing it as a conscious timewasting exercise (i.e. doing it for bad faith reasons) or is doing it out of shear incompetence. "There's absolutely no question whatsoever about this. The Daily Telegraph is obviously WP:RS. duh." concluded one editor, "The Telegraph is, indeed, a presumptively reliable source" concluded another. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the following reasons:

- BLP. We’ve been over this again and again, so in the words of one of the people BLP is meant to protect : “Now we have two problems we’re trying to deal with,” Joel Rich, Seth’s father, told The Huffington Post on (August 15, 2016). “One is getting over the death of Seth and the hole that will be there forever... The other problem is this distraction of people trying to... mess up his reputation and his legacy with absolutely no facts.”

- Lack of notability 1. The event itself, a fatal shooting committed by person(s) unknown on July 10, 2016, in Washington, D.C., is not notable by Wikipedia standards. It happened at 04:19 a.m. in an area where there had recently been several robberies at gunpoint. The police department posted their usual $25,000 reward offer for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible. The shooting received low-key coverage as an unsolved crime by a few reliable sources, for example Roll Call, the Washington Post and the individual’s hometown newspaper.

- Lack of notability 2. The victim, a 27-year-old employee of the Democratic National Committee working in their voter expansion program to boost voter registration, is not notable by Wikipedia standards. He was not a public figure and did not seek publicity, otherwise it would have been reported in the media.

- Lack of notability 3. Conspiracy rumor mongers latched onto the event but were ignored by reliable sources and thoroughly debunked by Snopes.

- Lack of notability 4 – smoke and mirrors. In a tweet on August 9, 2016, a third party offered a §20,000 reward for in formation leading to the conviction of the shooter. In various TV interviews on August 9, 2016, on August 25, 2016, etc., the same third party implied while, simultaneously, denying implying that the victim was the source of the approx. 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from DNC servers and put online in a searchable data base on July 20, 2016. The material is believed to have originated from groups of Russian hackers (Arstechnica, TechCrunch, Motherboard), something Wikileaks is denying. The ensuing media coverage of the interviews was about the third party, not about the shooting victim (WP:LOWPROFILE).

- Lack of notability 5 – hot air. On September 14, 2016, another third party offered a $100,000 reward which, except for brief mentions on two local TV news broadcasts (NBC Washington, Fox5 DC) was ignored by reliable news media, possibly because the individual offering the reward has a reputation for showboating without substance (Snopes factcheck). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- BLP2. As recent edits have shown, speculations keep getting inserted into the article under the guise of "but we're not really saying/implying". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article's lack of notability comes about entirely because the misuse of BLP has removed all content that gives it notability. BLP should not be used to assert that content can be excluded simply because a relative connected to the deceased individual that is the article's subject has said that he dislikes certain speculation expressed in various RS media sources. Sourced text like this "Speculation, originating as "a conspiracy theory on the internet", that Rich was linked to the WikiLeaks release of Democratic Party internal emails and that this was connected to his subsequent murder, increased when WikiLeaks announced a reward for information leading to the conviction of Rich's killer. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, refused to confirm or deny that Rich was the source - however, a statement from WikiLeaks said the offered reward "should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or that his murder is connected to our publications" does not indulge in speculation, does not make editorialized linkages, and is a reasonable and concise summary of the sort of content that would indicate the subject is notable enough for an article. To have it repeatedly deleted for BLP reasons is an affront to npov editing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guy isn't notable, whether he was murdered or still walking. Wikileaks' reward offer doesn't change this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is at once a technically true statement, and yet also a deeply misleading way of looking at the actual notability involved here, which is substantial. You are correct that our WP:Reliable sources say nothing substantial enough about Seth Rich's life to make him intrinsically notable in himself. But the media furor and conspiracy theory speculation are clearly a notable topic by any remotely faithful reading of our actual policies on this matter (WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT) and community consensus generally. And Wikipedia does in fact have articles about people who are primarily famous as victims, where the circumstances surrounding what befell them have become notable in their own right.

I actually agree with you insofar as I think a namespace change here is critically necessary, for three reasons: 1) BLP concerns, 2) Neutrality/Weight concerns, and 3) So that maybe some people on both sides can start to feel a little more flexible in their positions here. But suggesting that there is no notability here whatsoever, just because Seth Rich was not imminently notable in life, is a case of absolutely missing the forest for the trees--or rather one specific tree. Respectfully. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the victim's family "dislikes certain speculation expressed in various RS media sources" understates the family's deep feelings of grief and torment about the tornado that has befallen their son and them as a result of one random act of violence WP:1E, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. As essentially stated above, Seth's father has said, they have two major issues to deal with.

Also, the above is an example of the doublespeak that hampers efforts to source this article according to either GNG or BLP. "Speculation... increased when WikiLeaks announced a reward for information leading to the conviction of Rich's killer. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, refused to confirm or deny that Rich was the source - however, a statement from WikiLeaks said the offered reward "should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or that his murder is connected to our publications" -- I agree it is not editorializing, and mere reporting. But it shows Assange is running a game on anybody who will bother to listen and the press is simply is megaphone. (Redacted) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your earlier version of this reply might be more revealing of motives [87]: a long diatribe against Assange, completely off topic for here (aside from the language and accusations), and an extremist pov against WikiLeaks: it seems that merely suggesting that an individual might have sent material to WikiLeaks is, in your eyes, "dragging" that person's "reputation and legacy through the dirt". I doubt whether anyone who has actually provides leaked material to WikiLeaks would have such a low opinion of themselves and their actions, nor would the vast majority of persons who have attained knowledge of otherwise shadowy and secretive activities thanks to WikiLeaks have that opinion. Your "understates the family's deep feelings of grief and torment about the tornado that has befallen their son" comment is false sentimentality - you have no actual connection to these people so you cannot appropriate their feelings to argue your case here. Nor can their opinions and feelings have a veto over this article's existence: articles do not disappear because someone connected to their subject dislikes that the subject was written about in RS media outlets in a certain way. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted that for a reason and not the reason you are stating. I had no problem posting that. The only reason I didn't was because I felt it was too long. But since you can't respect that and have decided to make it an issue, below is the full post. It demonstrates the usefulness of BLP and GNG, and shows that BLP has not been misued. And it is exactly on topic, as related to your above post. I think it would be best to not attribute intentions or motivations to other editors they do not have. Also, if Assange is your hero I don't have a problem with that. And, you have mis-characterized this as an entire diatribe against Aassange, this is not the case, and that is quite a myopic view. Anyway here is the full post:

Saying the victim's family "dislikes certain speculation expressed in various RS media sources" understates the family's deep feelings of grief and torment about the tornado that has befallen their son and them as a result of one random act of violence WP:1E, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. As essentially stated above, Seth's father has said, they have two major issues to deal with.

The first is the loss of their son and, as a result, the hole that is present in their lives. The second is posthumously dragging Seth's reputation and legacy through the dirt "with absolutely no facts" WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:SENSATION. It is then easy to empathize with the family's exacerbated (or amplified) feelings of not just grief, but also of unjust treatment - due to Assange's callousness (AVOIDVICTIM).

They are entitled to grieve and remember in their own space, among other family members and close friends. This "right" has been seized from them, and this is apparent (AVOIDVICTIM).

Wikipedia does not have to sanction or engage in this kind of behavior based on its core editing policies.

These are WP:Undue (NPOV}; WP:SYN (NOR); and WP:V - ~~indicating that~~ because Assange is also not a reliable source (NPOV - WP:FRINGE), who, ~~instead, supports~~ promotes fringe theories - as has been shown in the press, as well as above by Space Time Continuum. And, while centering on this story-line in the press, Assange has demonstrated that he is a committed and uabashed self-promoter WP:SOAP - falling far short of being a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Also, BLP states that "we must be "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". Arguments have been presented, which say we could indicate notability based on coverage of Assange's insinuations, which have been shown to lead in only one direction - always toward the promotion of fringe theories. Are these the high quality sources that we prefer to indicate notability? For myself, I don't think so.

Hence it seems, this is the purpose of ~~BLP -~~ AVOIDVICTIM - to respect their right to privacy, but mostly to avoid re-victimizing them, while also re-victimizing their recently deceased son WP:BDP (between 6 months and two years). Based on the above, it seems to me, consideration for BLP and GNG are useful when contemplating adding content to this article or if in fact it is worthy of inclusion as a stand-alone article WP:NRV. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield wrote, "it seems that merely suggesting that an individual might have sent material to WikiLeaks is, in your eyes, "dragging" that person's "reputation and legacy through the dirt". I understand your saying this, but there is much more than that.

It is the weight of rampant conspriacy theories on the internet, the continual speculation that Seth was assassinated for being the whistle blower for WikiLeaks, that he was an FBI informant on his way to the FBI office, and was assassinated for that by the organization he worked for or assassinated by a certain presidential campaign organization. Even you said this has become a national security issue.

I haven't actually "heard" that one - does this mean Seth was connected to a foreign government? All of these impugn his reputation and that which he leaves afterwards, his legacy, in eyes of certain segments of the population. This exacerbates the stress and feelings of his family - it adds much more weight on their shoulders on top of what is already a tragedy - Rich's death. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the press coverage, and so on, might be the most responsible, if we are to try to affix blame, or if there is any blame to affix. In that regard, it seems your view is different than mine and so be it. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually say "this has become a national security issue" - I said that some editors were obsessing over removing content from a minor article as if it were a national security issue. But the real obsession seems to be amongst surrogate emotion-carriers, confidently stating to know what relatives of the deceased feel, think, and want - and are presenting their third hand emotions (what I earlier called false sentimentality) as if they were a valid reason to delete the content that gives the subject its notability. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The family has made statements to the press expressing how they feel. One such example of this is the above post by User:SpaceTimeContinuum. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more of what I mean - expressing how they feel to the press: [88], [89], [90]. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a coatrack for innuendo to promote a political conspiracy theory. The nominal subject of the article is an event which does not meet WP's notability test. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see 8 different sources covering his death. I am not sure how that qualifies as not notable. I would propose let the article be developed for say a few months and then renominate it then. Nergaal (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which sources you are talking about. Here at the Afd, or in the Murder of Seth Rich article? What I mean is I'd like the opportunity to refute. I opened this AfD contending that there has been no new information since the middle of July, including no new analysis, and nothing that demonstrates historical value - especially since this appears to be a non-issue, having fallen off the cycle of news in the media. It is no longer being pinged on their radar (or sonar?) Steve Quinn (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Trends demonstrates that interest in "Seth Rich" and as related to "WikiLeaks" previously peaked on August 10th [91], [92]. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am missing something, you started this nom only a month after the previous AfD was rejected. You sound overzealous. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator obviously thinks this is not notable, and is presenting justifications for that view. Saying it's "overzealous" is begging the question. Geogene (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "overzealous" doesn't answer the request as to which sources the editor is referring. It seems like a vague assertion, and assumes which "eight different sources" are being identified. Nobody knows, and "overzealous" doesn't seem to answer the question. All I did was demonstrate that anything related to Seth Rich, and/or the WikiLeaks reward does not have sustained momentum. It stood up for a time - climaxing on August 10th.

That was 47 days ago. That story is way back there (in time) not here, which is September 26th. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 95,000 hits for a google search of "Seth Rich" + death. Amongst the results I see articles in Newsweek, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Forward, NBC, Snopes, Washington Times, Washington Post, Fox News, Sydney Morning Herald, The Independent, msn, Belfast Telegraph, and so on, (and of course many non-RS political activist sites and blogs). Many of these RS sources were cited in the last AfD. The trouble is, the editors who want this article deleted have been excluding every single piece of content from RS sources by misusing BLP guidelines, and then misusing remedies intended to apply to US politics articles in order to enforce that exclusion. (As an example, this RS discussion [93] led to this [94] which resulted in this [95] and this [96]). Usually an AfD thread will involve discussion about how the article can be improved, and will very often include ongoing editing of the article under discussion in order to address issues raised in the AfD. None of this can happen here - any article improvement, any content added to indicate notability, is immediately deleted from the article. This AfD is in many ways a fraud: the article has been carefully set up to be deleted by the removal of content that makes its subject notable, and control of the article has been curtailed so that this state of non-notability will be retained throughout the AfD discussion. The constant bringing up of BLP as a delete rationale is not backed up by actual BLP guidelines (see WP:BDP) - Seth Rich is dead, and so BLP restrictions on content only apply to "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". "Implications" is intended to cover unintended results affecting those relatives and friends, such as legal implications, or issues of personal safety, or employment issues, or issues involving being identified, and so on. "Implications" does not mean relative X is upset that what started as an "internet conspiracy theory" (to use the Telegraph wording) began to be reported in mainstream media, and that those mainstream media reports should therefor be deleted. Nor is the content of these RS sources "contentious or questionable". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Implication" is an English word that relates directly to the attempt to promote SYNTH innuendo by insinuating Assange's remarks into the subject of this article. Your denial is weak and not consistent with established WP policy and standards. We do not publish defamatory content here. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article should be based on sources - if those sources repeatedly mention Assange there is no insinuation. There is also no "defamatory content" - if there were you could go whine to some administrator to get redacted the content that I have earlier posted here in red, and also get most of the edit history of the article redacted. In what reasonable way could any of the content in the RS sources mentioned (or in the red text) have "implications for the living relatives and friends" of Rich. "Implications" does not mean "annoyance that something is being written about". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REHASH SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

95,000 Google hits really don't mean anything, because whatever search term is used will generate a significant number of hits.

"Seth Rich" + books results in over 250,000 hits. - "Jupiter" + planet results in 25 million hits. - "Shakespeare" + quotes results in 3,900,000 hits. - "Ancient Rome" results in 6,330,000 hits. Google is parsing any terms used and generating hits on those, in variations of combinations. This has nothing to do with sustained momentum or notability. There is no indication of what is trending now.

And, it doesn't inform about when a story was strongly trending in the past. My links demonstrate [97], [98] that trending for this story peaked on August 10th and fell sharply on August 11th and has not recovered. Looking at what is trending now [99] - this story isn't in the top 200, and that is only as far down as I looked. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Newsweek source mentioned above [100] says Rich decided to walk home, police responded to gunfire, and they found Rich fatally wounded, and I quote:

And that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of...conspiracy theories, this one claiming that Rich was murdered—at dawn—as he was on his way to sing to the FBI about damning internal DNC emails. Such sinister notions might have evaporated had not Julian Assange hurled a thunderbolt into the affair a few weeks later. The WikiLeaks impresario, still penned up in Ecuador’s London embassy...announced he was offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in the Rich case. He hinted darkly that the slain man had been a source in his organization's recent publication of 30,000 internal DNC emails...[and so on]

This was followed by the doublespeak I noted above. But the point is, the timeline stated by Newsweek is that the WikiLeaks reward came "a few weeks" after Rich's death. This shows Julian Assange's announcement of a reward had nothing to do with the suspected robbery and Rich's subsequent death (see Newsweek). His death occurred without Assange's and WikiLeaks involvement.

So, Assange's hogwash, when he "...hinted darkly that the slain man had been a source in his organization's recent publication of 30,000 internal DNC emails", has nothing to do with this topic. I have to agree with User:SPECIFICO - to go this route, and rationalize coverage of Julain Assange's intentionally misleading statements as relevant to this topic is encouraging using this article as a WP:Coatrack.

In other words, a platform to recount Assange's babbling nonsense. Because that is what it is, not showing conclusive proof and in fact discounting that conclusive proof exists. He has admitted that this was one way to promote the release of the WikiLinks emails. Previously, he was able to count on reputable newspapers for release of the Manning materials. Apparently, this time he had to rely on his own promotional scheme.

And there those who seem unable to acknowledge this and act as if his ridiculous gibberish is useful for indicating notability. Also, once again, BLP is not being misused Steve Quinn (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming clear where your delete pov is from - some sort of rabid hatred of Assange (one wonders what has he done to generate such personal animosity - trodden on your foot perhaps, or exposed some secret surveillance project you were part of). "Assange's hogwash"; "Assange's babbling nonsense"; "his ridiculous gibberish", well, unfortunately for your pov, and unlike your OR opinions, his comments have been reported in reliable sources, which is what actually matters here for notability. The amount of red herrings and doublespeak and distortions that the delete advocates have been coming up with is becoming hilarious. The latest, Google trends, is decisively dismissed by Snow Rise, below. The BLP dead horse is still being flogged. And now it is claimed that things that resulted from, or were reported about, Rich's murder in the days and weeks after the murder have "nothing to do with this topic". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

folks, please keep in mind WP:BLUDGEON. No here is going to convince the other person, and this is not productive AfD discussion. The above really should be hatted, but please just restrain your selves and keep in mind that some admin is going to have to close this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog is correct, I am not here to convince another person. I'm here to discuss notability issues. I can't help it if others get offended by that. I guess it goes with the job of supporting content policies and guidelines. My above comments are not POV or WP:OR because they are supported by the sources we have been discussing. Otherwise it would not be helpful to add such comments to this AfD. Implying the Seth Rich is a WikiLeaks source, then denying, while not denying, by saying WikiLeaks doesn't reveal sources, ~~and the WikiLeaks website~~ while also saying the reward does not imply ~~should not be taken as an implication~~ that Rich was involved in the email leak seems like doublespeak, as well as ridiculous gibberish and babbling nonsense - to me. Sorry. Perhaps a more positive view is that brooks also babble (as in babbling brook). Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my Google Trends graph has actually shown itself to be helpful by being proportional and using relative terms. It simply shows that Seth Rich as the subject, and the Murder of Seth Rich as the topic and event do not demonstrate sustainable momentum (I really don't mean to offend anyone. I'm just tryin' to present some facts, is all). Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors argued to exclude the Wikileaks reward information on BLP grounds. An RFC (closed by an admin) concluded the claim did not run afoul of BLP. Now editors use the same BLP argument rejected by the RFC to argue for deletion, and less than a month after an earlier failed AfD. I suggest this discussion be closed. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not using the same BLP argument for deletion. That is over simplistic. The RFC was a well defined and limited issue. There is no correlation between the RFC and this deletion discussion. These are two different issues, and two different forums. I have a counter-suggestion - that this AfD remain open. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping this AfD open. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is a 90-day Google trendline [101] - "Seth Rich" is that tiny blue blip. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't honestly think that's going to move the needle on whether this article should exist? First off, that is some pretty weak analogical reasoning; of course "Seth Rich" looks small when compared against literally the two most searched names on all of the internet in the last two years... Here is Seth Rich's name when charted against the name of another person who is in the news solely as a consequence of being a victim, Keith Lamont Scott: [102]. But I wouldn't suggest going to that article and suggesting it should be deleted based on how his name tracks when compared to Donald Trump: [103]. Seriously, if you don't see how your formatted that graph to support your argument, I genuinely would recommend that you read our article on confirmation bias.

Second, and more fundamentally, even if your comparisons weren't cherry-picked to support your pre-determined outcome of choice, on this project you cannot just construct idiosyncratic tests for what constitutes "real" notability and expect that test to stand in for the manner of verification of notability that our policies require. The relevant notability guideline for this context is WP:GNG; the conditions in that policy represent community consensus on what what qualifies a topic for lasting notability, not google analytics, which just invites subjectivity if applied the way you want to here.

Look, clearly there is still division here on a whole lot of issues (BLP, Neutrality, COMMONNAME, and on and on) and people can reasonably disagree on them. But one argument for deletion that is dead on arrival is that this topic somehow does not qualify as notable. We have hundreds of news stories from reliable sources in local, national, and global press; articles concerned with Rich's death more or less exclusively. Those are the only metrics that are outcome determinative for notability on this project: not personal impressionistic reads and not loaded comparisons to literally the single biggest news topic in the world at present... Snow ^{let's rap} 12:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The trendline is a useful tool for determining a subject's staying power, it's not the end-all be-all. Your claim of "hundreds of news stories" is ridiculous; if you can post 50 from quality sources I'll throw myself under a truck (and don't post a link showing search results). Everyone here voting for deletion knows that this story made it into the news, there is no disagreement about that, but news coverage alone does not in and of itself establish notability. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, SMS, I don't think the Google trendline was at all a useful metric as you tried to use it; you can't just compare the topic of a random article that you dislike with the single greatest political contest of the twenty-first century to date/the largest news story of the year. Doing that is not going to convince anyone that the topic lacks notability; it is only going to make other editors feel that the argument you are forwarding lacks any sense of perspective and proportion.

As to providing you with an index of 50 sources, neither I nor any other editor is going to spend a quarter of their day compiling that kind of information for you in order to satisfy you that robust sourcing exists--certainly not when the sources already listed in the article satisfy our notability standards in and of themselves. (Besides, I don't want any of my fellow editors throwing themselves under a truck!). But let's look at what you are saying there for a second and how it jives with policy on how is established on this project. It seems as if you are saying in your last comment that if almost-but-not-quite-50 WP:reliable sources (in local, national, and global press) exist on this topic, you still oppose the notion that it is notable. That is a striking departure from policy/community consensus on how these determinations are meant to be handled; the only conditions that need to be met here (with regard to the specific issue of notability) are those found in WP:GNG. There are no additional provisions of "providing enough sources that all editors are satisfied as to their subjective standards about whether an article is 'truly' notable". If that were the standard, 95% of our present articles would never have made it past this level of analysis.

Our notability standards require only significant coverage in reliable sources; and I think by any reasonable interpretation that coverage exists here in the national and global press, including numerous of the U.S.'s largest news affiliates, newspapers, and newsmagazines; the story did not merely "make it into the news". If you really, honestly think that those sources do not represent reliable sources or significant coverage, we could pass them by WP:RSN, but I think the reality is that every editor here knows exactly the analysis they will return to us. This "lacks notability" argument holds absolutely zero water and is nothing more than a red herring that is distracting us from the more substantial issues that we need to try to form a meeting of the minds on, if we are to have any hope of reasonable solutions to the disagreements here. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

folks, please stop arguing; no one is going to convince anyone. And some admin has to close this. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "arguing" to produce a carefully worded reply explaining why a google trendline analysis, presented as a delete reason, is worthless for its intended purpose. Nor is it a personal attack [104]. If you think Snow Rise's reply is "not going to convince anyone", please explain why it is not - to me the reply seems correct in its analysis and conclusively dismisses the google trendline as being relevant to this AfD. (BTW, it seems that the deleters' don't even want the article to mention that the murder remains unsolved! [105].) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually in agreement with both of you here. I wouldn't classify the discourse that Somedifferentstuff and I were engaged in as "arguing" so much as discussing. I trust that he understands that my criticism is directed at his reasoning and not at him personally (for my part, I see nothing personalizing the discussion in his comments). On the other hand, I tend to agree with Jytdog; the views here have become quite entrenched and this looks to me like an absolutely textbook "no consensus" discussion. It's probably past time that we had a close and took these issues back to the talk page for some (hopefully more productive) further discussion. The only thing this AfD was ever going to accomplish was to drag more editors into the dispute (which may yet end up being a good thing, we shall see). I personally feel there is a lot of unexplored middle ground here. Particularly, I think there's some merit in a rename or merge approach (and some tacit support from both "sides" here for that possibility); I don't think I'll have enough time to advocate for that solution myself on the talk page in the next week, but if someone would like to carry the flag on that approach, I think it has the potential to bear fruit. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A source that mentions or refers to the crime is not equivalent to a source that is about or that describes the event. This is a fundamental distinction and a core of WP policy. No number of sources that merely describe an unrelated party referring to or taking advantage of this event can satisfy GNG. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for moving this topic to a different namespace (which, again, I would fully endorse), but it is not in any sense an argument for avoiding this story altogether. You can't just dismiss the coverage here altogether because there are two different topics (Seth Rich's murder and the media furor surrounding Seth Rich's death). That's the editorial equivalent of pointing and shouting, "Wow, is that the Pope!?" and then snatching someones possession up while their back is turned. For the record, I'm not implying bad faith here, I'm just saying that your argument is a non-sequitor. There absolutely is a notable topic here, a story that has gotten robust media coverage. If you are suggesting that we have a discussion about what exactly that topic is, and ponder a move/rename/merge as a result, I agree wholeheartedly. But if you are saying that there is no notability whatsoever here and that we shouldn't cover this topic at all, just because there is discontinuity between the current article name and the subject-matter which our reliable sources focus, I'm afraid I feel that such an argument does not track logically at all, and that you're putting the cart before the horse. Our policies specifically tell us that a topic should not be avoided just because the content needs work; we should rather work to find a solution that approaches the material better. If you would like an article title that more explicitly reflects the "actual" topic here, you can count on me for support! Snow ^{let's rap} 01:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Furor" is not demonstrated. This thread is about deleting the current article. As to whether some mention of Assange's behavior goes in the article about him or elsewhere, this is not the place for that. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I did not make it a part of the discussion, I only responded to the argument advanced on those grounds. A rename or a merge are absolutely viable options for an AfD discussion, in situations where there is some topic that needs coverage, but the current article name does not comport with an appropriate approach, or when the content just belongs in another article. That's pretty much standard operating process for dealing with those issues, actually, so contemplation of those alternatives is in no remote way antithetical to the purpose of an AfD. So...in short, this is absolutely the place for that. And frankly I know I'm not the only one who is getting a little fatigued with efforts (from some on both "sides" of this debate) to limit or chill perfectly reasonable, rational and civil discussion; I know I'm not the only one, because I've seen three other people reference it in the last day or so of discussion.

Please, I don't want to lapse too sophistic here, but please remember that Wikipedia is a laboratory of ideas, guided by the consensus process. Look, I realize this has been a torturous process, I'm exhausted just by my narrow effort to find the middle ground here in my involvement every few days over the last couple of weeks, and some people have been at it over this for months. I get it. I also agree that it's consumed way more of our editorial time than the topic itself probably justifies. But that's just the reality of Wikipedia sometimes, a source of friction that our project actually relies on for it's health and development. Everybody is still involved here to the degree that they are because they care about the principles of the matter and what they say about our reliability and ethics as an organization that is founded on sharing knowledge. It's fine to disagree, even at extraordinary length sometimes, to hash these things out.

The situation only truly becomes a problem when people begin to lose their cool or, even worse, just do not assume good faith. And there's a bleedin' cloud of that around this AfD, the talk page and user talk concerning this this topic. Please, let's try to keep open minds and at least consider compromise solutions. My feelings are that both "camps" here have a hold on a piece of the right solution to this situation. In any event, we go through this process to vet all reasonable possibilities that could meet everyone's editorial expectations to an extent they can accept. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a fact-keeping addendum, I never predicated anything I said upon Assange, so I'm not sure where you are getting the association between my arguments and his behaviour narrowly, which, now that you've raised the issue, I would say is just an element of a larger topic. I hope that clarifies matters. If you don't buy "media furor" as a fair descriptor, that's fine--I wasn't proposing a title, but just referring to the topic obliquely, since everyone seems to have their own opinion of what it "actually" is. But I don't think it is productive to go around in circles add nauseum about what the title should be. The root issue is whether we agree fundamentally that there is an appropriate namespace for some of this content. I'm not at all clear on your position there from your previous comments. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is pretty well demonstrated on the article talk page, the talk page archive, and the first AfD page, that there are numerous reliable sources that cover the murder. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the numerous reliable sources to which you refer are about Julian Assange talking about Seth Rich's murder and weaving this into his doublespeak drama (pretty much not saying anything = gibberish). If I may paraphrase what this is like: "It might be this guy, but it might not be, then again - maybe - but we never reveal our sources. Thanks for the press coverage, it's really appreciated." Separating this from the real event, of which Seth Rich is the subject, and the murder the event - ~~it/~~ - renders the topic - "Murder of Seth Rich" - to be not notable. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it seems it may continue to get coverage. Clearly a notable event, BLP1E do not apply since the article is not about the person but the murder of said person, which clearly passes the GNG. Darwinian Ape^talk 02:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any recent coverage of Julian Assagne's remarks regurgitates what has already been said in the press during the middle of July. No new information has been added, and new analysis has been forthcoming. And coverage is less and less as we go along. The indexing I produced before, which I didn't invent, simply shows a flatline since sometime in September, after almost no coverage during that month. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relevent. Nobs01 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Will the closing admin please be very clear as to why this article should remain in the main space. What I see is (1) a man named Seth Rich who wasn't notable before this event (there was no article on him previously); he is then (2) killed around 4 AM on a DC street, an event that is somewhat common in the district. It obviously received coverage but what is notable here? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will the closing admin also make some comment on the validity of the methodology of those editors who have, over the last few months, repeatedly deleted on-topic RS content. Unless that issue is addressed, the article cannot be improved and will remain in its current contradictory state - a subject with obvious notability based on reliable sources but which has no content showing that notability actually in the article. The article is not even allowed to mention that the murder remains unsolved because that is, supposedly, "speculation" [106]! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others have said, there has been more than enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Here are more sources from non-US, mainstream publications: [107], [108], [109], [110] (though this last one could probably dismissed as a passing mention). I find that some pro delete arguments are particularly weak or irrelevant:

WP:BLP1E – while Seth Rich (for being recently dead) obviously is protected per BLP policy, (a) Seth Rich is not the subject of this article which is about the death and (b) WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.
WP:1E and WP:CRIME – again this article is not a biography of Seth Rich or even a pseudo-biography. When someone who was non-notable dies and their death has lasting effects, established practice is to create an article about the death (and redirect subject's name to article about the event), see: Death of Freddie Gray, Death of Sandra Bland, Death of Eric Garner, Shooting of Michael Brown, and Shooting of Trayvon Martin (though in this case Trayvon Martin was apparently nominated for deletion in 2013, and survived).
WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE – these may be relevant arguments in operational content discussion (on the talk page or on the BLP noticeboard), but they are irrelevant in article deletion discussion. And for what it's worth, I think that all the material currently included is completely sourced, neutral, on-topic, and relevant to Seth Rich's notability.

I'm afraid merging is not something that we can or should discuss here for there is almost no content to merge. Mentioning the WikiLeaks reward can't just be included in some random article without explaining the conspiracy context. Politrukki (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the other five deaths you mention, four involve black suspects who died at the hands of police or in police custody. The fifth one, Trayvon Martin, was shot by a self-appointed neighbourhood watch for "walking while black and wearing a hoodie". These cases resulted in large demonstrations all over the US; they had and have lasting effects. The notability of these cases is well established, both in media coverage, in politics, and in law enforcement. So what exactly IS the lasting effect of the shooting of Seth Rich whom you seem to consider to be non-notable ("When someone who was non-notable dies …")?
As for your new sources: I take it you don’t read German, French, and Swedish, and you didn’t get the articles bot-translated? The German and French articles are about Assange/WikiLeaks exploiting the shooting for their purposes; the Swedish article is from a tabloid and simply recaps what Assange said (plus, of course, the Swedish backstory, i.e., the rape accusations). All of them are dated August 10 - 14, i.e., they are old news and do not support your "lasting effect" argument. Maybe the WikiLeaks reward should be mentioned in the WikiLeaks and/or Assange articles, subtitle "Conspiracy mongering"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first question (about lasting effect) is very good. Thank you! I did not mean to say that Rich's murder has had left lasting effect (legislative efforts or major political impact), but that it's too early to determine. Like the third paragraph of WP:LASTING says: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. For instance Michael Brown died on August 9, 2014. Wikipedia article was created on August 11. Was notability established in just two days? I don't think so. We know that notability was established, but we don't know exactly when that happened.

Actually, I wanted to mention WP:PERSISTENCE – which talks about "lasting significance" and which is somewhat related to WP:LASTING – in my previous comment, but decided to omit it for the sake of brevity. As long as murder of Seth Rich remains unsolved, it is likely to receive only limited coverage, but the fact that coverage of death spiked weeks after the incident is at least some sort of indication of lasting significance.

As to your second question, I'm not going to tell you what you should or should not take, but I can tell you what my take is. In the Die Welt article murder of Seth Rich is not the main topic per se, but the article spends at least four paragraphs (183 words) to describe the murder alone. Yes, Expressen is a tabloid, but it is also a mainstream publication that is often cited by other sources without casting any doubt on its reliability. Just because Expressen excels in writing low-effort entertainment articles (and let me remind that there's no reliable source for gossip) doesn't change the fact that the article I linked is typical news story that could be published anywhere. Even though the story focuses on Assange's comments, Rich is mentioned in the lead sentence, so I don't think it would be fair to say that it is plainly a passing mention.

foxnews.com published a story about Assange and WikiLeaks few hours ago and they wrote one paragraph on Rich's murder and I'm afraid we will soon see similar mentions in more reputable sources. Regardless of whether that happens, I think we should heed the advice from previous close: So this topic is probably best revisited a few months later when the election is over and the story's importance can be assessed at more of a distance. Politrukki (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox piece doesn't have anything new and was only there as backdrop to something else Assange is now saying. That isn't really ongoing coverage. I note that Fox also used the phrase "conspiracy theories". Interestingly, there was recently an article called something like 'conspiracy theories related to the 2016 US presidential election' that this could have been merged into, but that article has since been deleted by AfD. It's strange that this one persists. Geogene (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it is ongoing coverage. It mentions the subject of this article, is dated today, and mentions an event that will take place tomorrow and which will, in all likelihood, generate more coverage that will also mention the article's subject. Unless you can link to the AfD discussion, mentioning a deleted article is a red herring. For example, the article may have been deleted for OR synthesis reasons - and if so its deletion actually could be an argument for the retention of this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ongoing coverage of Assange, and a bare restatement of what is already known about this subject. Here are those other AfDs in case you find them useful [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016], [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016]. Geogene (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too just noticed the Fox News story seems significant to me unless you're a Hillary Clinton / DNC supporter. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Raquel Baranow: Why would it be insignificant to Clinton supporters? clpo13_(talk) 21:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the Fox news story: "Assange also has hinted that deceased DNC staffer Seth Rich may have been a source for WikiLeaks." Implying DNC may have had something to do with the murder? That's my inference. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there were substance to the allegations, it would be significant. There is no substance, and the existence of the article is WP:PROFRINGE. Actually Raquel Barrow's WP:ASPERSIONS works to substantiate one of my main complaints, that this is just fodder for conspiracy theorists, and therefore should be deleted under WP:NOTNEWS. But it's always unwise to speculate about the politics of your opponents. I would encourage all not to continue it. Geogene (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you mention "conspiracy", in my post above, I was going to mention that WP seems to have a phobia about conspiracies as if they never happen. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was the FOX article you cited that called it a "conspiracy theory", which is generally understood to not be an endorsement. And, true that we don't give conspiracy theories equal time with reality-based viewpoints. Geogene (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's a conspiracy doesn't mean it's necessarily false and not based on reality. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one is both. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this "conspiracy theory" is false or not is besides the point. If it has received a lot of coverage, it should probably have its own article. We have articles for Holocaust denial and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Having these articles doesn't necessarily endorse the factuality (or lack of) of either. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you square that view with the refutation others have voiced here on this page, namely, that those events were in themselves WP-notable whereas Mr. Rich was not? Are you confident your analogy holds water? SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no meat there, not even enough for a stub. Even if you tried, you'd be writing original research on some mentions in primary sources (newspaper articles). Like I said, we can't just merge it into the dedicated "conspiracy theories related to the 2016 US Presidential election", because that article has already been nuked for lack of notability. Geogene (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just posted about this discussion on relevant article and WikiProject talk pages, which is appropriate per WP:APPNOTE. Removal of any of these is probably inappropriate per WP:Talk and WP:APPNOTE. Please keep the deletion discussion open in hopes that we can more input from other editors (broadening the deletion discussion). Thank you Steve Quinn (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Steve Quinn's 11th hour notifications about this AfD's existence (today being probably the final day the AfD will run), posted on multiple article talk pages and project pages, ([111], [112], [113], [114]) is appropriate. He did not think such notifications necessary when starting the AfD, and he categorized the AfD under "biographical". Based on these recent posts, he considers the subject to also be "organization or product", "society topics", and "web and internet" applicable. Why were those categories not added to the AfD when started? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, an AfD closes when activity ceases. Also, "categories" have nothing to do with my posts. If someone wishes to add categories please feel free to do so. There is no specified time limit on my present activities. And let us not forget the fact, my original post on the article talk page two or three days ago was deleted (unbeknownst to me) by an "enthusiastic" editor. So that was essentially interference. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but give serious consideration to a rename and/or eventual merge, if the appropriate namespace can be found). By even the most conservative interpretation of WP:GNG this easily meets our community guidelines for notability, with substantial coverage in WP:reliable sources that run the gamut of local, nation, and global press. Reasonable concerns have been raised about not misrepresenting the victim, but that goal is not in any way mutually exclusive with having an article on this notable topic, nor with presenting the whole story of how the murder became caught up in the political spin of the election cycle. We simply need to exercise the utmost care in how we present and attribute the relevant information--which, with the number of eyes the article now has, will be a more sound process. This story is out there, and trying to stifle coverage of it/pretending that's not the reality just will not work, and actually is directly counter-intuitive to the notion of preserving clarity on the topic. Whether your interest is to protect the victim from being maligned or just to present accurate coverage of the topic, the way forward is with a well-crafted, well-sourced, neutral article--not an effort to cull a notable topic, however sordid the facts surrounding it. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copy/paste of BLP bits[edit]

communication between Jytdog and Mr Ernie achieved Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In response to Mr Ernie's comment here, which was difficult to read after I wrote this with no response. So i will ask Mr Ernie more directly yet....

WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.""

Seth Rich was not a public figure. he was thrust into the public spotlight by Assange's insinuation that a) rich leaked the DNC emails; b) rich was murdered because of that. User:Mr Ernie, please explain how content about Rich's murder does not violate the part of the BLP above. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems – even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

There is zero evidence that Rich actually was the DNC leaker. Assange's insinuation that Rich a) was the DNC leaker and b) was murdered b/c of that, drag him and his family into the shitslinging speculation of election season - after he was actually murdered. Please explain how our article, which is driven by news driven by Assange, does not violate NOTVICTIM. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I did not notice your earlier post as I was not pinged and it was placed above my vote. To respond, it's entirely clear to me how and why Rich is notable, and I do not appreciate your insinuation that this is not clear to me. NOTPUBLICFIGURE doesn't apply here, as the article is not about Rich, but his murder. You're smart enough to know that. AVOIDVICTIM isn't quite applicable for the same reason. Our article doesn't call Rich the leaker, or say that Assange said he was the leaker, or any of that other stuff. What it should state are notable details about the notable murder of a non-notable person. What is also perfectly clear to me is that editors are weaponizing policy to remove items that do not fit into a certain political viewpoint. Everyone participating should ask themselves if they would have the same arguments if the political spectrum here was flipped, and let's be honest - this is a battleground topic with the same editors that are active elsewhere, pushing the same viewpoints on both sides, trying to push a certain political viewpoint, and cherry picking policy to support their viewpoint. I read BLP again, and still do not see that it applies here. This is my last comment on this topic. I'm no longer able to assume good faith for the contributors here on both sides and now my comments drift to editors, not content. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr Ernie - (pinging you as you have maybe unwatched) So about "weaponizing policy to remove items that do not fit into a certain political viewpoint."

There are Republican viewpoints on policy matters. There are Democratic viewpoints on policy matters. Republican political strategy exists, Democrat political strategy exists, etc. Politicians actually do bad things sometimes. That is all real world stuff.

This article has nothing to do with "political viewpoints". Nothing.

This article pushes my buttons for three reasons. A) Something I despise, anywhere, is bullshit. B) I care about the quality of political discourse in general. C) I care about the quality of this encyclopedia; I want us to be New York Times quality, not Daily Mail quality.

A) The "link" of this murder to the DNC email leak created by Assange via his interviews and the reward (and all the reward is, is communicating the same garbage as Assange did in his interviews using money as the message) is a trifecta of bullshit that implies that 1) Rich was the leaker and 2) he was murdered because of it and 3) the Clinton machine had him murdered. A trifecta of bullshit. All the coverage in (sadly) reliable sources after August 9th, was driven by this trifecta of bullshit.

B) None of the internet echo chamber garbage about political conspiracy theories makes our country better or helps anything. That garbage is destroying our country - we have so little high quality discourse about actual political viewpoints anymore because the media is full of dogshit-stained maggoty twinkies floating in a sewer like "Seth Rich's Murder".

C) And the fact that this poor schmuck's name is being dragged into politics and his family and friends have to deal with that - because of this garbage - is exactly what AVOIDVICTIM is about. He was a real person. He was actually. fucking. murdered. Imagine he was one of your friends and what an ugly nightmare that alone would be for you. Now add this garbage on top of that. That is where BLP comes in. Your being deaf to that - or even able to acknowledge that - is very hard for me to understand.

What has been "weaponized" here is the robotic mantra "there are reliable sources so we must include it... there are reliable sources so we must include it.....there are reliable sources so we must include it.....there are reliable sources so we must include it" to try to demand the inclusion of horrible fucking bullshit in WP over the discretion that BLP and good sense allows us. Not to mention WP:NOTNEWS, TRIVIA, blah blah blah. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I agree with almost all of what you said. I believe other editors may not have the same honesty with their involvement. Good luck with the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are few things I despise (since Jytdog brought the subject up) more than fake sanctimoniousness and sentimentality, here presented as an excuse to pov war valid content out of an article. E.L. Wikipedia is a website accessed throughout the world and should have a worldview in all of its articles. And remember, distorting or "weaponising" Wikipedia guidelines to censor or delete just one article is all but certain to rebound back onto other articles with unexpected and unwanted consequences, just like real-world policy distorting does. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People here always cry "censorship" when they don't get their way. It's tiresome, and just provokes more ill will that will carry over into the next article. Geogene (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so... bullshit is worldview? :) Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I edit in accordance with content policies (and guidelines) then I am a pov warrior? And my mission is to censor material? Wow! Thanks for letting me know - I'm glad someone finally told me! And elaborating on them is being sanctimonious. OK good to know. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Night Football (NRL)[edit]

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

Not notable as an article on its own, lack of references -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non Notable programme with no content or refs whatsoever. Class455 (talk) 20:54, 23 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 per WP:A11. The topic appears to be invented (per Wikipedia's standards), which I further researched via some searches before deleting, and the article made no claim of significance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 9 Superdogs[edit]

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

I came across this as a speedy for no context, however this does have context in that you can tell what it is: a Wattpad novel. It doesn't fall under any of the other criteria (although I do have a proposal open for a new addition to speedy criteria for self-published and vanity books, which I'm mentioning here in the hopes of getting a nice wide consensus), so I'm bringing this here.

This doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time, as I can't see where this book has received any sort of coverage in independent and reliable sources. It's pretty much your typical non-notable self-published work. I wish the author well, but this just isn't notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage. Yvarta (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The page clearly states that it is about a bit of text written by Jayden1454 who is the creator of the page. Clearly WP:A11... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this really falls under A11 category, honestly. I've always seen that as something that would cover something like a brand new game someone created, a neologism, or an esoteric concept. I don't think that literary works are covered under A11. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 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 redirect to Becky G. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lovin' So Hard (Becky G song)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Radio Disney is not an official chart. Laun chba ller 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist unless and until it's a notable song in its own right - hasn't charted in a notability-carrying chart - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 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 Delete and Salt. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Miller (entertainer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/George Miller (entertainer)

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

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

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

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

Article was just recently deleted as Filthy Frank (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filthy Frank). All of the sources here were known at the last AfD, which was closed as delete due in part to almost all of the coverage being brief mentions in connection to Harlem Shake (meme) (where he is already mentioned). CSD was declined because of the content is not sufficiently identical (I would respectfully disagree, but that's not so relevant now). Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:NOPAGE applies with regard to Harlem Shake. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and salt under all plausible names - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: I find that this article requires further citations rather than a speedy deletion. While the "meme" he spawned amounts for much of his newsworthy coverage, his YouTube statistics, musical endeavors, and collaborative efforts with other online personalities all come together in a way that I believe establishes notability. I would certainly agree, however, that further sourcing would be prudent. –Matthew - (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree completely. –SirCommoner2 - 20:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to Harlem Shake) – per nom and previous arguments discussed in the last AFD. The Harlem Shake is trivial while the rest of the sources are mainly primary, having a big "subscriber count" or collaborating with other "famous YouTubers" doesn't mean the subject inherently passes WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and his musical career needs to be notable by WP:MUSBIO, which frankly [again haha] he doesn't seem to pass. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Superb pun. –Matthew - (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, no hard feelings. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree, he has stated on several occasions that he hated the Harlem shake trend, and does not consider it an achievement. He's done many other notable things than this. Redirecting a page, that could be dedicated to a renowned YouTuber, to a two-week trend simply because "it's the most popular thing he's done" just isn't a solid argument. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the media has quite assumed that the Harlem Shake was notable for Frank, and mostly that's all hes notable for unfortunately. We need sources to back up that hes renowned or has done other notable things, just saying things about him doesn't establish notability. Also per Rhododendrites comments below. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is different in a number of ways from the deleted "Filthy Frank" page, so I don't believe the previous deletion discussion can entirely apply to this article. The current article is written in a much better manner, the only issue is lacking a few citations, and that's mainly because he prefers to keep his personal life hidden, instead having most of the fame being attributed to his fictional alias. The individual himself does fall into the requirements of WP:BIO#Entertainers, as he has quite large cult following, and has influenced modern pop culture more-so than the average YouTuber. It would be foolish to delete this article, he will just become more notable and a discussion about having the article will arise in a year. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is based on sources, and that's why the article was previously deleted. Sources about his alter ego count, so if you know of sources to show notability (not followers, subscribers, views, etc. but e.g. articles about him in newspapers, magazines, high-quality websites, etc.) you should link them here, because it's those that establish WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable internet personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and ignore the bureaucrat that rejected it. Keep arguments and article sources are exactly the same bad ones as last AFD. Waste of time.--JacktheHarry (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This is going to become sock fodder otherwise so lets kill it quickly, lock it down, and be done with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shouldn't be speedy deleted because the page doesn't fall under CSD G4. Should be kept though due to notability under the Entertainers requirements of WP:BIO. Also the individual that the page is about has a substantial online following. --ColouredFrames (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not speedy deletion. Some people are saying it should've been speedy deleted, but it's not the basis for this nomination. The problem is notability. He was determined very recently to fail notability criteria. If you think something has changed, I would invite you to link to the significant coverage in reliable sources on which notability is based (coverage not about the Harlem Shake). Followers, subscribers, etc. do not contribute to notability, although they do indicate that such coverage does exist. PS: Please do not remove AfD templates from articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is such spam. Get rid of it! Per nomination. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the creator of the page, I'd like to ask why you find it to be spam. I think it's a viable topic, as silly and outrageous that the individual's persona may be; what the page needs, as opposed to outright removal, is further sourcing. —Matthew - (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep George Miller has 300+ million views on YouTube. Think about that number, then consider if he actually might be a notable person. This isn't about whether or not you personally are a fan of him, or if you think he's too "vulgar" or "cancerous." This is about whether this man is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, which I believe he is. I vote keep. Clbsfn (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside the straw men there, notability isn't explicitly not based on things like views, google hits, subscribers, traffic, etc. It's the extent to which a subject received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (not self-published sources, not sources connected to the subject or a collaborator, not lists/charts/figures, not brief mentions in articles about other things, etc.). Those that have been provided thus far don't meet that criteria, but I imagine most people are open to changing their minds if you're aware of such coverage that hasn't been linked yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have previously attempted to locate reliable sources to create this article myself, and after even more searching, there is nothing. I'd just like to say to all of this guy's fans, who are inevitably reading/contributing to this discussion: this guy has a fan base; a cult following. Wikipedia's guidelines for including an article about a person state that reliable sources about the person must be found to back up information in the article. This is an objective guideline and one of the foundations upon which Wikipedia sits. Unfortunately, Joji rarely attracts media sources, and that means an article about him should not be created. It's nothing to do with anyone disrespecting his content or personality. It's not about the fact that he isn't notable, in the dictionary sense of the word. It is simple objective fact that Wikipedia's purpose is to bring together reliable information from across all media into one place. You cannot do that without the media existing in the first place. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 21:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt With the level of detail in the article about things like jojivlogs and the breakdancing video, it's evident to me that this is more of a fan labor than anything else. It's put together very well, compared to the last one, but the content is just as void of legitimate sources and evidence of notability. I'm convinced that there's a possibility that an article about him will keep getting remade every time someone thinks they've found something new about him that'll just bring everything together, so I would agree that this and FilthyFrank should be salted. ~~Bring back jojivlogs~~ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt; strictly a vanity page and unreliably sourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all of its redirects. Was any source provided in either AFD? BigGuy88 (talk) 22:10, 30 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) 06:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hemachandra Wijeratne[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being an consul for a country does not confer automatic notability. Also being the brother of a politician/military officer does not confer notability either (WP:NOTINHERITED). The first three references relate to him simply being the Consul-General for Turkey, not details of any achievements he made in this position, the next two references relate to him being the brother of Ranjan Wijeratne and then the next four are related to him being a schoolboy cricketer. Hardly sufficient to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would be considered WP:BLP!E. Chase (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 24 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. The "rewrite" does not address the argument for deletion: lack of notability. Sandstein 09:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simulmedia[edit]

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

Promotional article for non notable company. To my amazement and horror, even the WSJ article by Shields is essentially an uncritical press release. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite - AfD is not cleanup. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, sourcing is primarily self-published, WSJ article is a mention in passing DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:NEXIST. I'm finding plenty of RS with significant coverage, including Reuters, TechCrunch, VetureBeat, and AdWeek. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I meant to comment sooner; examining this and the links offered above, are finding the same exact information and basis; what the company is about, what its services and activities are and, granted, information only the company would know therefore it would be the sole holder and interviewer. The fact this entire article as it is, states only information about the company that only clients and investors would care to know, states that essentially putting the same elements of this, is not only making it worse, but showing there's no hopes of improvements. Simply having a tossed link count of 23 is not alone sufficient for accepting this, let alone actually improving, because the article was massively need to be removed of its PR and PR-like elements, but there are again no hopes of that. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the coverage does not meet CORPDEPTH and is rather fluffy, for example, from the Reuters link above:

"Oct 31 Advertising company Simulmedia said it can now tie TV commercials to purchases by using data from set-top boxes to help marketers reach specific, more defined audiences."

This is nothing more than claims by the company. Insufficient basis to build an encyclopedia article. WP:PROMO also applies, for example, the very first sentence of the article is "marketing speak":

"Simulmedia is a marketing technology company aiming to help advertisers drive business outcomes through linear TV".

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 27 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.