< 28 September	30 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 delete. Per lack of notability. As noted, that another project has an article does not indicate notability - for all we know it will be deleted in two weeks for lacking notability under their criteria as well. Or they might have different standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Marie Wiman[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 23:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she has an unchallenged article in the Swedish version of Wikipedia. My feeling is that non-notability should be established universally and not judged on popularity or notability within one language or culture. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless convincing evidence (in any language) can be provided that demonstrates her meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. Other language Wikipedias have different policies and standards for inclusion that have no bearing on the English Wikipedia. The Swedish version is more extensive and has more citations, but nothing that convinces me that she meets WP:N or WP:ENTERTAINER. Canadian Paul 08:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to the article talkpage, so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I cannot find any evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 12:59, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vomitron[edit]

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

Extensively informed PROD removed with the sheer basis sourced are listed, but these in fact are the person's own websites, certainly not convincing and therefore I still confirm what my PROD said, it's obvious this article has been used for advertising by the band person and there has never been anything suggesting otherwise at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable independent coverage beyond one mention by Kotaku. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched alternate ways and literally found the same one web page. We are not a free web host for bands. This is one of thousands of bands that have recorded CDs. I found zero evidence this band passes any part of WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 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. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Mathis[edit]

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

Not enough nobility, no sources, and is not linked from any other Wikipedia pages. Therainbowsend (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet threshold for notability as actor. Quis separabit? 23:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Monkey D. Garp isn't Monkey D. Luffy. Not a notable role in the series. Local voice actor. ANN articles are only cast announcement level. No appearances in any anime conventions. Not much on his voice acting career, only that he does theatre in Dallas. [1] [2] [3] Can't write a meaningful article beyond a dictionary definition WP:WHYN AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks secondary sourcing as well to establish notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_One_Piece_characters#Monkey_D._Garp with no objection to recreation once he passes notability guidelines. Mathis has performed in some major series, but none of his roles are so major that they'd really argue for a strong keep on that basis. The biggest character he seems to have portrayed is Monkey D. Garp, so I'd recommend redirecting to the character's page until more coverage becomes available, if it ever does. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 6 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 merge to Archomental. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnis (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archomental. bd2412 T 01:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archomental per BD2412, and per WP:ATD-M which the initial !vote does not address. Unfortunately, "sunnis" is the plural of a major division within Islam as well as the adherents of the same, and there's no hope of getting any effective Google searches for it. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archomental per BD2412. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 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) 05:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational 2016[edit]

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

A new annual/year event for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination). Technically not WP:G4 since this article was not part of the discussion, but it sure falls within the spirit. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete an annual of a quite nonnotable pageant. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough to justify articles on competitions for each year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main article was deleted. As stated by editor Arielle Leira in previous Miss Supranational AfD, "the pageant is not notable as per WP:GNG. WP:WHYN states article requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources (that provide critical analysis of the event). Routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable event. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, and no useable sources found, wondered why there is no 'Miss Supranational' wikiarticle, there was, but as can be seen here, there was initially no consensus, and then it was deleted (as was some other articles related to it), deemed non-notable due to lack of sources, checked the Polish wiki to see if it has an article, it does (hooray!), but only has one reference to a press release about a mr supranational competition (boo), so doesn't look good either.Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 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) 05:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MassWiz[edit]

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

low notability, not (yet) established in the scientific literature, only 28 citations on google scholar, there are literally dozens of other peptide id softwares that are more widely used and more notable hroest 21:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find many reliable sources on this subject. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 23:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS to support the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 09:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed as above, article creator has potential COI as well (looks to be the same as the lead author on the cited paper) Amkilpatrick (talk) 22:58, 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) 05:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuria Log Manager[edit]

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

Dubious claims of notability, government link is an internal catalogue link rather than something conferring notability, all that's left is one magazine award. PROD was removed in August with promises of improvement; this hasn't happened. Part of the Assuria apparent spam cluster; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assuria CyberSense. Suggest salting these names and variants used in the wild. David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and it's not surprising searches are not finding anything, all of the listed information simply goes to specify what it is and what else is involved in its business, there's nothing to suggest independent notability and substance, and that's what we would've needed. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per above. Jdcomix (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "corporate spam", with typical WP:PROMO language. "Salt" too. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, does not pass WP:Corp and has WP:promo problems, as well. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 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) 05:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kony, Inc.[edit]

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

Advertisement for a non-notable software/company completely based on non-neutral sources (or deadlinks). damiens.rf 21:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourced exclusively from press-releases. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User: Altenmann -- the references masquerading as Venture Beat and Bloomberg articles are hosted press releases. Though I am grateful for the chuckle from the references that cited the author "Beat, Venture". A Train^talk 21:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, have only been able to find this - "Going code-less: Orlando's Kony Inc. launches new app builders" - Orlando Sentinel , but need lots more to keep this.Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete by all means as this is all simply advertising, going from company information to then services and funding, none of it amounts to substance and I'm not seeing anything else suggesting otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MobileFrame[edit]

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

Profile of a completely non-notable piece of software. damiens.rf 21:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete sourced only from press-releases. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Altenmann. All first party sources. A Train^talk 21:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, nothing useable found just pr pieces. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Price of Peace Catholic School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school. Tagged as unreferenced since 2007, fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG - even when the typo in the article title is taken into account (should be Prince) Nthep (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - It's what we generally do with lower schools per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There are two choices, either the controlling diocese, The Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas or to Plano, Texas. My preference would be the city, as there is no copy in the diocese article on schools lower than high schools. John from Idegon (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect quite clearly, per what we've been doing for years with nn schools. Target: Plano, Texas#Primary and secondary schools or the Catholic school district. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 13:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it worth redirecting a spelling mistake? The school is Prince of Peace not Price of Peace. Nthep (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's closed as redirect, I think yes.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - changing my vote here. Price of Peace is more of a Neelix redirect than a plausible one. I will boldly create the appropriate redirect next. Pinging Kudpung. John from Idegon (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See Prince of Peace Catholic School. John from Idegon (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it's simply an elementary school, certainly not convincing for its own notability considering this. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Implausible redirect to an already existing article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per longstanding consensus at AfD that articles about all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. A redirect to the archdiocese would be fine. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Implausible typo to an article that itself is a redirect. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appaserver[edit]

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

Advertisement for a non-notable piece of software. damiens.rf 21:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even find unreliable sources on this, let alone reliable ones - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Links that the article provides are pretty much advertisements, fails to meet WP:GNG. Jdcomix (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this is exactly the unacceptable materials that were being submitted and accepted before we started taking massive and damaging advertising articles seriously, and this is one of the, it never comes close to actually forming a substantial and significant article, there are, of course, no sources and there are none because it seems there's nothing actually important and convincing to say about this. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:50, 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 Merge to Nepal Mathematical Society. Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Mathematical Society Newsletter[edit]

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

~~Small society (according to their own website they don't even have 100 members). No indication of any notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:GNG.~~ Non notable newsletter. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere. Not sure WP:NJournals applies, but in any case it isn't met. Also fails WP:GNG. (Apologies: earlier I copied the wrong deletion rationale, this is the correct one). Randykitty (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure whether WP:NJournals applies given that this is a newsletter rather than a research journal. Nevertheless, we have no evidence of notability, neither through NJournals nor through GNG. It might be worth considering also whether Nepali Mathematical Sciences Report is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nepal Mathematical Society, completely non-notable.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. I was the original prod'der--no better sources found. --Finngall ^talk 13:43, 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) 05:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incik Boss dan Probe[edit]

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

Non-notable song from the soundtrack of a Malaysian cartoon. Lots of hits on video sites but nothing resembling any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. As nom said, many hits for download or video sites, but no semblance of a depth of coverage conferring notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments It is odd that song and television. 203.111.224.36 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ks0stm. I don't see any importance of the song. NgYShung ^huh? 03:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 03:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 03:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 03:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 03:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASAP Not known as for the article like futiled words. Caneoffire (talk) 09:28, 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 speedy delete by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Anup [Talk] 15:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lalithaa Jewellery Mart[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. References are mostly press releases although two are about the MD buying another company and being awarded an honour. None of these convey any notability. Almost the same article but with a different title Lalithaa jewellery was nominated at AfD with almost identical justification but speedily deleted 2 days later here Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While a company with turnover of ₹6000 crore in India should be notable, but I'm not seeing any such evidence. May be it is an exaggerated claim made in a PR article. Anup [Talk] 14:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt -- strictly promotional activity & considering the other deleted article. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:33, 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 speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax and salt. There is such a junior player, but he did not score 31 tries for the North Tamworth Bears at age 7, or play for the Prime Minister's XIII in 2015. Crudely photoshopped image. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Tait[edit]

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

The article seems to be a mix of a hoax, and an article about a person who fails WP:RLN, as he is not notable enough. Full marks for a creative fake photo though. Mattlore (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a player named Jakob Tait?? I am confused there is a fake photo and a team that doesn't have a link that I have never heard of. This article does sound kinda legit though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:202F:F800:FD00:EE30:8A1:4F88 (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Tait is real! He played in the Jr Trans Tasman for the last two years! I like him because he shares my first name and he seems like a nice bloke. It's not a hoax. I went onto some website and found the photo cause I thought it was funny. Thankyou for the marks on the photo but I didn't make it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobtheDaddy (talk • contribs) 13:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (possibly CSD A7 / CSD G11) — Seems to be a mixture of lack of notability, possible self-promotion, or just a pure hoax. The precise mixture of those factors is not particularly important, as it fails to credibly establish the minimum notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Infobox photo appears to be of a real person, with their face and hair changed (and certainly does not look like a 12 year old to me), so probably a copyright violation in the photo. The career section is entirely unsourced and not credible. The random collection of web links, presumably presented as references, include a mixture of unreliable and questionable relevance. Murph9000 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has previously been deleted twice under CSD A7. Murph9000 (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt to prevent another recreation. Non-notable, under-12s rugby player. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 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) 05:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Storm[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable. Fails WP:RLN, as he has not played in a Rugby League World Cup tournament, Rugby League Four Nations tournament, or the Rugby League European Cup. The Tri-Nations is a lower tier tournament, and is not the European Cup. Mattlore (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As fails the previously held WPRL notability rationale.Fleets (talk) 19:15, 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 delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nextiva[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unbelievable and unwisely accepted from AfC, because I presume the user never examined the history logs, where it has been deleted multiple times, and it also went to Deletion Review not once but twice where it was closed as no restoring; now that the article has been restored, it's basically still an advertisement in that it only shows trivial and unconvincing PR sources as "news" and the information itself is PR also. Also, my own searches are then finding nothing but said PR and trivial mentions. Delete and Salt again please. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wrote the article on Tomas Gorny the other month. In doing so, I also researched Nextiva as he is the founder of that company. The company is not notable and does not meet WP:N. Any real mention of the company (non PR) is just piggy backing off of the owner's notability.CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Not enough independent coverage in RS to pass NORG. The article has been moved to Draft:Nextiva which is also at MfD. 4 deletion discussions plus deletion reviews is enough wasted time. If someone wants to recreate it then asking an admin is not much of a burden compared to the amount of time that would be wasted in a 5th AfD. Jbh ^Talk 16:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt to avoid a 5th discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Briana Buckmaster[edit]

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

I've been watching this article since it began, and the recent PROD was removed (by SPA of course) with the thin and unconvincing basis of "she appears at fan conventions so she can be included here", because her career is not applicably convincing or basically convincing at all, the longest work has been 4 episodes of Supernatural and then 25 as a crewmember for something else. None of this suggests an acceptable article nor are there the signs of it. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As the person who added the PROD, I agree that there isn't enough for an article. Notability is not inherited. – nyuszika7h (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – purely a TV guest actress who does not pass WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a good source to show notability, it aims to be a listing of all people who have acted either in film or TV, Wikipedia has a far tighter inclusion criteria. A person's own resume is neither indepedent nor secondary. So we have 0 sources that contribute to passing the GNG.
Delete. "Appears at fan conventions" is not, in and of itself, a reason why a bit part actress gets a Wikipedia article that can be sourced only to IMDb and her own acting résumé on the website of her agent. It takes reliable source coverage in media to get her in the door, but none of that is being shown. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 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 speedy deleted A7 by Ritchie333. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 16:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FINO (company)[edit]

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

Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikipedia page for their publicity, Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 line to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia material. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Merely press releases and promoted written articles on popular media and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no evidence of notability, I couldn't actually check either source - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect to FINO_PayTech as dupe. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:27, 29 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. Seems like the sources provided are not enough to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Telecommunications[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing press release on media. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. it is not Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - incredibly blatant advertising, and I note the user who started it was Olivedotme. If this didn't date to 2009 I'd have speedied it - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another cut-and-paste nomination deletion nom with no evidence of WP:BEFORE. Plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage in article; also Wired and The Hindu. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That Wired article is literally a pasing mention, The Hindu is PR coverage if not actually a reprinted press release (which it is written in the style of) - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead by all means, notice a similarity with the listed news sources and the information, it all focuses with such blatant company activities and it goes as such a far end to contain pricing and financing information, you know that's an advertisement, and it's still one if a news source publishes it, because it ultimately shows, not only churnalism, but that the company supplied the "news", meaning it's certainly not independent, significant or substantial; they may as well have named it "Company Press Releases", and not even list the newspaper's name. Even considering its age, this would and could in fact be speedy material, because it's simply so blatant, but we would have best with ammunition later because chances are that a staunchly advertising company like this, will attempt to restart, because nearly all cases, that's what happens. Because these articles are then sugarcoated with such blatant fluff and puff, we cannot automatically take them seriously and list them as actual news, especially if that's how cunning the advertising field is, that they will attempt several times and several methods, and that's what we see here with articles. Not only is the article containing clear signs of the company's involvements, but notice the timeline of no actual changes, this could at first suggest they have no current interests, but as other cases have shown, this is a case where they literally think it's currently acceptable, especially since it contains anything and everything a company looking to advertise could ask for. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a dose of WP:TNT; strictly "corporate spam" & a product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia article. Sources offered above are not convincing, and the problems with the article go too deep to be fixed by sources. Accepting such badly promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project; otherwise, Wikipedia becomes a WP:WEBHOST for companies' promotional materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 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. Popularity on the Internet is usually not enough to make something notable. Salting may be requested at WP:RFPP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CCAvenue[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. It is not Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Probably they should put Brochure instead. Light2021 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as this is advertising and this alone, it was deleted once before as advertising, and this is so advert-like, it's tickling quite noticeably at speedy material, as not only is there barely any information (let alone actual substance), it only gives the illusions of what the company would say about itself, which is what it is, the services and other activities and people-groups involved. The listed "news" are clearly attempts of PR in that the company clearly supplied information about itself, because they are only things they themselves would know such as their company partners and clients, and that's what this field is notorious for, anything to sugarcoat PR and that alone. To state the obvious, this was started by an SPA account who only seems to be involving themselves with these exact articles and businesses, suggesting not only paid contributing but blatant advertising of it. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising, with no encyclopedic value and no indications of notability or significance. Sources are very weak. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepCCAvenue is popular online payment gateway. It article should be improved. Jessie1979 (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 20:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Popularity or making profit by any companies does not count for its notability or encyclopedia standards set by Wikipedia guidelines. It will make it Directory for such company. Light2021 (talk) 15:29, 6 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PepperTap[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing artciles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising alone, the information is advertising what this company is about and then what the services are, every single listed source is also advertising the company with several methods such as showing what their finance and company achievements have been or are going to be, interviews, listing the names of clients, investors or other people and companies; none of it comes close at all for becoming both substantial and non-PR. There's nothing to suggest actual hopes of meaningful improvements therefore, if this only serves as advertising, we delete it lest we become a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - failed startup, when half the article is funding rounds you know they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for stuff to put in their Wikipedia advertisement - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm ambivalent about keeping or deleting this article, but I wanted to point out that 1) I almost entirely rewrote it, so I'm not sure it's accurate to refer to the article as the company's "Wikipedia advertisement" or to say "they" were scraping the bottom of the barrel as I, a major contributor to the article in its current form, am entirely unaffiliated with this defunct compny 2) I'm not sure if it's possible for the article to be advertising anything at all since the company no longer exists 3) The article is four paragraphs, and one of the four paragraphs is (partially) about funding. The others are about its history, business model, and demise. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I originally speedied this as yet another semi promotional article about an unremarkable business, but I'm leaning towards the position that the collapse of the company makes it interesting...see [4]TheLongTone (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, good find. Any more like that and I'll change my opinion - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Quartz article linked above by TheLongTone is already used as a citation in the article, FYI. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable. [5], more. Anup [Talk] 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a space of dumping high failure with grand funding and bragged about the startups you have started. grand failure written like a saga (does not mean written so much). Leave something worth to be here, than such promotions (it is enough to have Wikipedia page itself). this is about encyclopedia not dumping your grand mistakes to build personal portfolio for the future funding. Wikipedia gives the highest edge for such companies building highest degree of credibility/ notability online which they are definitely not. Even its just a paragraph to write about else Getting funding from A - B- C -D? is there anything else to write about this startup? what they really achieved so far being creation of encyclopedia material. This is not some profile to write when someone gives you money in a huge amount so you can become encyclopedic significant. Let them become significant first to write about here. Whats the hurry? Search and this startup is definitely not ended but building new ones using this failure as a milestones. This is promotional after even being dead. Reason for the AfD Light2021 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search indicates they are significant. According to the article it clearly says it is closed with no mention of building new ones. Quoting WP:CORPDEPTH "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Also whether a company should or should not have a Wikipedia article has nothing to do with how big or small a company is. Pratyush (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant how? blatant advertising and PR articles written all over the popular media? Yes I searched and read carefully the intend and how it has been written, clearly written like script given to media. Definitely influenced by company if not paid. That is significant for you? How easily you misuse WP:CORPDEPTH, and mentioned here. That does not mean every article published in daily newspaper should become Wikipedia article? Highly doubtful that you read about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Are any of these articles tells what so exceptional about this startup to be here? Laying off huge numbers or people or getting funded by IIT people? Closing of business operations? You mentioned WP:CORPDEPTH. what about "Depth of coverage" by Wikipedia guidelines. Even we consider all these sources and we Try making an article for Wikipedia with these references. Something hopefully will come up? Operations of highly funded startup who failed miserably in doing business? is this all about it? It can not be more than a paragraph. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper like any other influeenced media by such insignificant Startups who just got funded by investors. You are saying with the logic of WP:CORPDEPTH, we should make wikipedia a press release website or probably a directory for such funded startups? Light2021 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grofers, it is not the same thing to simply state "Satisfies GNG" without, both times note, not actually acknowledging and considering the analysis shown and what it actually emphasizes, which of course are the concerns. Therefore, if the analyses have clearly shown there is in fact nothing for WP:GNG, especially because of the large and acceptable PR intents and environment, there is then no acceptable article. Once we start blatantly compromising to keep articles because of whatever is listed or whatever seems to be suggesting "news", is when we become a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you failed to see is, the sources present in the article and mentioned by NorthAmerica clearly indicate it's notability. It also passes WP:CORPDEPTH. ~~The content present is not much different in style from Google Express and AmazonFresh.~~ I don't see a reason why it should be deleted. Pratyush (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument at AFD, and usually means the other stuff referenced needs an acerbic eye - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mention. Now striked. Still I don't think it should be deleted. Main reason given by the nom is the small size of the company but size of the company has no mention WP:CORP. 10:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@PratyushSinha101: Thanks for further clarifying your !vote by mentioning the sources I have provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- "was India's third-largest grocery delivery service" suggests notability. With the company having shut done, it's unlikely that the page would be used for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the mystry of the claim "being The India's Third Largest Grocery Delivery service". Quartz article start with the sentese. and Link is mention in the articles that links to this: YourStory article (Which Wikipedia does not allow as a reference, its just a blog written by these people alone, not even a journalism) and then Guess what? Written by none other than Founder himself! Just for information and media portrait of this startups. Light2021 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. There's no evidence this is actually true - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are many other sources that says the same, third largest grocery store. Such as, Hindustan Times, International Business Times, VC Circle. Anup [Talk] 21:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IBT and VCCircle? Seriously? They can write about the people or anything for that matter,and have you really seen who writes articles on such blogs, they are not even a Recognized Indian Journalistic platform or certified News agencies. Once in a life coverage on HT, not for its significance, what the grand failure of such startups? is this why we are contributing to make Wikipedia? or is this really a purpose of building Wikipedia here? Light2021 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although stating that "third-largest grocery store could be convincing, there are clear advertising intents here, thus that takes importance, regardless of any potential signs of notability, because once we allow any such advertisements, regardless of whether the company is currently still existing or not, is when we become damned as a neutral and ad-free encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete -- I trimmed the article some, and there's not much there. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but this trimming removed many sources from the article. They may be routine coverage, or maybe not, but it is still worth mentioning here, while the topic's notability is being discussed. Here's the diffs: diff, diff, diff. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See source examples below. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone. The article does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with the company. Rather, it provides an overview about the company based upon what reliable sources state. Also, it's rather difficult to do business with a company that is no longer in business anyway, but again, the content is not promotional at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Singh, Arti. "What PepperTap's shutdown means for e-grocery business". VCCircle.
Tandon, Suneera. "PepperTap's collapse shows everything that is wrong with India's young internet companies". Quartz. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Peppertap to shut down grocery delivery; to focus on its logistics business". The Economic Times. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Sen, Sunny (24 April 2016). "PepperTap fate shows why e-tail can't live on discounts". Hindustan Times. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
R, Niranjan. "India's third-largest online grocery platform PepperTap taps out". International Business Times. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Peermohamed, Patanjali Pahwa & Alnoor (23 April 2016). "Hyperlocal grocery delivery app PepperTap shuts shop". Business Standard. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

"company that is no longer in business anyway, but again, the content is not promotional at this time". It is wrong that this company has ended operations. This company is active with Logistic services. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/peppertap-to-shut-down-grocery-delivery-to-focus-on-its-logistics-business/articleshow/51950463.cms On "the article does not have a promotional tone" : There is not even a article to read except a paragraph. Light2021 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What check out? I know what that is? Have you seen AfD selections. Do you really think I am not aware of Wikiepedia guidelines and just spending my time to improving it by spending so much time. These organizations or people are making this Encyclopedia what it never meant to be, can not justify the arguments putting policies and guidelines. Anyone can see what's really written on this article. I would love to improve that article instead writing here, if only there is anything to write about. Just can not write same as written in covered news (Blatant promotions and press). It is not just Wikipedia. Wish they would have significant enough. They are not! however putting the points of giving guidelines. Wikipedia is not News or PR host or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I am really Sorry, but not convincing me. If the community have their verdict, I am just a part of it. Let it be. I will accept whatever they decide collectively. Will keep improving what it really stands for. Probably they would in future with their Logistic division, they should deserve their place here. Right now it really insignificant. Light2021 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 has taken to snideness and belitting other editors in AFDs in the past few days, an unfortunate tack - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to a section on an essay page is not belittling whatsoever, nor is it intended to be. People point out areas of the essay all the time at AfD. Please try to assume good faith. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to supply behavioural evidence that doesn't contradict an assumption of bad faith. I'm far from the only one noticing this - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOEFFORT was stated in response to "There is not even a article to read except a paragraph" above. That's all; no ill intent here whatsoever. However, I apologize if anyone was offended. My comment consisted of three words that created a neutral phrase, in both meaning and intent. I will leave it at that. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article a bit, but I hesitate to spend a great deal of time on it; if the article ends up being deleted, the work to expand it is also deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I see from my opinion alone, you have not expanded or added any significant information to this company, instead you have merely made a separate block with headings nothing but from that one paragraph. Still there is nothing to write but one paragraph about this company. Light2021 (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - There is essentially nothing else to actually say different about this company if not only that the article currently still only focuses with funding and other trivial activities, the fact that it I ly existed a mere few years shows that it could still in that be advertising especially if the people involved want to advertise what the had and in the likely hopes someone else would reinitiate their funding. Still, a mere few articles about how it ended still shows the fact there would be no actual substance for a convincing article. With this said and the fact shoeing there is still such trivial information starting about funding and its other business activities show there is nothing else actually significant to say about this company. All of my analysis shows clearly above the concerns involving this. Considering how staunchly persistent advertising campaigns are here at Wikipedia, we must not be coaxed unto convincing something that is still advertising what the comoany was about, regardless of what the company's fate was because, we have in fact still advertising articles that contained items such as lawsuits and other unpuffery, but those were still shown to be advertising, simply in a crafted sense and attempting to be surreptitious about these intents. Once we become a PR web host about any companies, regardless of their status, we are not the encyclopedia once conceived. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The sources I provided above (with one exception) are all bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. The Economic Times source is not bylined, but is independent, reliable and provides significant coverage. Also, this company was not in business for only a few months. Per the article, it was founded in November 2013 and remained in business through at least January 2016, closing in April 2016. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - The concerns listed here have been clear and exact, including in showing where the concerns are, so they ultimately still cannot be considered "independent", "reliable and "significant". Once again as always, there has been established consensus at AfD that the concerns of Indian news media containing pay-for "news" is a serious concern, and therefore extreme caution is needed for any of these companies, especially because there have notoriously serious cases. Another serious concern, and it continues, certainly not helping if we continue accepting such blatant advertisements, are the excuses and defenses are used of "Hey, if you're hosting that advertised article with only its PR and republished PR, my article can be published too, let me simply submit it myself and accept, instead of actually listening to concerns", is something that we can actually halt, if we take responsibility and remove such advertisements. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Assertions of the sources I have provided as being somehow paid for by PepperTap to be published should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than proof by assertion alone. Without proof, there's no qualification for the assertions, other than subjective personal opinion. 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. As such, the sources I have provided objectively serve to qualify the topic's notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the assertion. Please reread the detailed analyses people have provided - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"... there has been established consensus at AfD that the concerns of Indian news media containing pay-for "news" is a serious concern" and "republished PR" above (particularly "pay-for "news"") implies that PepperTap compensated the respective news sources to publish the articles I provided atop in my !vote. Thus far, no proof backing this assertion has been presented, other statements of "there are no assertions" and "that is not the assertion". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are no assertions because I have visibly and noticeably listed everything of concern above, exactly what is unacceptable and exactly what is PR, nothing can be said otherwise of what the company's plans are and of the specifics that were added to them, this is something that only the company cares about, and it considerably show through their repeated attempts at passing "news" when it's in fact simply their own company-supplied information. As consensus has established at AfD, and I'll state again, merely the news source being known is not a basis of accepting an advertisement, especially if the contents are themselves only for PR and advertising uses. There are never any benefits from keeping an article as it simply damns the foundation and environment of Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources I've seen go into the company in relative amount of depth, hence seems notable. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can you state the sources you have really been through? have you really read the content of those articles? merely press coverage or Saga of future plans and Grand failure story. From the very niche segment of category becoming Third Largest "Online Grocery" store. Not even a store. What is so significant about that? its like saying by some startup who launched just after Whatsapp or innovative like startup that We are the second most important company. That is exactly how this " Third Largest" has been covered by media. Complete influenced by company itself. No news makes such news. Light2021 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the newspapers aren't so obscure that they don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Also, the fact that the company name is in the title of the story indicates they are not being mentioned in passing. Thats what I meant. Other reasons i voted keep are phrases such as "third largest grocery store in India". Imagine the third largest grocery store in the Uk or USA being deleted. No? Then it shouldn't be deleted from India either, especially considering India has a much higher population than both countries. Pwolit iets (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the company or numbers of the customers any company serve to, popularity, press release or being funded by notable investors is not the criteria for encyclopedia material here. Discussion based on that US and UK have their pages so Indian should also have, does not make sense here. Though can you be more specific about the "Third Largest UK or US store" you are refereeing to (as per imagination)? This is neutral encyclopedia, not geography specific. On the other hand the claim made by company is highly questionable. Fake claims with no clear research is not something Wikipedia is a part of. Can you give the research apart from company given data to media. I could not found any substantial data for the claim that it was Third Largest how? in terms of funding it got? Probably yes! or number of people they recruited. Probably yes! and ultimately they have to lay off people and even shut down this division from the company? Probably yes! how is it " Third Largest" ? If you can provide data to prove apart from company imaginations or merely proposition, I would love to understand more. Light2021 (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is the contents themselves, however, if the contents themselves were PR sources, then we are certainly not going to accept them; this could also be the case with a UK or US company, since we have the same levels of attention to anything that is PR, hence making it unacceptable regardless; also, the claims that simply because the company's name is mentioned in the mere header is not a basis alone that it must be significantly about them, because the comments above show the concerns, and they show that simply stating "it's a news source" is not meaning the same thing if the contents themselves are unacceptable and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A simple Keep stating sources and "seems notable" is not carrying the same weight as then actuslly acknowledging and considering the stated analyses and concerns above. SwisterTwister talk 16:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The newspapers relied on for sources are notroius for their unreliability, and will essentially reprint any press release they are given. The article was written for the prupsoes of promotion; while thereis no longer anything to promote, there's also no reliableevidence for notability now or ever. Claims in thes newspapers for third largest without more exact information are best interpreted as mere puffery. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer – Please take note that on the article's talk page at Talk:PepperTap, in the past, two users had contested speedy deletion nominations for this article, providing their respective rationales there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And one of them was most likely an undisclosed paid editor. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those comments meant nothing regarding notability and were certainly not convincing since they merely stated they had added sources or "attempted my best to add them", none of that affects an AfD, and in fact, it may actually benefit the AfD because no one ever actually cared to substantially improve the article. The only closest one to being acceptable of the contests was the last one which at least stated they were "third-party sources". SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The comments on the talk page are conferrable as opinions regarding notability, in part where one user states, "The company has been covered in several news articles", and more directly and particularly, another user states, "citations to third-party independent reliable sources which devoted significant coverage to PepperTap are present in the article". Such commentary should naturally be taken into consideration, rather than ignored. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Covered by major media or citations only does not amount to its credibility. Companies makes press releases or script is given to media to write about their daily operations, their failure or being funded by various notable. Wikipedia will become directory for such companies. "What" (depth of coverage) is covered by media is more important than Who (popular media or daily news paper) covered it. Light2021 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It definitely meets the CORPDEPTH. People seem to tag each and every sources PR like it is a new-trend in company related deletion discussions. Seems like a phobia to me, an entity is shut-down but still paying agencies to force staff-editors to write articles about them in which they compare them with others who comparatively are more successful in the business and are still running (like this one). (I didn't mean to hurt anyone's sentiment, it's my personal opinion addressed in general. If you are still feeling bad after reading this, I'm sorry!) Anup [Talk] 15:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can find other sources as well, This company is not shut down. The PR still matters a lot for such companies. This company is active with Logistic services. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/peppertap-to-shut-down-grocery-delivery-to-focus-on-its-logistics-business/articleshow/51950463.cms On "the article does not have a promotional tone" . Apart from that, what is actually to write about that statup? Got highly funded and got closed its opearations. The end of article? How is that even significant by any logic. If you even collectively go through all the press and media. There is nothing to write except 1 paragraph. Else what you have mentioned " Phobia" . I have no idea for its relevance here. Light2021 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came though one interesting finding though, Anup was very quick on deleting Delhivery, Where discussion was not required. On the same ground or logic, Peppertap is in high competition with Delhivery. And not enough generating profit or funding as Delhivery probably had till date. These both companies are nominated as AfD by me only. One got deleted difinitely by Anup, but for Peppertap there are comments coming for its credibility. As Peppertap is still active with its Logistic division that is directly competing with Delhivery. I understand you are not related or working or anyones interest. But curious for different stand for both the entities. [[6]] Light2021 (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stay curious. Good for you. It would be nice if you be reasonable as well. Anup [Talk] 05:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are only 23 companies listed in Category:Defunct companies of India which does not have a Category:Defunct retail companies subcategory. To compare see: Category:Defunct retail companies by country which lists countries with Defunct retail companies. Defunct companies are of particular interest to many. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)((small|please ping me}[reply]

The whole article is based on misleading information that this company is defunct. First, this is not a company, its a brand name of a Logistic company which is not " DEFUNCT". It is active. Nuvoex Logistics Pvt. Ltd. They even updated information on article, which is partially given as fact. They have closed merely grocery delivery services. Light2021 (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Its notable for one event only: its rapid rise and fall. Wikipedia is not a financial newspaper and India is so vast most people have probably never heard of PepperTap. It's time we tightened our stance against these corporate listings because that's all we seem to be doing these days at NPPand AfD. WP:NOTNEWS -completely as per the nom and the other arguments that support it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you take away the routine coverage about opening and closing, there is literally nothing else left. Every single of the 6 sources above talk about the closure of the company. I don't see any non-routine significant coverage beyond this. We do not need to keep article like these - about a company which existed for a couple of years and then closed. This is precisely WP:CORPSPAMand we can do without it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outside the press releases and information on the closure of this briefly lived company, there isn't much left. Keep arguments seems to be successfully rebutted, or confusing in tone like Ottawahitech's. I agree with Kudpung we need to do something with all these articles on recently formed companies and the press releases written about them. This is getting out of hand. Prevan (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there isn't much here for an article.Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The presence of independent sourcing gives enough merit to the "keep" side to justify that argument even though the article is underdeveloped in its current condition. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grofers[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing artciles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Just deleted comment on Talk page. Light2021 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've nearly suggested Salting because this was speedied once before, and this is clearly part of an advertising campaign (see Draft:Saurabh Kumar, Draft:FITSO and Draft:Fitso, as they contain nothing but advertising, which this article itself is, the article is only barely about 3 years old and all of the listed news are about its activities and funding alone, there's no substance from any of those, because they are all advertising the company one method or another, and they are clear attempts at obtaining investors and clients, which is something notorious for not only this field of business, but the entire scope overall. The article itself is overspecific, as are the articles, with things only the company itself would know, and that's not surprising, considering it's been noticeably touched by SPA accounts, and that's not even saying a lot either, considering the article itself has basically stayed the same. Once we begin to at least soften and allow any advertisements, regardless of what sources are listed or how numerous they may seem at first, it still boils to advertising and it's something we should be ever so careful about, lest we start becoming a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of intent, this has enough non-trival coverage from reliable sources to easily meet WP:GNG criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Something that we as an encyclopedia choose and are obligated to choose is whether we firmly and clearly say No to any shoehorned attempts at advertising, or we go with a blanket of "If GNG is satisfies, we keep", because it's quite cunning how advertising and its essence becomes so heavily involved and staunch about these articles, that we ultimately have to think differently, lest we become troubled about choosing what actually matters, and this is: Not accepting or being otherwise manipulated by advertising. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I completely and totally rewrote this article prior to the AFD being filed. The charge that this article contains "clear attempts at obtaining investors and clients" is absurd. In no way is my rewrite intended to help this company obtain investors or clients. I could care less about the company's success, and I'd be awfully surprised if a venture capitalist ever turned to Wikipedia for ideas on where to invest. This article meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, which is why I think it should be kept. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No investor seeks wikipedia for investment, it is definitely not just that. Search Grofers on Google, what comes on right corner. It is Wikipedia page for such company profile. Because that is the power of wikiepdia notability, that is the reason such organizations are using wikiepdia for their promotions, even if its just one paragraph. People do not need to open wiki page to see what is exactly written there. That is how the Wikipedia becomes misleading and definitely helps them to get higher ranks online (just little impact though). nothing to do with the investors or success of any startups, it is about credibility of encyclopedia that Wikipedia maintains. It is not for building company profile. Surely it does have impact on consumers, their peers, even if its slightest influence. Just the information. Light2021 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What these improvements actually go to show is worse....in that they emphasize the company information and PR listed worse, in that the sources, again, are PR and PR alone that they blatantly contain information the company is listing about itself, sentences such as " "After a year of rapid growth, Grofers aiming to achieve operational break-even by year end" is something they would only say, because it so clearly states what the company's plans, regardless of where it's listed, because that's the company's PR essence alone. The following articles go to continue containing such blatant sentences like that, another says "Grofers has had a good run so far, aims at....at year end", not only are these 2 different articles, dates and places, but they contain the same exact fluff and puff information, clearly amounting to one involvement, and that's the company alone, because they are the subject and they are the one best connected to the subject itself. The following articles only then go to show what the services are, what the services exactly contain and consist of and everything else, no one else would know that better than the company itself, and not to mention, it's their own business so they of course are going to motivate people publishing it and involved with making it noticed, in this case, republishing and sugarcoating it as "news". Not one part actually becomes both subtantial and non-PR-assesed, that's clearly because the only intents behind this and in itself were to advertise the company itself. To state the obvious, these articles not only contain specific photos and quotes about the company, that's what they largely consist of. Simply because a user uninvolved has now touched and changed the article, is still not removing the ever so noticeable essence of PR, and if the contents are PR-based, there's nothing changing that, so making any amounts of changes or moving, are not removing the PR itself. The claims of investors manipulating Wikipedia being "surprising" are not actually so, because that's what these companies in fact want, but as long we bar those attempts and any sugarcoated attempts, it will not happen; this is a case where we would not allow it to happen, lest we accept this, despite what it actually is, a PR article. Once we at all start softening ourselves and compromise "PR republished news" for the sheer excuses that they come from a news source publishing this, this is no longer an encyclopedia, it's a PR webhost, and that's what companies enjoy seeing and attempting. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we don't accept sources such as The Economist, we literally won't be able to have any articles about any businesses on Wikipedia. Perhaps that is what some people want--but it's not in keeping with our current policies. Try to change the policies if you want to, but we can't unilaterally discard available WP:RS because of "PR". Safehaven86 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is established with the consensus of not accepting advertisements and as should be the case of course, then that enables us to remove contents classified and listed as such advertisements. As I've said I including above, and I'll state it again: Merely having a news source is not a basis of keeping, especially if the contents themselves have PR and only information the company wants to says about itself; that exactly fits what the sentence "We remove advertisements regardless of whatever and whoever, at all costs", therefore there is nothing barring us from removing such articles, lest we allow ourselves to become a PR web host. Even then, with this said, we have established a noticeable consensus at AfD with this alone and it's not the end either, because od these same exact articles, therefore there is nothing to change if it's currently happening. To state things even better, the one source above is exactly what the company wants, since it goes to state what the business is, the services and anything else the company and its businesspeople would mention, therefore they have achieved churnalism by hosting it at a new a source. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On "that is what some people want" to Safehaven86 (talk) If we go by that logic or rule here, Economist, Time or major newspaper get published every day or weekly apart from their online version where they write every kind of article that is possible in huge numbers, Wikipedia will be flooded with such articles who get coverage merely as press or just being influential. Wikipedia will become a content marketing hub like any other blog or tech hub like Techcrunch, Inc., Enterpreneur or similar blog who publishes 1000 of articles for such companies everyday. It will mean we should write each and every article with One Paragraph on wikiepedia, They are already there, what is here to write about? We will lose the Wikipedia for its core essence of notability or things that really matters to the level that every child or person seeks Wikipedia because it stands for highest notability or most credible and transparent Encyclopedia on this planet. Such organizations are simply using this platform for their promotions and nothing else. Being popular or having advertised on various media or get covered by popular media does not make them notable. Even people get their Biography published paying to writers, it does not mean each and every Biography stands for the notability. Or simply it does not mean these media are wrong, they are also commercial in one place, so giving them 1 space in a lifetime does not hurt much. Other than credible media is not interested in any of these organization for their significance, as it is clear the way it is covered by such media. On the other part literally won't be able to have any articles about any businesses on Wikipedia. I disagree, my selection of AfD is definitely not Microsoft, Amazon or Smaller significant ones. So Wikipedia will still have many or thousands of notable as they stands. I am not nominating each and every articles written from Tech world. I had to explain here as I think above comment intend on my AfD selections. I understand we can not make Wikipedia as Newspaper, where such company has nothing to write but one paragraph. Imagine what would happen to Wikipedia if they are publishing 100000000 articles only on such companies. It will become another website for Content Marketing. Complete misuse of Wikipedia and its sole purpose. they are not volunteer who are spending their time to make it better, they come here to publish only such articles and go away, even some of them are getting paid as Wikipedia article writing. You can search Wikipedia Content Writer, many will be there. (Please note that It is not intend to you. It is general statement as we already know) Light2021 (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laying off people from company with grand funding and grand mistakes. Articles cites its employee strength with this news (Reference 1). It seems the complete failure and still this company want to brag about it and adamantly wants to use this platform for such degree of promotions. Check the founder page, blatant & highest degree of promotions Draft:Saurabh Kumar. Wikipedia is not a space of dumping high failure with grand funding and laying off people and still getting bragged about the startups you have started. similar grand failure written like a saga PepperTap Leave something worth to be here, than such promotions (it is enough to have Wikipedia page itself). this is about encyclopedia not dumping your grand mistakes to build personal portfolio for the future funding. Wikipedia gives the highest edge for such companies building highest degree of credibility/ notability online which they are definitely not. Even its just a paragraph to write about else Getting funding from A - B- C -D? is there anything else to write about this startup? what they really achieved so far being creation of encyclopedia material. This is not some profile to write when someone gives you money in a huge amount so you can become encyclopedic significant. Let them become significant first to write about here. Whats the hurry? Light2021 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Keep vote is quite thin, especially with only citing WP:GNG, since I have not only laid my exact concerns above, I have stated that no convincing, regardless of whatever or whoever, is a compromise for accepting advertising PR. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Local heroes". The Economist. January 14, 2016. Retrieved 29 September 2016. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Sen, Sunmy (May 23, 2016). "It's Grofers vs BigBasket in the grocery delivery app war". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 29 September 2016. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Prabhakar, Anu (May 25, 2014). "Gone in 90 minutes". Mid Day. Retrieved 29 September 2016. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Shu, Catherine (January 5, 2016). "Indian Hyperlocal Delivery Startup Grofers Pulls Out Of 9 Cities". TechCrunch. Retrieved 29 September 2016.
"Grofers has had a good run so far, aims at operational break-even by year end". Business Insider. July 13, 2016. Retrieved 29 September 2016. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Graduates quietly go home as Grofers turns them away". Business Standard.
"BigBasket, Grofers target eateries to push their private brands". Mint.
"Revoking job offers gets Grofers into legal tangle". The Hindu Business Line.
"Grofers' Kolkata operations headed for a shutdown?". Daily News and Analysis.
"Grofers withdraws job offer to 10 PEC students 2 days before joining". Hindustan Times.

I completely appreciate with regards with references and efforts put from your ends, and I have done the same before the AfD as this might be popular in media or highly funded but unconvincingly non-notable Encyclopedic material as per the highest standards made by Wikipedia itself. We can keep going on writing or mentioning these articles as News source. Read the content of each, laying off people, getting funded, there is a competition, hiring people, firing people. once in a lifetime coverage by The Economist or major media. All these passes sources. Just because they are heavenly funded and can get coverage on major news and have the influence to write about daily operations, does not make them encyclopedia notable. There are thousands of company operations covered by all major media some way or other. Does that really makes them imprtant here? or you just need to be elite and funded to get media attentions. Are any of these articles tells what so exceptional about this startup to be here? Laying off huge numbers or people or getting funded by IIT people? Closing of business operations? You mentioned WP:CORPDEPTH. what about "Depth of coverage" by Wikipedia guidelines. Even we consider all these sources and we Try making an article for Wikipedia with these references. Something hopefully will come up? Operations of highly funded startup who failed miserably in doing business? is this all about it? It can not be more than a paragraph. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not . completely respecting the whole community as a whole and definitely leave the verdict of AfD to community. Light2021 (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis'- Not only are these actually the links currently in the article and searches, but they are exactly what the concerns above have listed, that they contain such fluff and puff as "the company aims at....by year", that's not journalism and nor should it be, because it's exactly what the company wants itself, all of the listed sources have been analyzed above since that's what, is not only offered in the current article, but have been found by our searches; simply because a major news source publishes something, that is not at all actually saying it's news, because the serious depth of churnalism has getting been worse in that news are hardly actually now published without the company's involvements now, because of budget cuts and other financial hardships, the companies then supply their own information; even not so long ago, news was not this deep-fried in company PR, and, therefore, we should not succumb to what's happened to the news media, by then actually compromising and allowing such blatant PR and PR only serving for attention at its clients and customers. As mentioned above, all of the listed links above are simply trivial and entirely uncovincing information such as funding, financing, interviews, company achievements, plans and activities (this is especially noticeable by the excessively specific information of where and what the company is currently initiating, which, as always, would only come from one source, and that's the company itself), republished PR, etc. Therefore, we should not let ourselves be taken by anything otherwise without actually acknowledging the damages caused by these PR campaigns and persistent users hoping to get such unacceptable articles accepted. To then state the obvious, it serves no uses at all to actually relist these sources when I have explicitly analyzed them above including word for word of the worst PR information it contains, this itself is not an acknowledgement or consideration of the said advertising damages. It's easy to simply toss and claim that this somehow satisfy some guideline, but the important one of all, especially as an encyclopedia, is to not accept advertisements or anything about them, which this essentially is, therefore even if we had an acceptable article, which we have not, it would not be acceptable, because that would mean it consisted of advertising and that alone. Something that these companies have blatantly made obvious is that they will go to any ends to start an article, thus that's why they republish PR at major news sources, because they hope and they ultimately obtain freespace for their own advertising, something that therefore is noticeable with these articles, from the sources to information, therefore we must not accept it at any costs. Also, it serves no purposes or achievements for anyone else, but the company itself of course, by attempting to improve this at all, simply by the sheer facts that the current article itself is only advertising information, and I'll actually note the PR sources themselves now consist of over half the article; the minimal information listed as it is? Only what there is to advertise about what the company is and its services, literally, the entire article is a mere 2-paragraph business listing. The fact this is not even a 3 year old company, it shows that they are that persistent and staunch about looking for any and all paths for advertising themselves, they have changed this article itself, but never any actual substantial changes of course, because that's not the interest of a self-advertising company, and nor would it be, because it would mean it's contrary to what the company's thoughts are. There has been consensus here at AfD that India news media is largely notorious about pay-for-news, so that's not surprising when this company is clearly attempting exactly that: PR "news", therefore, we should not accept it lest it come with any such unacceptable attempts as these. Simply see this, this and this, not only has the clear PR information and sources stayed, and thus essentially not actually containing any other actual information (let alone substance of course), a template stating the article is not yet complete, is entirely contrary to the article, since simply some of the paragraphs were removed, yet reinstated with a "needs information" article, therefore there is in fact clearly nothing else to say about the company, and this has been emphasized by my analysis. When a company is that largely noticeable about obtaining and establishing investors and clients, it shows they are not even financially stable or independent thus their needs of seeking and establishing money and capital. When we become a PR webhost by any and all means, we're entirely damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All of the sources I have provided above (with one exception) are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. The exception is the The Economist article, which is not bylined, but this source is also independent, reliable, and provides significant coverage. Also, these articles are not press releases or public relations content, 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. It is highly unlikely that Grofers paid any of these sources to publish these articles. Per the sources, the topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are more than enough sources for this entity to surpass WP:CORPDEPTH standard. Almost all of the sources being reviewed in here are English-language ones; there are many in regional languages as well (mind that top-2 largest circulating newspaper of India are Hindi newspapers, there are 3 in top-5.). Anup [Talk] 15:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. (wrote comment in a flow, meant to !vote keep). Anup [Talk] 15:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

does this even count as a vote? Can you refer any guidelines where commenting below the Keep vote also means keep? Light2021 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Ask at WP:Help Desk for an unbiased opinion.

"wrote comment in a flow, meant to !vote keep -what part of it you did not understand?

Anyway, leave it up to closing administrator for what does my !vote referring to my comment posted few minutes ago constitutes. Anup [Talk] 04:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I highly believe the Delete votes have been cogent with the concerns listed, yet the Keep votes are not being as persuasive or specific about their votes, with some simply stating "Meets WP:GNG", but this is thin since the concerns especially about PR and the PR amount in the sources, therefore suggest there has not yet been enough consensus to suggest clear attention at all. Simply stating that "news" exists but not actually listening and seeing the concerns listed in those news sources, and why there are not as convincing as they may first seem, is also not the same thing as confidently showing us why we should accept them otherwise. I also still maintain that the article has not actually significantly changed for the better since simply some mere parts were removed, yet not only was the PR environment still there, it's actually being emphasized now by piling it and then changing the article to where it actually only focuses with such triviality. None of that can be taken seriously as "significant improvements or showing there's convincing coverage" if it's all simply meant to be swept under the rug and kept as tagged "needing improvements". Once we start being so oblivious and uncaring about PR articles and the advertising intentions behind these, we're completely damned as an encyclopedia that can be taken seriously. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of marginally notable companies. The only purpose for the article to exist is to promote the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh come on, the topic clearly meets WP:N. If you feel there is a TNT case here, then fine. But WP:DIRECTORY doesn't even being to apply here. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are well above the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are NO significant value is added except mentioning same thing again and again. all the discussions had happened. it is mere attempt to save this article from deletion. and this is merely a exercise to extend the discussion. So there will be no consensus an d article will be saved. As done in previous cases. Very dangerous approach to save such articles from Wikipedia. It is to create confusion and nothing else. No Argument to study but just citing sources which discussed in details by contributors. Highly misleading Votes to confuse the closing debate. Done same with UrbanClap debate. Classic case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed Light2021 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanClap[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Light2021 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I thank the user for renominating, as this was and still is advertising; examining all of the sources listed before, at the AfD and afterwards, show it's all about the following: PR, republished PR, news about funding, partnerships, interviewed information, trivial coverage about other company activities and what they think of themselves. None of it came close at all, it seriously should not have been kept because of the overall questionability. The article currently itself is such an advertisement in that it only contains business-listing information about what the company is, its services and who the damn clients and investors are, none of that is acceptable at all, and what makes it worse is that company clearly is avid and persistent about this article since all contributors have been SPA accounts only focusing and changing this article itself. To make matters worse the 1st AfD of mine itself was swimming in clear attempts of employees or otherwise connected people who never, of course, acknowledged the concerns here because this article serves for only one thing and it's an obvious one: advertising. The other Keep votes themselves then actually at least stated there were in fact concerns, but that "fixing would perhaps help", that's not the philosophy we should keep, especially when the deep damages of such advertising actions cause. The "news" articles goes to blatantly contain such fluff and puffery such as "Time to UrbanClap if you are looking for services!" which then blatantly contain interviewed information and other puffery company achievements, then there's another that contains information about free charity activities the company initiated locally, that serves of no interests but to people who become company clients and investors, and that alone, because that means nothing for independent notability and substance here; another article goes as far to contain another blatantly company puffery of "UrbanClap's focus on local services benefitting both customers and service professionals" which then blatantly contains the life story of the businesspeople and company, yet another thing the company and its involved people would only know, and at that, know best. We seriously cannot kid ourselves that any of this is actually significant, substantial, etc. if it all centralizes to company PR and that alone, because no honest media (especially not one as notoriously pay-for-news as Indian news sources) would genuinely add such advertising puff. One thing we have to telling ourselves is "We should never compromise at all about accepting PR even if it's so sugarcoated and republished", because any forms of that happening damns Wikipedia to being a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cited sources meet coverage depth and WP:RS requirements to meet general notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The given sources meet WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The charge that "all contributors have been SPA accounts" is absolutely false. I rewrote the article prior to its AFD nomination, and I am certainly not a SPA. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given my analysis above, there is no depth or substance, because every source is PR in and of itself, it only contains blatant attempts at the company handing "news" to a source to publish to therefore emulate the "happening of news", the articles thenselcds have the crafted and essence of such methods, because an honest journalist would never care or be interested to go to such specifics about the company, lest either he was paid or persuaded for something, which is again the meaning of churnalism itself and the news world is getting worse because of it, therefore meaning the company is taking advantages of it, which is the conception and finalization of the supposed "news" above. Because churnalism continues and is largely becoming utilized by these companies, we therefore have to be careful what we actuslly call news, especially if it's in fact jacketed PR. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- while the article does not have an obvious "promo vibe" to it, in this revised form it offers no indications of why this company is notable or significant. This is essentially A7 material, a brief corporate blurb. The sources offered (entrepreneur.com, Gadgets Now and Times of India), while secondary, are not reliable for establishing notability. Thus, the article still falls under WP:NOT a promo, as the sole purpose of this article to exist is to promote the company. There's definitely no value to the general reader; it's simply a WP:DIRECTORY listing among other unremarkable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Times of India is the third-largest paper in the second most populated country in the world. How is it "not reliable for establishing notability?" The first Times articles may be questionable; while not labeled explicitly as a press release, it certainly reads like one. The second link is to a video produced by The Times. That's quite a bit more compelling. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya! I though we are discussing about UrbanClap? Light2021 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I made an addition to the article, providing a claim of significance in the process (diff). I could add more, but will wait for now; not much point in spending time to improve an article that could potentially be deleted. Regarding The Times of India, which I consider to be a reliable source, it was ranked by the BBC as among the world's six best newspapers (sources: [7], [8]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the "claim of significance" is not convincing at all, as it comes from the company talking about itself:

Wiki article: "In December 2015, UrbanClap was servicing 5,000 requests from customers per day, and had a "base of over 20,000 service professionals."^[1]

References

^ Jain, Samiksha (December 11, 2015). "Time to 'UrbanClap' if you are looking for local services". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 29 September 2016. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Source provided: "Brainchild of IIT Kanpur alumni Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, UrbanClap claims itself as the India’s largest marketplace for local services." The source continues: "Headquartered in Gurgaon, this startup offers services in more than 75 categories across Delhi NCR, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Chennai and Pune. Today, they serve 5000 customer requests per day, and have built a base of over 20,000 service professionals. (...) “UrbanClap is redefining how services are hired and consumed in India. UrbanClap will become synonymous with the word services for urban customers and professionals across the country,” said Abhiraj Bhal, co-founder, UrbanClap."

This is clearly not independent investigation by the news source; they spoke to the founders, they liked what they heard, and they ran the story. If Wikipedia were to start accepting such claims from private companies (as I said elsewhere they could be lying through their teeth) and without attribution, then Wikipedia itself becomes a platform for WP:CHURNALISM. That is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below in the box. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

We can keep going on writing or mentioning these articles as News source. Read the content of each, getting funded, there is a competition, hiring people. once in a lifetime coverage by major media. All these passes sources. Just because they are heavenly funded and can get coverage on major news and have the influence to write about daily operations, does not make them encyclopedia notable. There are thousands of company operations covered by all major media some way or other. Does that really makes them important here? or you just need to be elite and funded to get media attentions. Are any of these articles tells what so exceptional about this startup to be here? getting funded by IIT people? You mentioned WP:CORPDEPTH. what about "Depth of coverage" by Wikipedia guidelines. Even we consider all these sources and we Try making an article for Wikipedia with these references. Something hopefully will come up? Operations of highly funded startup? is this all about it? It can not be more than a paragraph. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper pr platform for such funded startup, they are isusung popular news media by citing them. it is highly misleading and each and every article I went through, nothing but Press coverage, laucnh, Funding, Investments or daily operations! Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not .Light2021 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repeating what I said in earlier AFD

Author is WP:SPA. Possibly a brand exercise by the company itself, violating WP:PROMO. A simple linkedIn search for the company matches the initials of the author with an employee. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The sources quoted by North America are the usual PR exercise that any other new company does to get eye balls ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I commented above; the project should not be allowing WP:BOGOF wasting volunteer editors' time and having articles on non notable subjects in the bargain. This only encourages spammers. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom reasoning Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Switched to keep. I might vote keep. The way its written as of now, it is short and sounded like a short blurp on a company though. I read some of the further reading and possibly should be keep. I'll come back and vote keep if the sources from the Further reading are included. Pyrusca (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrusca: It is a typical standard to provide a reason for deletion when !voting. Check out WP:NOREASON for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding your !vote above (diff); much appreciated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. For example, here is coverage from the First Post article:
Roommates at IIT, Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, had always wanted to solve a really big consumer problem in India by leveraging mobile technology. After graduating from IIT, Abhiraj went on to IIM Ahmedabad, while Varun joined Qualcomm as an engineer. Eventually, they both joined the Boston Consulting Group. While in the US, a common friend introduced them to Raghav Chandra, an engineer at Twitter who shared their vision.
After returning to India, the three realised that the industry of local services had seen no innovation for at least a decade, and decided to focus on solving this problem. UrbanClap was launched in November 2014, in a tiny office at Bhikaji Cama Place in South Delhi, offering services in 5 categories and with 100 partners on board.
The organisation grew rapidly as the team grew from 3 to 35 odd members and, by April 2015 UrbanClap raised $1.6 million in the seed round of funding, from SAIF Partners, Accel Partners and the founders of Snapdeal, Kunal Bahl and Rohit Bansal. At the time, the service offering had grown to 46 categories and 2000+ professionals were registered on its platform.
Barely two months later, as UrbanClap expanded to other metropolitan cities in India, the company raised another $10 million, in Series A funding from its existing investors SAIF and Accel Partners.
This discusses UrbanClap's foundation, history, and products in detail.
The article from Entrepreneur notes:
Brainchild of IIT Kanpur alumni Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, UrbanClap claims itself as the India’s largest marketplace for local services. Whether you are looking for a plumber, beautician, a yoga trainer or a wedding photographer, UrbanClap is a one stop destination for all local services.
All you need to do is place your requirements on the UrbanClap app or website and within short span of time platform will bring these professionals to you.
Headquartered in Gurgaon, this startup offers services in more than 75 categories across Delhi NCR, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Chennai and Pune. Today, they serve 5000 customer requests per day, and have built a base of over 20,000 service professionals – who together represent the gold standard for trusted services in India.
Every month, UrbanClap sends them business worth $200 million annually (current run rate) which include Rs 200 from small carpentry jobs, to a large interior designing assignments worth several lakhs.
This provides extensive coverage of UrbanClap's product. WP:CORPDEPTH is clearly met.
I reviewed the current text of the article and do not find it promotional:
UrbanClap is an Indian online service marketplace that connects customers to service professionals. The company was founded in 2014 and is is based out of Gurgaon, India. In December 2015, UrbanClap was servicing 5,000 requests from customers per day, and had a "base of over 20,000 service professionals" who provide labor for UrbanClap's users.
As of 2016, UrbanClap has raised $37 million in funding from Bessemer Venture Partners, Accel Partners, SAIF Partners, Kunal Bahl, Rohit Bansal, and Ratan Tata.
UrbanClap acquired HandyHome, a Mumbai-based after sales service platform in January 2016.
Cunard (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above mentioned coverage is nothing but Press or Script given to media by none other than company officials. Company is trying to make Wikipedia as platform for their promotions and nothing else. Above coverage does not provide any depth or significance of the company. It only provide the Grand Saga of IIT and Funding from investors, nothing else. Entrepreneur is known to publish articles for funded company of any kind. Merely being funded by Big Investors does not provide any significance to this company. Merely one of those company who got funded in India.And chosing this Platform as Promotions. similar Deletion like Cashcaro.com, Yourstory, Delhivery and many others. These are nothing but self acclaimed prophetic words by company itself. Speedy delete to this articles. Else Wikipedia have to put Every IIT or funded company as pages here. This is not a directory for Funded company. Used merely for promotions. Tone of the articles written on Enterpreneur or First Post is nothing but higher degree of promotional tone. Tonality of articles is definitely not neutral and all is written about the IIT people and their funding, coverage seems like description of products given by the company people. Light2021 (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "Above mentioned coverage is nothing but Press or Script given to media by none other than company officials". The articles are written by independent journalists and Firstpost and Entrepreneur pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; they have editorial oversight at http://www.firstpost.com/about-firstpost and https://www.entrepreneur.com/staff. Cunard (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Formerly delete This page is covered by only three sources. The first source is by a specialist source. The other two sources are national source and don't establish world wide notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. Rather it is based upon available sources. Also, topics are not required to possess global notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classic case of : Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed Light2021 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are well above WP:N. They are what appear to be independent, reliable sources and cover the topic in some reasonable degree of depth (or at least the few I looked at did...) Hobit (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are NO significant value is added except mentioning same thing again and again. all the discussions had happened. it is mere attempt to save this article from deletion. Third time nomination is still proves its non-notability. and this is merely a exercise to extend the discussion. So there will be no consensus an d article will be saved. As done in previous cases. Very dangerous approach to save such articles from Wikipedia. It is to create confusion and nothing else. No Argument to study but just citing sources which discussed in details by contributors. Highly misleading Votes to confuse the closing debate. Light2021 (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It meets our inclusion guidelines. That's all that matters (baring a WP:TNT argument of course). Hobit (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Three Times nominated. Article is Tagged with " Article is Incomplete" - in fact there is nothing left to write about this one. I gone through all the articles or Press cover for this company. Nothing to write except Funding or Daily operations of this company. It has to wait like next 5 years, if that survive that longer, till that time it does not follow any guidelines except blatant promotions and misuse of Wikipedia. If anything to write about it, I would love to write that article instead writing here! That is the reasons such articles get missed for deletion because of unnecessary extended discussions. all the points has been made by contributors very clear. Not even consensus but arguments does not allow this one to get nominated 4th Times in future. Lots of time has been wasted in three time discussions. Nothing is coming out. Except the waste of time. Light2021 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because what we are discussing is if we should include this, so the only thing that matters are our inclusion guidelines. If WP:NOT and WP:N are met, the only things you are left to argue are WP:IAR and it's close relative WP:TNT. Only other option is to try to get those guidelines changed. You are making an IAR argument, which is fine. But it's not going to carry the day unless you get a large majority on board. You have not. SwisterTwister has put together a pretty reasonable IAR/WP:N argument. I don't agree with it here as these sources appear to be reliable. But I've seen arguments that all the coverage is just paid ads pretty often when it comes to Indian companies like this. My sense is that the coverage is a bit more balanced than you'd expect in an ad and the sources are generally of the highest caliber you'll find in India. Hobit (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying I am just nominating these articles merely merely my subjective notion of subject. Where this is the third time community has nominated this articles. And they would have found any reason for this article to remain, it would have been, on each nominations, this articles kept because of long and unnecessary discussion. it make really confusing for deletion process, and this get to keep end of the day. Citing policies does not help. Can you please cite your sources that covered it in a very journalistic way. And repeated one. Not some operations or funding news. major sources write about such startup, not because they are certified media agencies but blog created by none other than such companies to promote such company, building for search results. and now widely being used as Wikipedia citations. which mislead to the contributors also. there is nothing substantial or notable coverage made by any media. Except one coverage which any company can get if they get funded by investors. Wikipedia is not Newspaper, PRhost or directory. The tag is there as this is incomplete. This article has nothing to write except one paragraph. Light2021 (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though not as bad as some similar content, I usually consider any publication on an Indian internet business in a Indian newspaper as being an advertorial , rather than truly independent coverage . The way to tell is to actuallylook at the content in those sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 17 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. I am also not a big fan of renominating an article so soon, but that does not automatically negate the entire process. On the whole, a more compelling, policy-based argument was presented by the delete camp. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2nd Nom - We gave it a chance, cleaned up the refs and gave fair weight to the issues, but it still fails GNG. The news refs are PR-blog interviews or Crunchbase-style database entries; no one has independently covered or referenced Everipedia itself. All but one of the PR interviews are in the blog sections of their respective sites. As funny as Everipedia is, this article is (at the very least) WP:TOOSOON. Jergling (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because I know this is going to come up: Yes, The Daily Pennsylvanian is a WP:RS. No, it is not sufficient for GNG in this case, because it's a local interview with the creators which is about the people, not the product. It has the same issue as the other refs, because the Everipedia staff was directly involved in its creation. Jergling (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Second nomination for no good reason. Article passes WP:GOOGLECHECK and WP:SIGCOV This AFD seems to have been opened for WP:POINTy and opened a few days after it was closed as No Consensus [9] . Everipedia is being used by a number of sources as a News Source, thus showing its notability. This included Yahoo [10], CBS Los Angeles [11], Voices of Detroit [12], News.com [13] , The Epoch Times [14] , Slate.com [15] , CBS San Francisco [16] , CBS Tampa Bay [17] and more. Many reasonable arguments were brought by Carrite , Tomwsulcer , Pwolit iets , GoldenSHK , and Connor Behan , BlackAmerican (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't speedy keep. I'll look at this again in more detail later, but I don't see that the nom meets any of the strict SK criteria. VQuakr (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously bidding to speedy keep your own article, and then canvasing a bunch of users who agreed with you for bad reasons last time so they can come filibuster consensus? Everipedia's Twitter account being quoted in an assorted string of tweets at the bottom of an article, or their (unlicensed) image being the first one that comes up in GIS is not notability, it's just spam. I think this needs to be taken up with the admins. Jergling (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog and Anna Frodesiak also brought forth some reasonable arguments. It's worth pinging everyone I guess, not a selected few. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Arguments from previous discussion still apply. How about letting a year go by before re-AfD-ing this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The interviews are not that bad. Some of them, especially the DP one, regularly interject with statements made by an editor at the newspaper. And there is no evidence that Mahbod or other Everipedians had any control over what passages would be written in between quotations they provided. I am generally against the practice of nominating an article many times in a row until the crowd of responders changes enough for the outcome to change. Waiting a few months and saying "no new reliable sources surfaced during this time" if that's the case sounds like a better approach. Connor Behan (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connor, we don't create an article while we wait for sources to appear, that's not how Wikipedia works. We find reliable sources, and then create an article from them. This is textbook PR cruft, it's WP:QUACKing pretty clearly. Jergling (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different person with my name. But anyway, the sources being slightly more than just interviews was my reason for voting keep. The "let's wait and see if more show up" was only a suggestion for keeping the AfD process civil. Connor Behan (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. All cited is PR puffery, and laughable, too. IMO the previous closure was not based on of analysis of relative weight of arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the 1st AfD had the essence and it ultimately showed this is still not as convincing it would be, especially for substance, and that's of course caused by the fact it's not completely a year old now, therefore it's simply to soon. What was listed as defenses and sources at said past AfD are not actually convincing and are simply attempts to puff the article and mirror differently, something of which can and has been manipulated, and therefore causes troubles. The listed sources and information themselves are then PR-suggestive and that's not surprising, the overall contents suggest enough questionability in that we would be best removing this because there would certainly be troubles aftermath affects from it later, and the claims of speedy keep are entirely unconvincing since an NC is not a basis at all of Keep, since they are contrary, and I would hope it's not simply attempts to keep another nomination from actually analyzing this again, which in that affect is symmetrical with my concerns above. None of this suggests better, and it's quite unlikely anyone can listed any different given what was listed before and, again, the fact it's too soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The sources provided show that it's notable. The same user started this nomination just five days after the last one closed as no consensus. I suggest waiting at least five months before nominating it again. BigGuy88 (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)indented and struck comment by confirmed sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Daily Pennsylvanian article was on the front page of the physical newspaper! it was a huge story. Also Everipedia has been in the press in a lot of foreign countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.64.220 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Staszek Lem that the first AFD close appeared to ignore weight of argument, although I guess DR would technically be the venue for that discussion. However, we are where we are, without any sources that are not PR puff, and none that are reliable and independent. The article creator is still citing WP:GOOGLECHECK when it has been explained to him that has no relevance at all to sourcing notability, and WP:SIGCOV without providing any. Again, despite previous explanations that it has no bearing on notability, he continues to list instances of journalists scraping minor factoids or second hand images from Everipedia, which has no relevance to whether GNG is met (it isn't) and amounts to nothing more than lazy journalists scraping an unreliable source from a web search. I truly hope we are better than that. Selectively canvassing editors who have agreed in the past, as he does here, is also a huge red flag, and impermissible... -- Begoon 07:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the editors canvassed, and I'm glad I was alerted, since I had turned the deletion page off of my watchlist, and I was surprised that it had been re-AfD-ed so fast. So I think the canvassing was justified in this case.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you feel about it being "justified", it violates WP:CANVASS. I commented in the last AFD too, but the article creator didn't ping me here, because I supported deletion. See the problem? Alerting a biased group is prohibited for that reason - it's an attempt to "stack" the !vote. I'll AGF they didn't realise that - now they do. -- Begoon 13:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes maybe all Afd-voters from the last AfD should also have been pinged, but still, given the context, that the second AfD nominator renominated the article so soon after the first discussion was closed -- effectively nullifying the decision to close-the-discussion -- then pinging makes sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's another consideration: if Wikipedia deletes an article about a would-be competitor, whose founders actively criticize Wikipedia (including its contributors and culture), it makes Wikipedia look small and afraid to face criticism. And being small is not what Wikipedia is all about. So let's keep this article, and let Everipedia rise and fall on its own shenanigans (the Everipedia site is slathered with ads -- ugh).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"it's a would-be competitor...it makes Wikipedia look small and afraid to face criticism" are not reasons to keep, and do not provide the notability which this article lacks. Sorry if that seems dismissive, but niceties like that don't even enter the equation when notability requirements are not met - and here they are not. Perhaps the GNG may be met in a year or so, but right now it isn't. -- Begoon 13:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These considerations are in addition to the sources, which meet the GNG in my view, and I think that they have a bearing on this discussion. It may be that some of the !delete views are a result of the criticism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I disagree with the nominator's opinion that the DP (or any school newspaper) should be considered reliable in the context of GNG. That point is irrelevant in this case, however, since the DP also fails the "intellectual independence" test in the same guideline: the website was featured in the paper because the founder was a former student. No other sources presented come close to meeting the GNG reliability requirement, and the keep arguments based on "but they are a competitor" or "some news sources have cited them" are both non-starters since they are not based on any policy or guideline. VQuakr (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all I think the opening of a second thread so close to the last one is a sign of disrespect towards fellow editors by Jergling because it does not take into consideration the time and effort that editors put into their responses and editing. I for one am considering looking further into his conduct if I see such behavior again. As for the article, I think it is notable. Jergling misinterprets our guidelines since a blog does not necessarily disquilify it from being notable purely on that ground. Nonetheless, even if that were the case there are other non-blog sources to be found if Jergling attempted to put some effort into finding it instead of putting all the onus on inclusionists. Therefore his nomination rationale at best makes me sense incompetence in him and at worse may need oversight by a mentor if it continues. Pwolit iets (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Second of all, the opening of the second thread is a mild trout slap to the closing admin who did not properly weigh the arguments. Yes, blog does not automatically disqualify, but most of them are. Third of all, is is disrespect to fellow wikipedians to think they did not try to verify existence of solid sources; where are yours, anyway? Answer: there are none. re: "Putting onus on inclusionists" -yes, this is exactly how wikipedia works: the onus is on those who want some information in. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loser's puffery. No serious independent appraisal. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company (website) and WP:NCORP needs to be satisfied. I do not see that happening here. None of the sources show any evidence of deep coverage. Please note that per WP:CORPDEPTH The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered...Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Please also remember that WP:ORGIND needs to be satisfied - sources need to be independent of the company or its employees. 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 are not considered independent sources. I do not see any evidence that would enable Everipedia to pass the notability guidelines at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete still TOOSOON.

There are currently ~~nine~~ eight sources:

breitbart. ok, really?
bloomberg profile; ok, the company exists. just a directory listing though
Penn student newspaper, writing about Penn alum. hm.
Inc article. Ok, not bad.
Gust - this is a self-listing at a fundraising website -- SPS, counts for nothing toward GNG.
Everipedia's ToU - SPS, counts for nothing toward GNG
HuffPo blog, one entrepreneur highlighting another. Meh. Cited twice; there are only eight sources
Wikibot article on Everipedia ? not independent

so there is really one decent ref (Inc) and you can maybe count another half for the student newspaper and another half for the huffpo blog. No NYT, no WSJ, no LA Times - no major media at all. Inc is a least a pretty serious business publication. Still fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage I can see in reliable sources are from Breitbart (which is more acceptable as a RS the more non-political the topic is), and The Daily Pennsylvanian, which is a student newspaper. Student newspapers can be used as reliable sources, but generally for uncontroversial claims and shouldn't be one of two RSs being used to establish notability. The Inc. article is in-depth, but I can't find anything about that site's editorial policy. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the existing sources discussed above, with the addition of non-english coverage:

"Everipedia, la alternativa a Wikipedia" [Everipedia, the alternative to Wikipedia]. Radio Programas del Perú (in Spanish). 2015-12-30. No cabe duda que Everipedia podría convertirse en una competencia seria para Wikipedia aunque su utilidad dependerá de la cantidad y calidad de aportaciones que hagan los usuarios. [No doubt Everipedia could become a serious competitor to Wikipedia but its usefulness depends on the quantity and quality of contributions made by users.]

that puts it above the notability bar. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The bank is state own economic development bank and has been covered widely by English and non English print media.(non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Export Development Bank of Iran[edit]

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

Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and makes no sense. It claims a governmentally-owned bank is a public company, among other things, including an international reach without indicating a single foreign office. Also, don't confuse this "EDBI" with https://www.edbi.com/, which is the Singaporean company that there are actual news hits on. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a central government bank, and there is a significant probability that because of the systemic regional bias, our editors might have not been able to trawl out regional language sources. From the Central Bank of Iran to scholarly journals, from the National Development Fund of Iran to regional news reports, to Ministry web sites (just search for the bank on Google with site:gov.ir appended at the end), there is considerable material available on the bank. We just need editors to use the regional sources and put it up. Deletion is not the solution. Lourdes 04:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Systemic bias" is not an excuse or synonym for "lack of usable sources." How many users of English Wikipedia can read Farsi and Russian? If they could, what are they doing here? At some point the lengths one needs to go to in order to overcome "systemic bias" are ridiculous. So, no, that's not really valid. Basically, you've found a lot of random web addresses, and that's all. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MSJapan. Please don't take it otherwise. Have you attempted searching even the English sources for EDBI? I apologize much in advance if this sounds otherwise, but I think if you had, even the English sources go against your contention. All the following have absolutely significant mentions of the Export Development Bank: US Treasury, Analyzing divergent perspective about strategic direction in the Export Development Bank of Iran, scholar research, US Department of State review of Export Development Bank of Iran, Iran Business News report on Export Development Bank of Iran, IRNA news on EDBI, GT News on EDBI, The Business Year interview of EDBI CEO, Scholarly article on analyzing customer satisfaction in EDBI, Scholarly article on English speaking amongst EDBI staff, Iran Chamber News on EDBI. My view is that you should not have an absolutely negative deletionist slant against institutions like EDBI which need editorial support to spruce up content. You need to perhaps step back and not ridicule editors attempting to find sources, but rather yourself attempt to search the same before nominating. Thanks. Lourdes 17:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can read Russian, and I take exception to the question of what I am doing here being asked on that basis. Don't you realise that many people can read more than one language? What are you doing here if you think that an encyclopedia should be limited to what has been written about in one language? That is anti-intellectual dumbing down that goes completely against the idea of what an encyclopedia should be. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a statutory body, so WP:CORP is not the right measure. That said, we do need good sourcing, else a decent redirect target - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a statutory body - it's an investment bank that happens to be owned by the government. Statutory bodies are like the SEC - they make and enforce rules; they don't engage in transactions. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as per the US government, and as per an absolutely large number of significant reliable sources ( US Treasury, Analyzing divergent perspective about strategic direction in the Export Development Bank of Iran, scholar research, US Department of State review of Export Development Bank of Iran, Iran Business News report on Export Development Bank of Iran, IRNA news on EDBI, GT News on EDBI, The Business Year interview of EDBI CEO, Scholarly article on analyzing customer satisfaction in EDBI, Scholarly article on English speaking amongst EDBI staff, Iran Chamber News on EDBI), it is a state owned body that has been known to engage in transactions. My apologies for repeating the sources, but I feel given the innumerable number of reliable sources available, the article needs to be improved, and not deleted here. Lourdes 17:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is someone using data taken directly from the bank to write a paper "independent coverage" of the bank, and how does it make the organization notable because somebody used its statistical data? How is interviewing the CEO "independent coverage" when he's talking about the bank he runs? How is publishing a press release "independent coverage" when all it does is delineate a transaction and we generally exclude those from consideration? In short, these sources don't meet WP:RS. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't wish to accept scholarly research reports that have analyzed the bank's operations, despite our WP:RS guideline mentioning "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources", then that discussion belongs to the talk page of the said article and not in an Afd. If you believe that the US Government's multiple advisories lampooning and castigating the Export Development Bank of Iran is not independent of EDBI, I would suggest you take this issue also up on the talk page of the article. I'm not clear what you're looking for. When you nominated this article, you were quoting WP:CORPDEPTH, without mentioning that EDBI is a Central Government owned bank; you also were not in the know of any of the sources mentioning EDBI. Post that, you refused to consider systemic bias, claiming the same as "ridiculous". Post that, you said that I had searched out "random web addresses". Post that, you have dismissed scholarly sources and US government's advisories as being not independent of EDBI.

And of course, you have chosen to not comment on news reports like those in Teheran Times/Menafn (which notes that EDBI is a "policy bank established by an Act of Parliament in 1991" and "continues to perform an important policy role") and others like Financial Tribune which also I have documented above. Why would you wish to delete this Iranian government policy bank article, with such strong delete assertions? I strongly encourage you to first perform a proper search for sources, before nominating this article again. Lourdes 08:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added all sources to the article and now have spruced the same up. Lourdes 09:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure what the issue is. It's a state own economic development entity and it's been covered in the English press and by the US government a great deal. The nom's focus on this agency's article being "without indicating a single foreign office" is irrelevant to notability. --Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet GNG to me. Like Oakshade I'm not sure what all the carry-on is. In the UK non-departmental public bodies have extraordinarily varied constitutions so I wouldn't be at all surprised if this applies in Iran as well. Thincat (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per various comments above. I too cannot understand the nominator's position here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just like we would keep any such prominent establishment from another significant country. There is indeed lots of room to expand coverage. — JFG ^talk 21:52, 29 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) 05:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarnal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence nor claim of notability as a product. No third-party sources. Looking through the history, it's been this way since its creation in 2007 and PROD in 2009; no reasonable prospect it will be improved on its own. Very little in Google, nothing in GNews (which is all people named "Jarnal") and Wikipedia reprints in GBooks. David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to what David Gerard said, the whole thing is composed of primary sources – it doesn't seem to have actually been covered in-depth by a third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Squirrel (talk • contribs)
Delete as an advertisement considering how specific it is, which is common of course, but it's not suggesting anything otherwise better because of if; the sources themselves are not substantial or significant enough to suggest better at all. Overall, because of this, advertising and no senses of notability are sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising and attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from Windows Journal right in the first sentence. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 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 keep. Given the uncontested sources, it seems like notability exists. I'll tag the page as cleanup needed since a number of concerns relate to article quality; if spam or puffery start becoming a problem, protection can be asked for - a WP:TNT deletion does not appear to have consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Basedow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted in April 2015, recreated, speedy deleted, and that deletion brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to overturn the G4 and bring it back here for review. The article history is a total mess. I think I've got it restored to a reasonable prior version, but it's possible a different version would make more sense.

In any case, this is an administrative action only, I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment - Why was the pre-AFD version originally restored? The DRV was overturned based on the new draft. I've restored the article to the version discussed in the DRV.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify, what is the nomination rationale?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this excellent piece of significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times, [18], and of the sources linked in the older deletion discussion, did find this little review of his company in The Star. I don't see the source as very reputable, but he also was nominated for some awards recently here. Ordinarily this would make me lean towards a keep vote. However, since I had trouble finding much else, I'm still torn. I suspect there is some material somewhere that could push the page over the edge and into notable territory, but I myself haven't found it. Yvarta (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yvarta:- Please see the current revision. The revision that was restored after DRV and then nominated for this AFD was the incorrect pre-DR version.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The B. O. B. (Big Orange Box) says: "(t)his biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification ... (its) topic... may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies... (it) contains original research... some of (its)... sources may not be reliable.... (it) contain(s) an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience... a major contributor to (it)... appears to have a close connection with its subject.... (and it) contains content that is written like an advertisement..." 'Nuff said. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KATMAKROFAN:- Please see the current revision. The revision that was restored after DRV and then nominated for this AFD was the incorrect pre-DRV version. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this article having existed almost continuously since 2004, I haven't been able to find a non-stub-length version that A) is even close to neutral, and B) has lasted more than a week before being replaced with spam. (I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong. This is the draft version that got it to squeak past a G4 endorsement at DRV, but it's no exception.) It's abundantly obvious we can't maintain an article on this person that meets our core content policies. Notability is the wrong question to be asking. Delete. —Cryptic 02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: If there's an issue with spam, then WP:PROTECT (which is is used for other high profilem articles) applies. If the topic meets WP:N, is properly sourced, and neutrality alone is the issue, that can be addressed outside AFD.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your version is neutral. There is no neutral, sourced, non-stub version to revert to and protect. —Cryptic 03:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire. Mr Basedow isn't behaving like someone we can work with, so he can promote himself somewhere else.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Does the article or topic have any content issues?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The prior AFD raised issues of notability, sourcing, and wording which the current version that I've drafted addresses. The amount of spam an article does/doesn't receive is not an inclusion criteria. If it's a concern, then WP:PROTECT applies. A lot of these comments reflect WP:IDONTLIKEIT.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, StonefieldBreeze, for all 40 of your edits. I can't help noticing that 31 of them related to John Basedow.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM. I'm not really active here anymore. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fitness figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was just pinged about a new version being uploaded/reverted, and per these three sources, [19], [20], and Exceptional People Magazine, vote keep. I'm not thrilled to be using a publication with the name Exceptional People Magazine as a source, but there are a few others that look ok on there as well. Yvarta (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. No indications of notability or significance; this article exists strictly to promote the subject. The language is puffed up and the article is not neutral. Keeping such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this won't be seen as snarky, but it would take all of a minute to remove the egregious fluff, and another thirty seconds to have it down to a few neutral sentences with the good sources - so being promotional shouldn't be an issue, as we have the power to clean it up, and ban repeat COI offenders. If you feel it isn't notable per refs, that is a different argument entirely, of course. Yvarta (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the LAT piece is indeed RS coverage that was missed last time, but the other new sources are not helpful for demonstrating notability. Given that there are not multiple substantial RSs and that the article is clearly being used for promotion, deletion is the best course of action. SmartSE (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in the Los Angeles Times, Good Day New York (Fox News), New Media Rockstars, Long Island Business News, San Diego Gay and Lesbian News, among others. Are the news sources besides the LA Times not WP:RS? If it's not a matter of WP:N, but an issue with the content, the article should be edited, not deleted.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in coverage from The Washington Post and the Baltiore Sun. There is also coverage in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The topic is a notable figure and there is coverage across multiple WP:RS. The article is a bio that is properly sourced, not a spam WP:PROMO. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject passes the notability threshold with sources such as the ones from The LA Times and The New York Times. There are pro-subject neutrality issues for sure--best known for his "signature washboard abs?" c'mon, not even verifiable--but they don't strike me as so widespread as to warrant blowing up the whole article. There is salvageable material in there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you volunteering to salvage? This article has been promotional spam for nearly twelve years without anyone but paid editors being willing to touch it.
  You should also have mentioned that you were canvassed to this afd. —Cryptic 22:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not volunteering. I am simply offering my view. I came here from a notification at WP:BLPN. The notification could have been written more neutrally for sure, but I don't think it invalidates my arguments. I have !voted Delete many more times than Keep. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After reviewing this article's 22 [as of this writing] inline cites and the 5 entries under "External links", I have no doubt that subject has more than sufficient celebrity as well as notability to remain as a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:48, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplanetary Age[edit]

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

Admittedly made-up terms with no backing from sources. Redirected synonyms should be deleted as well: Extraterrestrial Age, Space Colonization Age, Mars Civilization Age. To the article creator: I understand your enthusiasm but this has no place in an encyclopedia until the subject is seriously studied elsewhere. See WP:My first article and WP:PSTS for hints. — JFG ^talk 15:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If something doesn't have a name, does that automatically mean that it's not important? For example: Someone could discover new living organism, but won't know to what category put it in and for that reason won't know how to name it. Does that mean that the living organism isn't worth reading about on Wikipedia? --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Elon Musk's quote: I think we're at the dawn of a new era and it's-- I think it's going to be very exciting. What we're hoping to do with Space X is to push the envelope and provide a reason for people to be excited and inspired to be human. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pek~enwiki: Nobody said that this perspective is not exciting; SF writers have filled whole libraries with potential stories of space colonization and its implications. Perhaps this is the article you would like to expand? Your new terms for this old concept are being rejected per Wikipedia policy, not per lack of interest about the subject. Please read WP:ENC and WP:NOT to learn about the scope of this encyclopedia, and don't be discouraged of making further contributions! — JFG ^talk 22:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay, I guess I now agree on the deletion process as well. Maybe we should come back to this subject when people actually land on Mars and start civilization and when online sources start seriously considering this a new era, hopefully even giving the era some name we could use. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Notice how the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica makes no mention of the Wright brothers in its lengthy Aeronautics article, 8 years after heavier-than-air machines actually flew. Not a word on the jet set age either, obviously… — JFG ^talk 22:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC) (Well, actually early airplanes and aviation pioneers are mentioned in the Britannica Flight and Flying article, which has not been transcribed to Wikisource yet, see wikisource:Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/536) — JFG ^talk 22:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plenty of deletion causes to choose from here: WP:NEO, WP:CRYSTAL, or simply the utter absence of sourcing. Reports on Musk's aspiring press conference do not confer notability to a term (or terms...) describing the sociological age or era that would happen if he (or others with similar goals) succeed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MADEUP, sorry. Blythwood (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry Pek, it's not notable. Your idea can be real, and I agree with your concept, but WP makes articles to document notable public information, not personal names for concepts. Jergling (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Quantanew (talk) 04:45, 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. MER-C 12:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Craninx[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS77 ^✉ 14:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His club football participation does not make him notable directly per SNG, but he also played for Belgium during the UEFA European Under-17 Championship and now the UEFA U19 Championship. I am not quite sure whether this could fulfill point 1 in WP:NFOOTY. There is also quite some news on him in football related news sources and some Belgien media, if you search with his correct name (Alexandro Craninx) like here: this, this, this. That way he may pass WP:GNG. Dead Mary (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His club football role is not notable, and youth competition is not notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing since the listed teams are certainly not significant enough to ever establish coach independent notability, nothing else from his career is otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:44, 1 October 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 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 delete and redirect to Gastroenteritis. Sandstein 12:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viral gastroenteritis[edit]

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

Gastroenteritis is already a main article with most of the symptoms with it, viral versions of the disease don't need to be explained further as the specific pathogenic variants generally all act in the same way. Thereby it contravenes WP:GNG, i recommend it be deleted. RuleTheWiki (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because the contents of the page already appear in Gastroenteritis, it's basically been merged already. Create a redirect from this page to Gastroenteritis. Also, it reads like a guide instead of an article.
Redirect to Gastroenteritis - this doesn't need a separate article.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:30, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 20:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad J. Lamb[edit]

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

unremarkable businessman, nothing all that notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Subject is not significantly notable. "Weak" because there are a couple detailed pieces on him. Meatsgains (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having your own TV show for three years should qualify. I've added a couple extra refs. - SimonP (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He had his own TV show, sure; he's also had some significant coverage, and though one of the cited links is dead, the Toronto Star, which did a piece just on him, is the newspaper of general circulation in a pretty big city. FalconK (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been added that I believe will refute Nomoskedasticity claims that Brad Lamb is an unremarkable businessman and back up Mr.Lamb's career accomplishments. His page has been the subject of malicious edits in the past. Please advise what else I can do to properly address this page deletion nomination. Thanks! SarahPeru (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My additional sources were removed so I have re-added them into the body of the biography where I found them to be appropriate to back up my claims. Hope this closes this case on whether or not the write up is credible. If you have any additional ideas on how I can make this bio agreeable to those who contend it, I am all ears. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPeru (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article in and of itself currently looks an advertisement, simply listing information about what there is to know about his career, none of it actually amounts to substance or anything meaningfully improvable therefore delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Big City Broker and refactor as an article primarily about the show rather than the person. Even after SarahPeru's efforts, the sourcing present here is still exclusively local to the city where he works, so I don't see a particularly strong claim to passing WP:GNG in his own right as a standalone WP:BLP. That said, however, the show would likely pass WP:NMEDIA — I'm not sure whether it aired on both the US and Canadian HGTVs or just the Canadian one, but it would have an NMEDIA pass as a nationally-televised series either way. So what makes the most sense to me here would be to create an article about the series, which can contain a brief biographical sketch of him as an individual since he was its main subject — but we don't need a full standalone article about him separately from that, because the sourcing here is not impressive, the article tilts in a decidedly advertorial rather than neutral direction, and entirely too much of the content here is still unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep though the idea of refactoring to be about the show is attractive. Plenty of sources and the "local" nature is not hugely relevant when the "locality" is a city of the size of Toronto (and isn't a deletion criteria in any case) Hobit (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for the record, our inclusion standards for certain classes of topic do include a condition about the geographic range of the coverage — corporations and organizations in general, unelected candidates for political office, city councillors, restaurants and local radio and television personalities are just some examples of where GNG is not deemed to have been passed until the coverage either nationalizes far beyond the local media alone, or volumizes to a far greater amount of it than has actually been shown here. In general, the weaker the basic claim of notability is, the stronger the sourcing has to get before "media coverage exists" can become a notability claim in and of itself. And Toronto isn't exempted from that just because it's a larger city than most; Toronto media do still cover local people doing local things of no encyclopedic significance, like local restaurateurs and local radio DJs and local election candidates, so the fact that the local coverage is in the Toronto Star doesn't automatically count for more in and of itself than an otherwise equivalent topic in North Bay having his coverage restricted to the North Bay Nugget.

In this particular case, I remain convinced that the strongest claim of more-than-local notability, the TV show, would be better served by an article about the show than by a standalone BLP of him — the basis for a standalone article about him, separate from creating one about the show, is purely local significance of purely local sourceability. And, in fact, if we stripped all the unsourced advertorial here, all we'd really have left in the end for actual substance is "he exists and he was on a TV show, the end". Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My feedback on the general topic is that the GNG doesn't have anything about excluding local sources. As far as Toronto goes, the greater Toronto area has about the same population as Arizona and has at least 4 of the top 25 papers in Canada, not to mention a remarkable number of small-press papers covering select areas. This would be more like the Arizona republic covering something in Tuscon than then North Bay Nugget covering something in North Bay.

On the issue of a reasonable outcome here, I think we'd be well within policy to keep the article (thus my keep) but editorially refactoring to create an article on the show isn't unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think his show, media coverage, and status as a go-to "expert" on real estate for Canadian media adds up to notability - which extends beyond just his TV show. The article should be kept where it is, but seriously overhauled to make it less promotional. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:04, 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 procedural close. Article was speedy deleted per both A11 and G4. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zook Troys[edit]

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

I cannot find any references to the phrase Zook Troys outside of this article. Certainly fails WP:GNG. Sjrct (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedily so, probably as G3 (blatant hoax). Zero presence in reliable sources, and just as little in unreliable sources. The article's introductory passage is copy-pasted from Koobface (including even the bracketed citation numbers!). I suspect that this may also be intended as an A10 attack page; the name is markedly similar to the operator of a legal investigation service in Colorado. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - see SPI investigation - Recreating articles about hoax computer virus Zuke troy... This is just another recreation as can be seen by the copy/paste with reference numbers still included.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 29 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, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Caruana[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger and author. References provided are mostly faulty and dead; the remaining reference a single article or work at a publication. I can't find references for this person which demonstrate notability for the subject to meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR.

Delete He seems to be a very prolific person, but non of his activities make him notable enough to warrant an encyclopaedic entry. He was an author in a lot of magazines but he never did any significant which would allow him to pass the bar WP:AUTHOR. Some of magazines he worked for were also quite minor. He also fails WP:GNG generally, as there is nothing out there which does talk about him. The article was written by User:Arcaruana, so its not surprising that the article reads like an advert or resume of the person. He even links to his own blog and articles as sources. Obviously WP:PROMO applies here. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially a business listing which then, not only goes to specifics about his career, but then simply has no actual substantial sources, therefore nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 4 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impak Finance[edit]

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

I previously placed a WP:PROD on this page, with the rationale "An article on a new enterprise preparing for launch, with only propositional coverage at this point. At best, too soon to have demonstrable notability." The Prod notice was removed, and the article has been expanded with more material on what the firm intends to do (with promotional prose about "disruptive financial technologies" and "wishing to change the world", which may suggest WP:G11) and the overall marketplace in which it sees this opportunity, but still lacks sources which can confirm that the firm itself has attained notability. Indeed a previous Blog reference has been removed, leaving only the primary source. I am therefore bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

EDIT: I have made a large scale upheaval of the article as of October 2nd, 2016. Comments by myself are also listed below. Any new opinion should take these changes into account. Thank you

ORIGINAL: I am sorry for everything and for creating a page in such a clumsy manner. The corporation itself leads to confusion. While it's funding and activities are completed, it is true that the rollout of products is only partially deployed, thus leaving a significant portion of the article to the plans of the company than it's current business practices. I was given a plan to put on Wikipedia. I am well aware that it is not as 'wikipediable' and indeed too subjective to local standards. It's only my second wikipedia page creation (my first in english). I am also scrambling to get the online access to the sources of the document. Two have been added since this AfD was updated, other are on their way. I would have wished the open-world of wikipedia to contribute, or at least, edit the flaws of the article to make it up to the standards of Wikipedia. I should keep editing it for the rest of the day and tomorrow. If, unfortunatly, the decision is to delete it, I will accept it (I saved a copy aside) and will return it properly for a (better) second shot. Truly.

Thank you

Et443367 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Et443367: noting your comment, "I was given a plan to put on Wikipedia", it appears you are editing on behalf of another person or entity. Please note the obligation to WP:DISCLOSE. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noted, thank youEt443367 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment

I've made a major upheaval, adding two international independent sources to the notability debate. As well deleted the 'self-promotional' prose. Thank you Et443367 (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through your Keep on this one - you've already had one Keep. Only one Keep or Delete per person allowed - anything else has to be a Comment. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks too promotional for my liking. So far as I can see, it doesn't even come into action until next year. WP:CRYSTAL might be worth reading. You say, "I am also scrambling to get the online access to the sources of the document.". This implies to me that you are trying to get things online to prove notability. If I'm right there, that's not how it works. Sources need to be reliable and independent WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Peridon: If I may defend myself here, I was given a tag about notability to which I accepted responsibility and which I applied corrections to the article. Two of the sources are independent reportings by notable Canadian national news outlets: weekly newspaper Les Affaires and national public broadcaster Radio-Canada (french arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). I strongly believe that fits the reliability definition of news organisations listed at WP:NEWSORG and while I did look for it, I couldn't find any minimum number of such sources needed to pass notability (my sole other wikipedia creation, es:TÉLUQ, has only one and has never ever been considered for AfD). As for 'Too soon' aspect of it, the shareholding public offering is happening on October 12th,2016 (in 10 days from the moment I'm writing this sentence), that is non speculative and fits to WP:CRYSTALBALL number one's criteria: ″Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.″ As for the ″scrambling″ aspect of the sources I talked about, they served to cover the ″Market″ subsection of the article, where statistics are displayed but I only hold physical documents (these subsections even had their sources listed directly in the text). I never created any ″source″ solely for passing filters.

While I am open to further review some aspects of the article, especially it's ″product″ and ″market″ subsections, I think deleting the entire article would be counterproductive since the article itself would be left on standby before respawning in less than a matter of weeks/months.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I still want to save the article and put the corrections needed to do so. I am sorry for mistakes I may have made and I accept full responsibility. Thank you.

Et443367 (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for being cynical, but the appearance of an article in the run-up to something only makes me more certain that promotion is the purpose. We get this a lot here: political candidates, soon-to-be released games, Li'l Whoever's next mixtape, oh, all sorts of stuff. As to info in document form, if it hasn't been published then it can't be used as a reference. It's not verifiable WP:V. And if things can't be referenced, they are liable to go. We are stricter on referencing than many of the other Wikipedias, as I have found when seeking references for an English version of an article that was in trouble. This is probably because we have been going longer and have a lot more articles. In the early days of this Wikipedia, they weren't so bothered, and early articles may be deficient in this respect compared with today's material. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some organisations just happen to have their cult following where followers post about their new features whenever they feel they can. Apple and Nintendo are perfect examples of this. I can find myself guilty of this (I do not work, nor am I even a customer of that organisation). But the important aspect here is check if the article follows the rules and I do defend the notability of the page. The valid and independent sources are there. Deleting the entire article would only lead it to respawn in a matter of weeks, as soon as the next steps are achieved, thus rendering the deletion useless (and prohibit other wikipedia contributors to make their own contributions during that timeframe).

I did leave aside in a word document the second part of the article, so to republish it when proper sources will be in order. I just didn't want to see the entire creation be deleted over a single, controversial, paragraph. I feel it is important that this newborn article gets it's chance to live (especially if it does follow all the rules), so new contributors get the chance to add in information as it gets out in the media. It remains, after all, the raison d'être of wikipedia.

We still wish to save this article and make it perfect under wiki rules.

Truly,

Et443367 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a dose of WP:TNT. The article exists solely to promote the business, with such puffed-up and vague language as "...aiming to address social and environmental issues...". Will it cure cancer next? :-) Nothing to salvage here; sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. This is clearly WP:TOOSOON; let's have the company first solve these "social and environmental issues". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article isn't revoltingly promotional, but it is still essentially promotional. This is a WP:RISING bank, but it's WP:TOOSOON as it hasn't even fully launched yet. There's no reason an article can't be made once it starts doing interesting things and begins to receive coverage that passes WP:CORPDEPTH, if in fact that is what happens. FalconK (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author here. I start to get the consensus here and I understand it. I want to apologize for my mistake, I will accept the deletion of this article and learn from my mistake as I get more experience. Truly. Thank you for your contribution and dedication for Wiki. Et443367 (talk) 15:33, 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. Salting can be asked for at WP:RFPP, not quite sure if we have consensus for that yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XM.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article. WP:REFBOMB looks good, but is passing mentions, non-RS or promotional. Was deleted previously for the same concerns. See also heavily edited by banned spammer Euclidthalis. David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent sources, page follows typical PR pattern of [Unsourced, oddly-weighted intro -> Pointless history section -> Exhaustive list of non-notable variants of non-notable products -> Exhaustive list of non-notable awards] Jergling (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At least it didn't have a three-paragraph section detailing their funding rounds - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly "corporate spam" and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt given the 1st deletion and of which is still closely linked to this one the fact it was restarted and it's still an advertising as it once was; nothing here is actually both substantial and non-PR, certainly nothing of actually meaningful improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a trader I can verify that the page had referrals to trading strategies which are not content that would belong on this sort of a page on Wikipedia (They are specialized strategies which not everyone will understand and moreover could lead to loss of capital if used by novice traders) therefore I have taken the initiative to remove them along with Non Notable Awards which I tend to agree with as noted by David Gerard. I don't agree it is corporate spam as noted by K.e.coffman. XM is a notable trading brand along with FxPro, Plus500 so deleting the page would be unfair in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.119.67 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Notability not established in the in-passing mentions, routine business announcements given in the article. The meat of the article is the self-promotional sports sponsorships. This only serves to add a veneer of legitimacy to the scheme by listing the regulatory agencies etc. and the history is apparently part of a broader effort to fleece gullible victims of binary options scams, uncovered at WP:Conflict of interest/noticeboard#Offshore trading companies, regulators and promotion agency (permlink). Also note lack of community enthusiasm for the likes of Forex Brokerz as RSes at RSN here. - Brianhe (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bappa Lahiri[edit]

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

Strong Delete-Article Is too non-important to be mentioned in Wikipedia!!!

No reliable (if any) source exist about this person!!!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 12:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The obstacle here is not so much locating sources, but trying to determine which Indian music and celebrity news sources could be considered reliable. There's no shortage of Daily Mail-esque reporting of his wedding (including, literally, by the Daily Mail) but I don't consider that to speak toward notability. This Zee News review seems at first glance to be a reliable source. I'm marginally accepting of this one; on the other hand, it is a bylined article originating with an industry wire service and there are currently quite a few other articles citing the same site's reporting. This short article is less certain still, mostly because I'm unable to determine if the site has any declared editorial staff or policy. Given the background here, I simply cannot imagine that Indian media haven't covered him in greater depth as well, but I'm limited in my ability to search for those sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is justified- A strong background is no criterion for a person to exist in an encyclopedia (like WIKIPEDIA)!!! I have searched a lot for his contributions/notable performance in any field(music etc.)The searches have drawn a blank and the only news available in WP:RS (except his songs in "Jai Veeru") are of his lavish weddings,his background etc, !!!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: for India related topics, you can try custom search engines listed at WP:INDAFD. They mostly turn-up sources considered reliable by WikiProject India. Anup [Talk] 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot keep an article with one, non-reliable, source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: apparently fails WP:NMUS and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. not independently notable. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a completely unsourced BLP which is not acceptable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 8 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, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Tan[edit]

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

Lorna Tan is not a notable person. This looks like a resume Mohann Jasturba (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are tens of thousands of people in similar or higher position than her in Singapore.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:JOURNALIST. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially a job listing with there being no actual significance for an article from the listed information, the sources are also not substantiating any claims for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 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) 05:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Huizenga[edit]

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

Non-notable sports individual, viz WP:SPORTCRIT. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completly irrelevant player in lower tier junior ice hockey leagues. He has not achieved anything notable. He fails WP:SPORTCRIT and specifically WP:NHOCKEY in all points. There are a few passing mentionings on him on some non-notable webpages, but its not enough to pass WP:GNG. Most of the article is pretty much trivia, especially the lead. It should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKY as well as GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding any evidence of notability, either through receiving significant coverage nor from meeting WP:NHOCKEY. Even if this subject was notable, the article would need substantial revision as it currently reads as a resume. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring the word in bold type before every statement and purely evaluating the strength of the the arguments on all sides, I see a clear case for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperfry[edit]

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

A company employee asked me for help about removing the advert tag but, because of the overly noticeable PR and its PR sources, I was certainly not going to remove it; in fact none of the listed sources are both independent of actually containing substance and then non-PR information. The article goes to every single specific there is to talk about the company, from its history, to its business and local activities, to its services and then to its PR partnerships and awards. None of it is improvable beyond convincing, especially if not only the listed sources being said PR also, containing only information about the company's investing, clients and business and financial achievements, my own searches of News and local news media are mirroring this, by having a noticeable amount of PR, republished PR, interviews, financial statuses, named mentions of other companies and people, etc. None of that is acceptable, and I'll even note this was deleted over 4 years ago as advertising, and then afterwards as a housecleaning G7. As always, simply because a major news source is listed means nothing if the contents themselves are PR and that alone, focusing with the one thing mattering to a company's clients and investors: advertising. Something else I will note is that the history shows only one thing and it's quite noticeable: company employees changing it and, in fact changing and adding since the article started in 2012, and that all suggests this is only serving as a business listing and nothing else, which is therefore unacceptable and is not open to comprimising at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - note the source analysis, with which I concur. This article is an excellent example of a WP:REFBOMB - the sources look good until you actualy check them - David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because passes WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All issues with this article can be fixed by normal community editing. Here are just a few starter sources of the indy/rs/sigcov variety:

Pepperfry expects to break even by 2018-19 by Gireesh Babu in the Business Standard
Pepperfry raises $31M to expand its online furniture sales business in India by Jon Russell in TechCrunch
Pepperfry raises Rs 210 cr funding from existing angels by Madhav Chanchani in The Economic Times
Pepperfry to open 10 more concept stores by December by Arushi Chopra in Live Mint
Pepperfry loss jumps three-fold in 2014-15 in gadgetsnow.com
Pepperfry launches experience store in Hyderabad by Varsha Bansal in The Economic Times

Now if this AFD goes like previous ones, the nominator will now respond to this !vote with a long-winded rant that again shows they do not understand what significant coverage is in relation to a company or organization. Go! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are unlikely to convince. The nominator understands the issues with the sources, as do I, and it appears you do not. Your refbomb doesn't actually convince in any regard - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - It WAS a clear case of WP:REFBOMB, but I do not think it is not notable. A quick search shows us that it definitely satisfies WP:CORP and WP:GNG. It only needed some heavy pruning, which I think I have managed to do. All PR sites were removed and now it only contains links of national dailies and op-eds and interviews. So, I think, it is fixed for now. However, I agree with SwisterTwister's concerns of companies and brands who create articles here just for promotional and advertising purposes. The worse are biographies of clearly non-notable persons. But, I personally feel, that deletion is not always a solution when we are trying to create an encyclopedia. This article, moreover, needs monitoring for at least few weeks for fear of edits by COI and spammers. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This fails to address the problems described in the nomination, i.e. even as revised, these sources are all PR - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"these sources are all PR" does not make sense. In that case, is everything about a company, which is available online and on which Wikipedia partially (and heavily) depends on, PR? I do not think so. In such cases, where the web is infested with PR, it is wiser to be selective and create an article which only mentions it as an entity, as a tiny speck of existing Indian brand. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 12:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adding, if sources like this, this in The Economic Times, this in TechCrunch, and a market report do not point to its notability and rational argument for the article's stay, then I do not know what we are all doing here. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am new at wikipedia. Is there anyway I can help improve this wiki? Tanyeezy7 (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Sources are mostly typical PR spam (This section of Times of India looks like the Forbes spam blogs) but if it's actually India's largest online outlet for something, that could be notable. On the other hand, canvasing editors to grow your page points to very little independent interest. Jergling (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The significant concerns here are, 1, the fact the company has blatantly and openly used this article as a business listing and, 2, the fact that I specifically statdd: All sources I found were PR and that alone. It is quite unlikely anything else can be found because it's all fluff and puff, the listed sources above are that alone, and that's because I found then earlier myself. As such, there is not timeset for watching this article because the own company has been using it since the beginning and they even asked me last night to "simply remove the advert tag", now with all honesty, they at least stated how the article can be improved, but that in fact is unlikely because there has never been a clear case of a company actually willing to say no to advertising, worse in this case of course, and the fact of the sources clearly showing it, it's all information the own company wants to you, not what independent people should hear. In this case, also, the fact the quote minimal of all this is in fact both guaranteed as substantial and then non-PR, the company is noticeably eminent with its advertising campaigns. This article itself was, again, deleted as advertising befpre, and that says enough alone. Once we become a PR web host, including with any compromises, this encyclopedia is damned. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points, but I don't see a constructive solution for this, other than scrounging the web for sources which are non-PR. I found few, which I have stated above, but still, there is all possibility that they could be PR. There's even a report which mentions the brand to be a leader in its niche. There's really no way to know for sure, now is there? It saddens me that the company has explicitly tried to use Wikipedia as a bulletin board and even asked you to do certain things. However, deleting pages because we are sceptical about a brand's sources despite it being a notable entity will result in a repository of information that is continuously losing its content due to the dawn of an era where companies engage in digital marketing. If we begin deleting pages and content like this, then soon we will be doing this for all popular companies, organisations, people... There has to be an alternative; just it's not been found yet. Conclusively, I still feel that the article should be kept as a basic (stub) article with only its primary info on the table. Monitoring pages have always been a battle, and we all know that. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, it looks like 99% or even more sources available for this company is either ROUTINE coverage, or PR or reprint of the same. Still I managed dig out some sources that in my opinion do make a genuine claim of notability for subject under discussion: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Anup [Talk] 17:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The claims of "if we start heavily deleting company articles", we'll then start deleting all major companies, that's too far-fetched, and no one is actually saying that here, because globally major companies would not dare be so blatantly advertising like this one, so they cannot actually be compared. Now, as for the sources, the first one above is in fact still thin since it's only a few paragraphs, still not substantial enough; next, the Forbes is in fact the life story of the company and businessperson, so that cannot be fully taken as actual substance, the article itself goes to specifiy where its businesses are located and the specifics about that, that's advertising, because like everything else mentioned in this article, it's all business information only the company would know about itself, so that makes matters worse. The BusinessToday is also rather blatant with advertising intents because it goes to specifics about what the company's thoughts and plans are, and also then goes to contain interviewed information. The last one, Times, is in fact some sort of advertising analysis about one of their company advertisements, and it's only a few paragraphs long (that's also if you're counting the bulleted information parts), so that's also certainly convincing. The Keep votes, after considering and noting all of this, make no substantiations or other convincing comments how and why we should not consider deleting a blatant advertisement and of which has persistently stayed and been used for exactly that, simply because "improvements may help" or "sources exist". Therefore, these few sources listed above not only come accompanied by the acknowledge all of this is still PR, everything from the article which includes its history, actions and overall essence being advertising, there's enough suggesting this is in fact best deleted, lest we become a compromised PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, that's slightly counter-intuitive, when Wikipedia guidelines themselves demand that sources have detailed info about the organization in question. And when it does have, it is mistaken to be PR. Going through your comment, you are contradicting yourself at times. Initially, you are arguing that "...the first one above is in fact still thin since it's only a few paragraphs..." and thus cannot be used; your next statement "...it goes to specifics about what the company's thoughts and plans are..." Isn't the latter what we call extensive coverage by news media about organizations? When a CEO of an organization gives an interview, you call it PR; when there's an independent op-ed about the company, you call it PR; when there's news about funding and investments, you call it PR - branding everything as PR and only that just because someone contacted you to get an advert tag out of the page is "wishful thinking" and not productive. If that is also seen as crooked advertising, then we will never be able to create a page about a corp here on Wikipedia again. In that case, like I replied to David above, everything about the company there is online would be PR, which does not make total sense. You dismiss my concern about deleting all pages about organizations as far-fetched. But, then, what basis do we have about the companies/startups that are coming up right now, which will become notable in the future? When creating articles for them, what sources do we use? Because, as per your claims, any source that mentions "...the life story of the company and businessperson...", "...where its businesses are located and the specifics about that...", and "...the company's thoughts and plans are..." to name a few are blatant advertising. We will never know for sure if a company is slyly engaging in PR and developed advertisement. I understand your angst regarding this article because an employee contacted you, but its fate should not hang upon your mercuric reactions. Again, reading your comments, it also looks like personal vendetta to me as in "how can an employee contact ME?" That is justified, but let's not vent that ire on an article, which is of public interest. I and other editors have already shown enough samples/sources showcasing that the company IS, in fact, notable enough to have an article. I agree that some sources are PR, but can't the article be pillared on those which are reliable and verifiable and ARE not PR. Considering that the ones voting this article to be deleted are only participating in branding each and every source as PR, I do not think that's enough material to delete this page. You are repeatedly using the phrase "a compromised PR webhost" to conclude what would happen. Can't I now tell you that THAT is too far-fetched? Basing your forecast on a one-time event? Finally, and I never use this tone, this discussion looks like an aggravated windbagging by a reputed editor because someone had the nerve to contact him to get a tag removed from a page. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores, and playing with a page (any page) is not a game. We are creating an encyclopedia here. If we give in to the intention of this discussion, I do not know what fate other articles await. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 07:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that all of the sources, although thin, are still unusable because of the contents they could contain which are PR. We ourselves have knowledge of what some of the obvious companies are initiating to have paid advertising and articles here, it's been noticed here at AfD, and thus, allowing such advertisements to stay including by saying they can somehow be improved, is still allowing these said advertisements. We become closer to a PR web host if we therefore allow any of them to stay or anything similar, which is why deletion would be needed. Also, satisfying that that's the expected information and therefore acceptable coverage about a company is in fact not acceptable, because that said information comes from the CEO, who of course is there to advertise the company and that alone, anything he says will of course advert-like and certainly are not words coming from the news source or journalists themselves. Therefore, it is not far-fetched that, each day, these advertisements are submitted and, at times, unfortunately accepted by users who are not experienced, that damages the encyclopedia itself. The claims that this article has in fact PR sources is a factual of course, yes, but we cannot accept it alone with the few acceptable that may exist, because it's still unbalanced weight and would still not be enough, given that nearly over half of the other contents would be nothing but PR, that's not quite an acceptable article therefore. To the "we will never know what PR plans companies have" is exactly why we should minimize and eliminate any PR we find, lest we should find the worst cases of these. Given my analysis above, what still stays is the concerns of unconvincing PR and PR-coated sources, which in fact are not usable because of the questionability. Something that we are noticing deeper and deeper is churnalism and the entire news media has been affected it in that companies are involving themselves in what is supposed to independent coverage, but it's affected by news media cutting budget costs, therefore it becomes company-supplied information. Also, I never said anything at all that I was out to remove this article and there's no need to make any such presumptions, and it's still contrary of what I stated in the AfD nomination above, but if I am out to remove something, it's a blatant advertisement which serves no other purposes than said advertising.SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a corporate blurb with no indications of notability or significance. The sources listed above are routine, PR-like coverage and are insufficient to establish notability for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia works to an academic standard and accepting marginal sources and such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : A lot of promotional content has been removed and the topic itself is fairly known. Many reliable sources have covered it, e.g. here. Coderzombie (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also, the article has been heavily copy edited after being nominated for deletion, as per the page's Revision history, and does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Pepperfry: Virtual bait for offline buyers". Business Standard.
"Goldman Sachs Bets on Indian Furniture Startup Pepperfry.com". The Wall Street Journal.
"Online furniture retailing finally comes home". Forbes.
"Kissa Kursi Ka". Business Today.
"PepperFry looks for a crowd-beating formula". Business Standard. (subscription required)

Comment -- indeed, the cuts were massive to get to a semi-neutral state. Here's another edit (after cleanup): diff. I'm concerned that, if the article is not deleted, nothing would prevent the article from reverting to its prior state and again volunteer editors's time would be wasted copyediting it or bringing it back to AfD. Accepting (now or formerly) promotional article on subjects of marginal notability is not in the best interest of the project. This is due to both promotionalism inherent in these articles and the potential time sink. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting articles in entirety that attract promotional edits, various types of page protection can be requested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the vast majority of COI editors are not IPs; they are registered accounts and would not be prevented from editing a semi-protected article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - Not only are 80% of the links listed actually repeated, the different ones are in fact still PR, in that they blatantly show what the company's own thoughts and plans are about its business, therefore this is churnalism in that the company simply supplied its own information for its own news, thus it's not independent and it's certainly not convincing. The other Keep vote above which states a Google Search link simply suggests looking at the, which I in fact had....in my own searches and I saw all of this was trivial news about trivial funding and financing, something I explicitly noted above in my concerns, so the vote of Keep simply citing news is not the same thing as actually convincing us why and how we should keep this with said sources. This BusinessStandard article actually goes to then blatantly list what the company's plans are, something not only the company itself wants to mention, but the only one who would ever know about said plans.; this same article goes to not only start with a flashy enticing image, it goes to start stating quotes only the company itself would say, therefore we cannot taken it convincingly or seriously. This especially is emphasized when this exact article goes to say "He hopes to have the company at $1billion. And profitable", that is not only blatant PR but it's also advertising to anyone interested, such as clients and investors, because no one would actually care to say that unless they wanted capital and financial gains. With this said, the thin Keep votes, especially the ones simply tossing links, but not actually caring to acknowledge the concerns in said links, because this BusinessStandard article goes to continuing stating "servicing the customer" and then finishing with the number of carpenters they employ and other information about that. Therefore these Keep vote still cannot honestly state that we can keep this article when all of the concerns have been stated here and they are facts. One of the above comments says that it can at least be heavily trimmed to nearly nothing but goes to actually then acknowledge that we are battling such articles and we "know it", so that's exactly why we should be better about not allowing sugarcoated PR such as these sources here, merely and unconvincingly suggest they may be enough. None of this is both independently substantial and then non-PR, therefore we cannot automatically and simply alone take it as acceptable sourcing because of where it was published, because with the contents themselves PR, it may as well have been a company press release, because those were clearly the intentions and actions of this. See ""We have set up our system in such a way that customers don't need to wait more than six hours to set up their furniture," explains Shah. And this is where their competition with Ikea will come into play. The Swedish company, whose basic mandate relies on DIY (do-it-yourself), will have to contend with a massive customer base, who are learning to live the non-DIY way. At a ticket size of Rs 18,000, Pepperfry sees profitability coming by the end of 2016. But for that the company will need to keep expanding its community of buyers." which is an obvious attempt at not only showing what the company has and is saying about itself, but to end the last sentence with basically "it's searching and hoping to establish buyers so it can better its company income", the fact that, as before, it explicitly mentioned about said company hoping to achieve $1billion; we are not an advertising platform and we should not allow ourselves to become one especially with such blatant PR. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The sources I provided above are all bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources, and they all provide significant coverage. 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. These sources qualify that the company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NorthAmerica Pwolit iets (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A comment is not bearing the same weight if it simply says per the user, especially if the comment is not actuslly starting their own thoughts and concerns at least, the fact analyses have clearly shown the stated and serious concerns above, an article cannot be simply "thought to be perhaps notable". Because my analyses have been staunchly and clearly listed, no one here has actually adequately challenged them, because I have in fact shown the concerns of these PR sources, and if it's PR in and of itself, there's nothing separating that. Once we become a PR web host, bring used to host PR campaign articles, we're damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes yes, you are on a crusade to fix a Great Wrong and Save Wikipedia, we know. And every keep !vote here is not convinced by your arguments.~~ -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the comment immediately above is not in compliance with WP:NPA. I believe it's best that we keep the deletion discussions civil. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: striken, and continued on ST's talk page. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, ugh what was this? a newspaper ad? the language is so promotional and basically acts as bait to the reader. refs are of the same note. delete. Pyrusca (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. Regarding the article's prose, When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you appear to be being deliberately obnoxious. This is not how to convince people of your case in a deletion discussion. You know better; please desist - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, my comment is pure and entirely good-intentioned. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Prose can be easily edited in Wikipedia articles, and articles are often edited while being discussed at AfD. For whatever reason, you're reading into my post entirely negatively, but its intention is entirely positive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The templated suggestions do not appear to be appropriate in deletion discussions, as they come across as condescending (pls see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I've seen this done at least twice by the same editor, and I would echo DG's suggestion to please avoid this practice. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When the RSes are clearly running blatant churnalism, as they are here, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Agree with deletion of article. Another Highly funded, all news coverage clocked within the realm of misleading notability standards. Script given to media to write about themselves, their operations, investor relations and nothing else. one of the thousands heavy funded statup and nothing else. building wikipedia for its mere pseudo notability creations. Light2021 (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfixable promotionalism , and I am unsure if there are enough good sources for it to be notable in any case. The indian advertorial sources are not worth considering as reliable sources for anything at all. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are pretty bad. All the stuff in Economic Times is blatant redressed PR. Every single other source that I managed to look was using quotes by the company employees as story sources (which doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND). More importantly this is WP:PROMO and should be deleted. Saying that promotional content can be fixed and putting the burden on volunteer editors is counterproductive. It is essentially encouraging the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. We don't want a WP:BOGOF situation. Once Wikipedia becomes a medium for promotion it loses its relevance as an encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Promotional content can always be toned down, and it has been a default activity ever since Wikipedia came into being. All arguments based on the idea that toning down content is counterproductive for the editors at large is not fully exposed to the realities and limitations of an open encyclopedia. Do consider WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:CABFIX. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What cannot be cleaned is when an advertisement is solely that, and therefore it's something to delete, not attempt to keep and "see if improvements can happen". Once we start questioning ourselves about that, we would overquestion everything in that case, causing excessive damages overall. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, the article hardly looks like promotional to me. Some of the sources are, but the article, per se, is not. We are not questioning ourselves, but our intentions. Best, Nairspecht (talk)

*Delete. that we even consider articles like this is a compromise of WP:NOT. Looking at the article even if its cleaned up state, it's clearly a rather minor company that has managed to get some articles in Indian newspapers, and I consider none of them to be RSs for N in any field at all, as they are all very willing to print advertorials and press releases. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:30, 13 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. MER-C 12:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Qodir Jaelani[edit]

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

Limited sources. JLOPO (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Keep~~ (Struck the Keep comment; see comment below) The nominator has nominated this article for Afd primarily as his speedy A7 tag was rejected by me. There are innumerable RS on the subject, and the subject presumably easily qualifies on GNG. Of course, the discussion on whether the subject qualifies on GNG can continue in this Afd.Lourdes 07:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician who mainly gets attention due to family ties.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:37, 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 04:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created by a sockpuppet of a user who was blocked at the time. If not for the significant edits by other users, I would have speedily deleted it per WP:G5. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be nice if a neutral editor can take a look at the article in its current state with 20 or something sources (of course, not all significant, but some are), and take a call. Lourdes 03:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist, source analysis needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I took a neutral look through the English language sources, he would appear to me to be a son of a notable musician, but not notable in his own right XyzSpaniel'Talk to me 19:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xyzspaniel, and thanks for the inputs. As there are 24 total sources and English sources are only 5 or so, I am wondering if there is someone who can check through the non-English sources too. But I had another query. The following English sources seem to provide a non-trivial and substantial mention of the subject: Jakarta Post, 2nd article from Jakarta Post, Yahoo Singapore, Jakarta Globe, another Jakarta Globe article. The subject seems to qualify on WP:BASIC in my opinion, purely considering the English sources. Of course, there are the other 20 non-English sources. He is a famous rocker's son, which all newspaper's quote, but the newspapers at the same time also discuss the subject at length. What would be your inputs on my BASIC query? Thanks in advance for your comments. Lourdes 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lourdes I took a look through those articles and again they all seem to introduce the subject as "the son of" rather than himself having any significance. We really need someone to look at the Indonesian language articles for their view of this too. XyzSpaniel'Talk to me 09:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xyzspaniel, thank you for taking the time to review. I'll also follow your advise and try to see if there's someone with Indonesian language familiarity. Lourdes 09:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I know nothing of the subject. However, a simple search of online news sources normally considered reliable and independent show that there are none that I can find. For example, top listings in google are the Wikipeida article in question, some youtube videos, pintrest, etc. I cannot find any measure of notability that we use here. I admit that I am not qualified to review the sources in the article so I will assume good faith with another individual's assessment. If they are found worthy, feel free to strike my position in this AFD. I won't be insulted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO / WP:TNT; even if the subject were notable, there's nothing in the article to suggest that: none of the acts he was associated with are notable, and there are no other indications of significance. Then there's section on Car crash, which is just tabloid trivia. There's nothing in the article that's worth keeping at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed my Keep to Delete post the various comments of editors here. Lourdes 16:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I have said from the beginning. JLOPO (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is patent WP:NOTNEWS material. I am also concerned about the BLP aspects: the subject is a 16 year old and I don't see significant coverage about him apart from the accident. The subject doesn't inherit notability from his parents articles of the accident itself. I don't see any claim of significance here either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:23, 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. The keep arguments have not addressed the concern about lack of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Security[edit]

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

Borderline spam; little to no evidence of notability, and lots of product information. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it doesn't seem to have decent sourcing which could be used to improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete spammy, and too many of the claimed references don't even mention the company (when they're not dead links) - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being quoted for a sound bite doesn't count as notable independent coverage. This article looks like it was added at a time when WP had looser enforcement of notability. Jergling (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To the extent that the company is mentioned in the offered references at all, it is almost exclusively because the article quotes Gadi Evron as a cybersecurity expert. Notability is not inherited, so even if there was deemed sufficiently nontrivial coverage of Evron to make him notable, that wouldn't confer notability on Beyond Security (especially since many of the news agencies are probably interviewing Evron on the basis of his prior position with the Israeli government). I haven't had much luck finding appropriate sources that directly address the company itself. The closely related SecuriTeam article is as problematic, if not more so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete It is hard to understand most of the presented comments here. Reductionism and issue conflation seem to be omnipresent. For example the word "spam" has a clear definition in the security industry and even among common people. It is used liberally without regard to the meaning. Moreover, while it is reasonable to point out marketing material, it is not OK to fault a company for simply explaining what they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:322E:6980:287E:41C5:22E5:39C7 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete more up-to-date external links have been added. In the next few days we will refresh the company's description, it is considered as one of the leaders in the security testing space and a contributor to open source projects. The company has a real impact on the security research field as well.
- It's not really about whether the company does useful work, so much as whether they meet the criteria laid out in WP:CORP and WP:GNG for notability. It's often the case that a company doing a lot of useful work will receive coverage in reliable 3rd party sources, and when that happens, an article about the company (with context, rather than just an overview of the fact that the company exists and carries on business) can happen. FalconK (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 6 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, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ascertia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Borderline spam; no evidence of notability. Cleanup tags unresolved since 2014 re. lack of external sources. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS per nom, all self-published or partner-published mentions. Jergling (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. The article barely makes even a claim to notability. The "awards" are merely industry certifications, which do not constitute awards by any stretch of the imagination. The PC World article provided as a reference has only the barest mention of the company, and is not significant coverage. Efforts to find other sources were not fruitful, as almost all the apparent hits are to press releases or verbatim copies of press releases. A handful of sources appeared facially interesting, but were authored by Liaquat Khan, the company's technical director, and so are not independent. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and Salt as not only was this deleted in 2011, but it was speedied twice before, this is advertising and it's still being persistently tossed here; none of the listed information and sources go anywhere else than the expected: company information about what this is, the services, who the clients and funders are; nothing here is both substantial and non-PR, and that's enough to delete altogether. SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 29 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, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appthority[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The page only says that they are a startup and have a product and some funding, really. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - funding rounds aren't evidence that a company warrants a Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as this is essentially a business listing, mentioning only the company specifics such as who they are, what the services are and who the clients and investors are, along with the sources consisting of exactly this. This is advertising and there's nothing improvable beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 17:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim nor evidence of notability, beyond getting what is now (alas) considered very modest funding. Suspect the vanity article on its princaipal Anthony Bettini might also be marginal, but one step at a time. W Nowicki (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:47, 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) 06:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anubisnetworks[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and advert tag in place since Dec. 2014. Most information is unsourced. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - blatant advert and bad sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- reads like an ad for the company, no substance or indication of notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I quite frankly consider this speedy material because the only nearly significant claims are "best known for....", that's hardly convincing especially when fused with the other blatant information, which is going to specifics about the company and its business, and then the equally PR sourcing. None of this is improvable and nor should it be if it's all PR-based for a company interested with PR. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Predominantly a WP:SPA article on a firm which has now been acquired by another (which has no article, so no redirect target). Apart from the acquisition announcement and a previous PR piece about participating with other firms in a security action, I am finding little beyond a brief mention in a multi-product review [26]. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tagged as advert for two years, seems enough time. Bitsight might get an article some day, but do not see any worthwhile material here to merge. W Nowicki (talk) 22:39, 29 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 Speedied (WP:CSD#A7) by Ritchie333. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aloaha[edit]

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

No evidence of notability is given, and a cursory search doesn't yield any. A notability tag was removed in June without actually showing notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 29 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 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 282 Commonwealth Electoral Act[edit]

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

A bunch of semi-incoherent bullet points on a non-notable subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is a bunch of semi-incoherent bullet points. It may be on a notable subject, but if it is notable, it should be covered in an article about the broader topic of Australian Senate elections rather than just about this one section of the law. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The bullet points appear to be an attempt to complain about the 2016 non-application of the section without any background explanation. A more coherent (but arguably still disproportionate) bullet point has been added to Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 by the same user that created this page. A briefer mention in that article would be justified, and also possibly in Double dissolution. -- Alaric004 (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is still under construction, hence the bullet points. I expect it will be too big for a section on the CEA page. I have expanded the article with some background already. This is going to have legislative outcomes, and I expect we will have a referendum on it some time in the next decade if it is not resolved prior to 2019.

Do we have a broader article about Australian Senate elections? Scott Davis has also suggested an alternative place to host it, but the title he suggested seems a bit cumbersome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 08:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 article has a small section about a range of amendments in 1984 including this one. The section should be expanded to show all that changed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a lot of material. Hopefully that is enough to show it should not be deleted, and also that it is too big for a subsection of the CEA article. I realise it still needs citations, some more detail in certain areas and the text doesn't flow well. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen. I am still open to finding it a new home, but I do not prefer any of the alternatives suggested so far.

To whoever makes this decision, please note that there are a lot of vested interests in keeping this quiet. The various media outlets do not want to advertise the fact that their incompetence was so beneficial to the major parties on this issue. The major parties are still benefiting from this and could have a tough 3 years ahead of them if more people find out key facts, such as the 1998 and 2010 bipartisan Senate resolutions that destroy any legitimacy in what they did. I expect this will become a campaign issue in three years time, and we will eventually have a referendum on it. Allowing whoever controls the Senate to pick and choose the method that hands them a few extra seats every time we have a DD election is not a viable outcome. How anyone could describe this as 'non-notable' is ludicrous.

I think that this is the reason for some of the unusual justifications put forward. Drover for example nominated the article for speedy deletion. In justifying this, he acknowledged that it does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. He invented a criteria - 'unremarkable' and 'part of a massive piece of legislation'. Are these the invisible sixth pillar of wikipedia? I see the same here: 'non-notable,' 'disproportionate' etc. I think people are not being entirely honest here. If you are not honest with yourself about how you feel, your emotions will control you, and your actions will appear inconsistent and irrational. It is OK to feel annoyed or angry about this, but it will never get resolved if you do not say what is really bothering you. Our democracy is important. You are not powerless to make this right. Oz freediver (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if there was a "controversy" surrounding the 2016 election, we have a number of articles relating specifically to that election that should cover any controversy. There is an article on the senate for general stuff about the senate that could include history of how long and short terms have been allocated every time the entire senate has been elected (including the first). There is an article on the Electoral commission and an article on the electoral act with a section for each major set of amendments, and this section appears to have been introduced or changed in the 1984 amendments. The content currently in this article would need a lot more citation and reduced bias to be acceptable. I've removed the worst of the fluff a few times, and noted some areas that need references. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the point about citations, and am happy to work on making it appropriately neutral. I think the facts speak for themselves. You asked for a citation on this particular comment "However, in the 2016 election, in all of the six states, all six full term seats were allocated under the order-elected method prior to any Senate candidate being excluded from the ballot (and having their preferences distributed). The Australian has since made their article inaccessible." I assume you want a reference to the seat allocation procedure, not to my inability to access the article on the original website. The only website I am aware of that explains this clearly is my own, but I understand I am not allowed to link to, as that would be a conflict of interest. You can sort of figure it out from the wikipedia article on the Senate results, but only if you do the maths and know how to interpret the info there. I can't imagine they would be happy if I started rearranging their tables of results to prove this point. Oz freediver (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It needs either the full citation to a newspaper article (many libraries would have one), or a citation to the claim that News Corp/The Australian has completely eradicated an article that described it, if that is relevant to the topic. Hansard is a primary source, but would definitely describe the decision about the allocation, and it is likely that all major news papers and web sites would have reported on it. But that is relevant to the 2016 election in particular, not in general to the clause in the act that offers an alternative allocation method that was not used. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, waaay too specific. Should be able to be covered quite adequately on the Electoral Act page. The creator might want to read WP:NPOV - it's fine to have strong opinions about this (I have them myself), but not fine to edit with the goal of pushing a point of view. Frickeg (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that wikipedia pages were supposed to avoid being 'too specific'. Is there some rule that no-one is telling me about?

I am also not aware of any rules covering people's goals or motivations for contributing here. As far as I know the rules only cover the content submitted. Oz freediver (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule about goals or motivations, but there is WP:NPOV about the tone of the content. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:17, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lassana Faye[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 by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:19, 29 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) 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no fully pro matches played Spiderone 08:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may be notable one day, currently isn't. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 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. Despite a good-faith rewrite to remove the promotional nature of the earlier versions, there still appears to be a rough consensus that the sourcing is insufficient to pass the notability bar since many of the sources lack independence or reliability. Other sources are not about Spelman but rather refer to her for commentary. Lemongirl942's analysis in this matter is comprehensive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Spelman[edit]

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

Wholly promotional article. Does not pass GNG. References are not significant. Created just to promote. Variation 25.2 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if notable, WP:TNT on this - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC) changed, see below[reply]
Speedy Delete please as this is essentially PR for her works and career, not one piece comes close to being both substantially significant and non-PR. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that pretty much all the text is by SPAs - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I prodded this last year soon after it was created but it was reverted by the initiating editor and has no improved much since then. However, I was never really happy with its notability per David Gerard. ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG; obvious advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails GNG and advert. - Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SlimVirgin has done some editing, so you may want to review your choice. ww2censor (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- hmm, that's vastly improved. SlimVirgin you think she passes notability muster? - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - David, it's borderline, but I think she does meet GNG, though there's clearly a strong PR element. She appears fairly regularly in the media when they need a quote from a psychologist (Google news search). There's an interview in The Independent [27]; a mention in the Los Angeles Times of her research for Spotify [28] (I assume based on a press release); a column in The Huffington Post [29]; a couple of BBC radio interviews (e.g. from 01:40:55); and several television appearances. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - yeah, it's clear one of her most important professional skills is PR. But she's probably actually a known name, yeah - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep SlimVirgin has applied the requisite TNT and the article is now readable and makes its notability point! - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is good at getting her name out there but there are still insufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion. The sources are SPS, directories, or passing mentions. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the rewrite by SV, I believe that additional discussion is prudent. joe decker ^talk 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Still fails GNG to my view. While SlimVirgin and others have improved this vastly (from the previous glaring-promo version), WP:GNG expects that sources cover the subject directly. For GNG to be met, we would therefore ideally see external sources dealing with the subject. Directly. Instead what we mainly have (as was evidenced by the previous "list of articles mentioning the subject"), is a bulk of trivial coverage. The only external source that seems to cover the subject directly (and not just refer to the subject indirectly while covering another subject) is the Nenagh Guardian article. As article however pretty much says "this local person will be on TV", I'm not sure it supports a notability claim. Not that satisfies GNG on its own in any case. Personally I wonder if this is just WP:TOOSOON. Upshot: Delete - w/o barrier to recreation if reliable/non-trivial sources (that deal with subject directly) are later published. Guliolopez (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Still feels like spam, no offense to SV, given that the sources are spammy, I don't see a way around it. But... yeah, the mirror source is a fine one and the rest are enough to push it over the bar. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak abstain. I can't say with confidence that the coverage satisfies GNG (or any other guideline), but it is significantly more than mere passing mentions, single-event coverage, or self-promotion. Between the relatively wide spread of news outlets that have cited her as an expert reference on psychological matters, including the Independent interview cited by Slim that covered the subject personally and not merely as a source, as well as the modest coverage attending her Fright Show debut, I think it would be best for the article to be kept (or at least incubated in draft space). However, out of reluctant deference to our guidelines, I abstain. Rebb ing 13:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SlimVirgin's good work on the article. From Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
The Daily Mirror article here provides substantial coverage of the subject. This article from the Nenagh Guardian provides three paragraphs of coverage about the subject and notes "See the full story in this Wednesday's issue."
The Independent article here provides two paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The Los Angeles Times article here provides two paragraphs of coverage about the subject.
"[M]ultiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", so Rebecca Spelman passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Cunard (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here are SV's edits. The sources that were added were:

puffy interview - Jessica Elliott (11 January 2016). "How to get that job: Dr Becky Spelman, psychologist", The Independent
discussion of a "study" she did for Spotify to come up with a Spotify playlist that "can help reduce the anxiety associated with fear of flying" (I am now vomiting) - Tracy Brown (28 May 2013). "Stressed out? Here are songs that soothe a traveler's soul", Los Angeles Times.
listing of her columns at HuffPo. - "Dr Becky Spelman", The Huffington Post.
passing mention (a clause) in an article about a Fright Club episode - Richard Reid (1 June 2015). "Can you cure a phobia in three days?". The Daily Telegraph.
to support the previously unsourced content that she is on the Gadget Show: an episode of that show on vimeo - "Dr Becky Spelman on the Gadget Show", Channel 5, courtesy of Vimeo.

If this article is kept we should be sure to mention that she saw fit to give an extended quote providing psychological insight to the Daily Mail about why female celebrities are adopting "fish gape" at photo ops (ref). Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not happy with the sources. I expect there to be reliable secondary coverage and the quality of sources needs to be better than some trashly tabloids. Jytdog's analysis above makes sense as well.

"Dr Becky Spelman" at Huffpost Written by her, so not independent
Telegraph passing mention and the column is written by her co-celebrity on the show
Nenagh guardian 4 sentence coverage (< 90 words) brief coverage. Not sure where is the full story and how long it is.
Daily Mirror Sensationalist tabloid. These shouldn't be used for notability.
LaTimes Brief promotional coverage about a "study" and little actually about the subject. (This looks like a redressed press release sent by Spotify, what with all the links in it)
3 minute interview "The Independent" Primary source (subject talking about self)
Daily mail Tabloid report. Another "study"

There's isn't enough secondary coverage in reliable sources which substantially discusses the subject (and I personally think this is TOOSOON. We expect high quality sources for BLPs. It is also very clear that the subject is good at promoting themselves and some of the references reflect that. I would have swung to a keep if I would have found some significant secondary coverage in a reliable source. But I don't see any at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promoting professional, getting the usual coverage her PR agencies are able to obtain. "Commentators" always get mentioned whenever they appear, so the bar for accepting sources in this field is and should be on the high side. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The fact that the subject appeared on a show does not overcome the lack of independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. If the article is purged from the WP:PROMO content, there won't be much left. Sample:

After obtaining her doctorate, Spelman provided cognitive behavioural therapy for the South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust and for Harley Therapy, a private practice.^{[third-party source needed]} In 2011 she set up her own practice, the Private Therapy Clinic in London.^{[third-party source needed]} As of 2016 the company runs an additional two clinics in London and two abroad.^{[third-party source needed]}

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - she is notable enough. The subject has appeared on National TV in Britain several times, including a stint as co-host of a reality show. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

appearing on national TV several times is not bare notability, is 's lack of notability . DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source in a national source and doesn't establish world wide notability. The second does not establish notability but just verifies her status as a clinical psychologist. In the third article she is basically an author, the article is basically by her not about her. The fourth source is trivial coverage about her, do we have an article only anybody who has conducted a piece of research? Huffington Post is the fifth source, but it's just a link to her having an author page not articles about her. The sixth source isn't even national but sub-national, do I really need to explain that one? LinkedIn is used as the seventh source, that does not establish notability, almost anyone can make a page on that. The eighth source is primary. Her being on a TV show is what source nine is about, but just being on a TV show does not establish notability. I removed the source that was previously the tenth source as it was probably a copyright violation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:02, 14 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Beat Bully[edit]

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

It fails WP:GNG as well as WP:MUSICBIO. It clearly lacks the possibility of WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Believed to have found to fail WP:MUSICBIO, but not GNG. It only cites trivial sources as well. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 03:36, 29 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. Per sources later provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betony Vernon[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no references, and the "links" do very little to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ARTN. Rebb ing 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. purely promotion, written by admitted paid editor,[30] Accomplishments not adequately documented. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/comment - Hmmm. The article is definitely not great, and whoever did it clearly isn't worth what they're being paid if they can't do it properly - but I'm not so sure that the subject is not notable. There are a great many references to her in various books, magazines and news articles, in various languages. In addition to a number of promising media sources, she was interviewed at length by TIME magazine, which is a pretty good indicator of notability, and there is commentary at the beginning on her career. I am intrigued by all those non-English sources on her - they seem to mostly be in Italian. But searches for the person does indicate that she could possibly pass GNG guidelines, so I can't jump on the delete bandwagon - although I've no objection to the article being deleted and then recreated properly. Mabalu (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has it's issues. Regarding notability there are many articles that have more than trivial mentions. For example [this article] and [book coverage] go well beyond trivial mention. With the large number of sources that go beyond simple mentions of her as an example author/designer/anthropologist it satisfies [WP:BIO] Gab4gab (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The article does need work. Between the references recently added to the article (as a list of links, some admittedly not good sources), Mabalu & Gab4gab's cases above, and my own Google searches, it does seem probable that there's at least the minimum level of notability. E.g. NY Times article on her Murph9000 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the following three pieces clearly satisfy GNG:

Colman, David (August 23, 2013). "Betony Vernon's Guardian Angel". Fashion & Style. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 27, 2016. Retrieved September 27, 2016.
Cavanagh, Alice (May 28, 2014). "Designer Betony Vernon Likes Long, Hot Baths With Her Lover". New York. Archived from the original on September 27, 2016. Retrieved September 27, 2016.
Berry, Allison (February 13, 2013). "Q&A with Designer, Author and Sex Educator Betony Vernon". Style. Time. Archived from the original on September 27, 2016. Retrieved September 27, 2016.

It appears there's more, but this is enough. Rebb ing 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate sources presented SST flyer 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NYTimes, Time Magazine, Vogue, and the fashion, art, and entertainment worlds disagree with your assertions re: notability. Hmlarson (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep work shown at V&A and several other museums satisfies WP:ARTIST4b. Mduvekot (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As pointed out, press releases are not typically good evidence of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zank(app)[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline. Creator removed the PROD tag from the article and DGG declined an A7 speedy deletion request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.zank is famous gay dating app in china ,you may refer these Chinese press release 2.男同社交软件Zank完成数千万元B轮融资 http://money.163.com/16/0525/13/BNTR65LS00253B0H.html 3.New gay dating app Zank denies copying Jack’d format http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/new-gay-dating-app-zank-denies-copying-jack%E2%80%99d-format030613/ 4.Zank is a Slick Chinese Friend-Finding App for Gays https://www.techinasia.com/zank-slick-chinese-friendfinding-app-weird-users 5.it has iOS app store download link:https://itunes.apple.com/cn/app/zank/id636497016?mt=8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how any number of press releases shows notability. Not everything with a ioS download link is notable, The Telecrunch brief notice says explicitly the app was not significant. I declined the A7 because there were apparent references, but I admit I didn't translate the Chinese. From the google translation, it just says they received funding. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G11 - no refs, just a link to the website & the itunes download link - that's blatantly an advert. Cabayi (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11, appears to use external links as sources. Use <ref></ref> in the article 86.22.8.235 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 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. No consensus on a redirect, but certainly delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palos Verdes Peninsula News[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a community newspaper in a small suburb of a larger city. WP:NMEDIA does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to all newspapers that exist -- a newspaper still has to be the subject of reliable source coverage to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and does not get a "no sourcing required" freebie just because its own self-published website or an online archive of its issues nominally verifies that it existed. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find some reliable sourcing about it, but nothing in the article right now is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this paper is at all impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 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 09:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom. No independent coverage cited nor found. MB 04:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worthless article given the absence of citations, although a Wikipedia search shows that this article, or a redirect to someplace that discusses the topic, is needed. Delete as per WP:DEL7, with WP:IAR added as WP:V is a core content policy, and our readers deserve articles that satisfy our core content policies. Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California Digital Newspaper Collection as the subject is mentioned there; Palos Verdes Peninsula News is part of the collection; here's a sample page: link. I cannot find RS at this time for a stand-alone article, but worth redirecting. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, Unscintillating, MB -- what would you guys think about a redirect? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect would be particularly useful since the target doesn't say anything about this paper except that it existed, but I have no objection either. A similar situation came up recently with Bahía del Duque where the AFD result was redirect to a list also (you may remember you voted for this). But User:Doncram turned the list into a table so a sentence or two could be added to each entry. That would be good here too. MB 03:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? SST flyer 02:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 02:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No redirect as the paper is not covered at all in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least. I'm looking to see if this can be improved. There's a chance it could be. This one may just scrape by. Karl Twist (talk) 05:13, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuantGlass[edit]

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

Article is almost completely unsourced and not much else out there to verify page's content. Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's absolutely no mention of this term anywhere but here. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems promotion and speculation. If it ever really happens the concept might be notable some day, but so far seems at bets a neologism in early and limited use. W Nowicki (talk) 18:04, 6 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) 06:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Life Records[edit]

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Label has some length of history, but it does not have a significant past or present roster of notable artists, so it can not be established that the label has had any level of cultural impact. It then follows the label does not meet NMUSIC#5. It also does not meet GNG. I couldn't find anything reliable/independent in a search for sources. There are two independent sources, Bloomberg, which is only a passing mention and even then is somewhat ROUTINE, and HipHopNews, a dead link, but even assuming this was a beautifully written in-depth piece by an independent journalist, would not help meet GNG because it would be only a single instance of in-depth, independent, reliable coverage of the topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. The official website is dead and the label's social media hasn't been updated since May 2015, which makes me think that it no longer exists. Given that there is almost no past coverage and it looks like there will be no future coverage, sources are going to be difficult to come by. It appears that Rodney Stepp might be the only artist on the label who might pass notability, and even then his article is clearly a self-written and unreferenced promotional bio, so it's hard to tell whether he actually is notable or not. Richard3120 (talk) 15:15, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardekar Manjappa[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is this 222-page book about the subject published by a university press. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Given the time-period during which subject lived, majority of sources are supposed to be available in print. Still, in addition to book linked above by IP user, there are quite a few more books available on Gbooks and some English-language sources here. Anup [Talk] 17:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. I've just noticed, per a comment at deletion review, that an admin who closes many deletion discussions thinks that opinions that don't have a bolded recommendation with them should be ignored, which is obviously against policy, but I'd better give that bolded opinion in case that admin comes along to evaluate this on the basis of vote counting rather than the content of arguments made. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets GNG per sources presented at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:58, 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) 06:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gino DiSimone[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. There's very little substance, with the entire article consisting of three sentences summarizing his campaign planks — and as for the sourcing, two of the references are to a patents directory, one's to Ballotpedia and the rest are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaign itself. While it seems that one campaign plank got him a bit of wider media attention than anything else did, a sentence or two about that campaign plank in Nevada gubernatorial election, 2010 is all that's really needed — there's just not enough meat here for a standalone BLP of him to be warranted separately from the election article. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few news blurbs on him regarding his "pay to drive faster" program, but its nots very substantial (mostly non RS blogs) and can be classified as WP:SINGLEEVENT. Other than his failed candidacy there is nothing on him out there (including his "inventions", having a patent dos not make one notable) and he fails WP:GNG directly. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable under WP:NPOL being an unelected candidate. A WP:PSEUDO bio otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 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) 06:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Ibsen[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, in a city not large enough to carry its city councillors over WP:GNG (that distinction only goes to major, internationally famous global cities, not to places on the order of Tacoma.) This is sourced almost entirely to primary sources, like his own profile on the city's website and a set of committee meeting minutes -- there's just one piece of actual media coverage here, and it's an overview article of the entire city council election in an alt-weekly. So it's not a source that can carry a city councillor over GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete members of the city council of Tacoma are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as not only is he not actually notable as a politician, this also then is formatted like a job listing, therefore suggesting PR concerns, there's nothing at all close to suggest this could actually be accepted and improved, because there are in fact no improvements to his career information. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 4 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. The sources provided are apparently insufficient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Ships[edit]

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

Band with questionable notability-no reliable sources either Wgolf (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and that article could be something ya know, roman potentially. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my band. See ^[1]
^[2] ^[3]^[4] I am in the process of setting up the page. Is there a problem with what is up so far? 21-gattinara-24 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thank you for contributing and engaging in discussion, 21-gattinara-24. Wikipedia policy requires that subjects have received substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the subject. For bands, that really means that recognized sources of reporting in the music industry need to have written about the band before this project will retain an article about it. I've done some cursory searching, but cannot find anything that satisfies that requirement; indeed, because there's also no credible claim of significance made here, this could be subject to the project's rapid-deletion policy at the discretion of the administrators (WP:CSD#A7). Should this ultimately be deleted, creation of a redirect to Roman navy would be a matter of editorial discretion, as Roman ships currently redirects to that target. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Here are few things, possibly helpful. The previous incarnation of this band had more press / notoriety etc. Sinkingsteps Risingeyes. ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] 69.63.8.151 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 21-gattinara-24 (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I appreciate the list of sources above, but the only one I think might count as being a reliable source is paste, and that coverage is just too limited. So delete per WP:GNG but please feel free to recreate as more sources become available. I'm a bit surprised you don't have coverage in local papers given the Paste article. Some people count those for less, but a nice in-depth article on the band, even in a local paper, would put me on the keep side. Hobit (talk) 12:41, 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) 06:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Dorrier[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable mainly as a county supervisor and as a government bureaucrat. The county supervisor role is not one that gets him over WP:NPOL, so his includability is entirely dependent on sourcing him over WP:GNG for the bureaucratic job -- but there are just two sources here, they're both stacked on the county supervisor role, and they're both deadlinks. This is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply being a county supervisor is not enough to qualify for notability, especially when there is no significant coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:31, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR, as it were. Didn't go for a softdelete here as the two sources provided by Izno may indicate notability, but there is not enough discussion for a keep close, especially given the caveats accompanying the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apprentice (video game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable freeware game. Coverage of this game is almost non existent and the only references to it are download links. There is no reliable source which ever did a review or even looked at this game. It has been created with an open source game-maker software. The "price" it won was a non notable award by the organisation which created the game-maker software. The "company" (not an actual company it seems) of the game has been defunct since about 10 years after it created 4 similar freeware games (and their WP-page has been deleted by an AFD too). The article fails WP:GNG therefore. The game also fails WP:NVIDEOGAMES too, as no significant (the 2 'reviews' of the game in the article are on blog-like non RS sources) coverage of this game exists. The only thing which comes close to that is an extremely short 4-sentence blurp on the borderline-RS Adventure Gamers website. There was a previous AFD 10 years ago, but they never established actual notability by our guidelines, and it seemingly went to 'keep' because editors apparently expected this game and its sequel to become much larger. Dead Mary (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable sources from WP:VG/S for the game online are this review of the sequel and this news bit of the re-release. No comment on notability. --Izno (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 29 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 Mark Hoppus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing and Nobody[edit]

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

I created this page some time ago when it appeared this artist might be more active than they turned out to be. In the end, they released one song and have unceremoniously fallen apart. Deleting the page seems like an inevitability at this point. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, doesn't really make WP:NMUSIC. Is there a suitable redirect target? - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Hoppus may be feasible as he's the only one with a Wiki article. Otherwise, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 19:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hansanarayan Bhattacharya[edit]

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

The article has only one reference, which is apparently to the book of the subject. This means that, technically speaking, this is an unsourced BLP. I tried to find sources myself, but search in English does not give anything significant. May be a Bengali speaker could have more luck. Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article fails WP:BLP; if the decision is keep or no consensus, reliable sources must be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies on WP:AUTHOR ("The person is regarded as an important figure OR is widely cited by peers or successors.") Bhattacharya's widely held and archived work is expansively cited across decades in Bengali literature.Page 153, Page 15, Page 17, Page 55, Page 321, Page 3, Page 19, 324, 365, Page 60, Page 311, 322, 324, 325, 326, 341, Page 38, Page 229, Page 228, [31], Page 19, Page 8, Page 286, 399, Page 487, Page 160 and many more like these... Wikipedia articles like Chhinnamasta reference the work of the author. If anyone's interested in reading his work, you can check out various of his books archived at the Indian Government's Digital Library of India (maintained by the Indian Institute of Science).[32][33][34]. Lourdes 17:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After the edits by Lourdes I believe that the article passes WP:N.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements & new sourcing. However, the last sentences has a bad case of overcite. Perhaps it could be corrected, by moving some refs into Further reading or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right K.e.coffman. I don't want to lose the sources (really had to work double time to search them out), at the same time the way it looks is exactly how you describe it. Any suggestions are welcome. Lourdes 13:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spot-checking the references did not find non-trivial coverage of the subject, required for WP:GNG, and even the 20-reference overkill for the claim that he has been widely cited does not come close to what would be needed for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @David Eppstein:, would you check the subject's notability on AUTHOR rather than GNG or PROF, none which I've referred to? Also please note the nominator has themselves changed their !vote to keep and confirmed the subject's notability (presumably on Author). Thanks. Lourdes 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was improved with reliable sources. Revision required at last paragraph. Jessie1979 (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the two keep votes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looky Looky[edit]

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

Unsourced, undefined notability, unprecise text (gold disc - where?). No such page in Italian Wikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Giorgio Moroder, song does not have enough notability to justify it's own entry, the Moroder article basically has the same content about this song, the text is accurate for gold disc, and I added sources to verify the content since it was unsourced.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is now better sourced and it explains that the work is both important to Moroder's career as well as distinct in sound from the rest of his works. --Bensin (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I already voted above): The article meets at least two criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings: a) "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." (Yes, it charted in at least three countries.) b) "The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country." (Yes, it was awarded a gold disc). --Bensin (talk) 16:51, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Carla Francesca Monticelli[edit]

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

non notable author. The book claimed to be a best seller is actually selfpublished, and has a total of 6 copies in worldcat libraries. The scientific publications are trivial. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been addressed once already and there seems to be some confusion that Rita Carla Francesca Monticelli is not only a self published author as the International Thriller Writers Organization only accepts authors with at least one book published by a recognized publisher can join, in Rita's case her novel published by AmazonCrossing. This is a formal publisher not self published, where Amazon translates and covers the process of publishing as a regular publishing house. Ericlklein1776 (talk) 1:58 pm, Today (UTC+3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericlklein1776 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it remains true that the translated book is almost totally unknown, and I don't think has any reviews. Even if we accept that all the works are not self published, she still is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mentor (translated book published by Amazon Crosssing) book was a bestseller on Amazon, it has over 1,100 reviews on Amazon US. also there is a news article showing it being on the top of the Kindle store in US, UK, and Australia -

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2015/10/11/il-thriller-italiano-che-conquista-inghilterra-e-usa46.html (Italian) Ericlklein1776 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment The 'International Thriller Writers' organization membership requirements do not categorically bar self-published authors from full membership. At the organization's website their position is summed up with

"Self published writers are not automatically excluded from being a qualified publisher, but they bear a higher burden to demonstrate their status."

— Neonorange (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to have coverage in Italian, especially if you search on variations of her names. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 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 00:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can add quite a few additional interviews and articles in Italian: The Big Thrill, the web magazine by the International Thriller Writer Organization http://www.thebigthrill.org/2016/01/the-mentor-by-rita-carla-francesca-monticelli/ Additional interviews about her books can be added from Wired and Tom's Hardware, was not sure if these were considered relevant. Ericlklein1776 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep Stub until article can be rewritten with new sources identified below.There are no independent sources in the article and I can not find evidence she passes GNG or NAUTHOR. Based on comments above, she has only one non-self-pub book. Jbh ^Talk 02:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Changeing !vote based on new sources. See my comment below. Jbh ^Talk 19:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as no WorldCat holdings and essentially nothing else to what would've suggested a better convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, she does have a small WorldCat holding. Updated to include additional references, articles about Rita, and interviews with Rita. Added in her teaching authors and her being a guest at both the Turin International Book Fair and Frankfurt Book Fair (both with a reference). Added in details about how she was noted in Wired Magazine as one of the 10 best Italian independent authors. Currently getting translation of article where she is noted for having sold 200k copies of one of her books.Ericlklein1776 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a Google News search indicates notability (I don't speak Italian so I can't really check the entries), e.g.: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those look like good coverage in RS. One though is a blog review and the last one looks like some Amazon promo. I think she will squeak by GNG because of the coverage she has attracted as a successful sulfa published author rather than passing NAUTHOR. Changing !vote to weak keep but I would be happier if someone were able to incorporate the sources. Jbh ^Talk 19:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above are already incorporated in the article (except one that is less relevant). Also notice this one from La Repubblica (one of the biggest newspaper in Italy) [40] which is already included in the article. There are also more from notable magazines (Tom's Hardware and Wired) in the references.Chee74 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian 'Jaws' Wright[edit]

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

There is already an article on this fictional character at Vivian Wright, part of which has been copied and pasted into this one. Also, this article is unsourced. APM (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Vivian 'Jaws' Wright[reply]

Merge/Redirect - I don't care which of the two articles becomes the main one. AfD is not necessary regardless. It looks like this "Jaws" article has a little more information than the non-jaws version, so if making this the redirect, merge it first. You can always redirect without an AfD, you know. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a fictional character like any other article needs to have reliable sources, neither this or Vivian Wright have any so both may need to be deleted. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The article does not establish notability, so it is not necessary. TTN (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Vivian Wright should also probably be deleted; I tagged it with "In universe" template. The merge/redirect is unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 9 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, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skilljar[edit]

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

small company creating training courses, The articles are jist notices about funding anad a self serving interview with the proprietor DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Seattle Times article is a good start[41], but needs at least 1 more significant writeup in a non-trade magazine, which I'm not finding in my searches yet. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this is WP:TOOSOON; virtually every source is just about them raising money to do things that might make them notable later. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly promotional. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tilottama Majumdar[edit]

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

No indication of notability. WP:MILL Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR, as a recipient of Ananda Puraskar and the Kakkanadan award[42] amongst others. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable to me. Anup [Talk] 18:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:11, 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. MER-C 12:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Njord (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. No evidence of notability presented, all coverage appears to be promotional. Smartyllama (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is there a single worthwhile source anywhere? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is clear A7 material - why was it relisted? FalconK (talk) 06:03, 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 Speedy deleted. per WP:A7 by Euryalus after being tagged by K.e.coffman. This is a procedural close, so I am going ahead and closing it. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Fish Baby TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Just some random YouTube channel, no evidence of notability. Smartyllama (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, non-noteable Youtube channel. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no claim of significance here and a total absence of coverage in third party sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- A7 material, with no indications of significance nor sources. I requested speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 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 keep. If anyone wants to merge I have no objections however overall consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyr (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are multiple valid merge targets: Týr, into which it could become an IPC section, or List of Forgotten Realms deities#Faerûnian pantheon. This is a longstanding option currently codified in WP:MUSICBIO point 6. (...and one of the reasons that N is not a policy, FWIW) Merging to either one would create a situation where the other potential merge target was inappropriately shorted. Tyr, the Norse god, is unquestionably notable, of course. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is even the point of this argument? Merge to both or neither. It doesn't really matter. If we're in agreement to merge/redirect to some potential target, I'll gladly withdraw it. TTN (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that N is not absolute, and "multiple independent merge targets" is one reason. If Fred has been a part of Band X and Band Y, but is not himself notable, we can't have his name as a redirect to either one, because hatnotes on elements of an article and 2-item DAB pages are something we avoid. So, Fred gets his own article, even though there's maybe NO independent significant RS covering him apart from either band. This is an analogous situation. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I figured that's what you were saying, but it's so frankly asinine that I hoped it wasn't the case. You're basically trying to turn a non-issue into a big issue through wikilawyering. Your example of Fred has no bearing on this at all. You have the mythological figure and the character that takes basically only the name of that mythological figure. It's not even just a fictionalized interpretation of the character, just the namesake and maybe light inspiration. The character is its own entity, and the mythology article, if it mentions the character, can link to the article (if notability is established) or the redirect that links to the character list (if notability is not established). There is absolutely no logic in your reasoning beyond trying to force this article to stay through a very convoluted and unnecessary method. TTN (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually just noticed that it is supposed to be a fictionalized version, at least in the original conception of the character, but that honestly doesn't really change anything to make the argument valid. TTN (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, ALL of the deities in the D&D game system were fictionalized versions of mythological entities in the first place. Tyr, Thor, Zeus... so I'm not sure what your intent in highlighting this is. Pretty much the same as the mythological creatures which formed the core monsters. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - My original point was about it being a loosely based nod to mythology rather than the actual character being a fictionalized interpretation of the mythology, but it doesn't even really matter in regards to your argument anyway. The main point is that fictionalized versions of real things do not belong in the article on the real thing. They should certainly be mentioned if they have appropriate weight, but the primary space for them is within the fictional series from which they originate. You cannot conflate them to whatever point you're trying to shoehorn into this. You also mentioned something about a two article disambiguation page, but Tyr already has a dab page with multiple Tyr characters and various other Tyr subjects. TTN (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You know, for someone who nominates so many fictional deities articles for deletion, you appear to have no familiarity with the origin and development of the topic through primary game sources such as Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes and Deities & Demigods. It's not a "loosely based nod", and anyone with any actual familiarity with D&D knows this. Jclemens (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Other than a number of Forgotten Realms novel series I've read over the years, I have little knowledge on the subject. This article does not present the topic as anything more than a loosely based character (other than the trivia section), so I had no reason to assume it was directly corresponding to anything. Not that anything is changed by that. TTN (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens, or failing that merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by 'Publication history' section of the article: this explains how Tyr was an important element of a notable fictional universe for 30 years. I oppose a merge on the same grounds. —Sean Whitton / 14:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how notability works. Primary sources are not able to show that something is notable. Only through reliable third party sources can notability be estabilished. TTN (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seun Kentebe[edit]

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

this subject fails WP:GNG Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actor in film WP:NFOE. Article has incoming links to it Eightnisan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightnisan (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the film he is mentioned as appearing in he did not actually have a lead role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 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 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is borderline A7 material; appearance in two films and no coverage in WP:RS does not confer notability. FalconK (talk) 05:58, 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 merge with list of demon lords. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lynkhab[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of demon lords and protect the redirect. The article was recreated without any evidence of notability being provided after a previous AfD closed as a merge. That's irritating. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per J Milburn but protection seems a bit over the top, as the IP address waited 3.5 years since the previous AfD to "work on it", and I do note that one primary source had been published in the interim, so it's hard to state unequivocally that this was done in bad faith, even though I agree it should be merged at the present time. We have TTN to bring such things to our attention, so I don't see the harm in leaving such a de-redirected article unprotected until and unless there is specific disruption. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above, and agree with Jclemens about protection being premature. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per the previous discussion. Surely it isn't necessary to protect the redirect unless someone actually causes this problem a few more times. FalconK (talk) 05:56, 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) 16:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Whitman[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, based solely on a single primary source of a person notable only as deputy mayor of a municipality not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors or deputy mayors under WP:NPOL. This distinction only counts as notability in major, internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto or London -- in any place outside of that range, a city councillor gets a Wikipedia article only if he can be reliably sourced as notable beyond the purely local for far more than just existing. Also possible conflict of interest, as the creator's username was "Matlantivex". Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A7 material; no real assertion of notability beyond criteria expressly discounted in WP:NPOL. FalconK (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Figure is notable and different than the nova-scotian politician. Figure is a cultural figure who presents himself publicly very frequently on his youtube channel, podcast, and live events. He is as active as CGP Grey or Brady Haran as an educational "youtuber" and podcast host.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waye Mason[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor in a municipality not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL. City councillors get a presumption of notability only in major international global cities on the order of Toronto, New York City or London -- in any place outside of that range, a municipal councillor gets an article only if he can be well-sourced as more than just locally notable for more than just existing as a city councillor. In addition, this actually misrepresents some of its sourcing -- while three of the links claim to be from the Toronto Star (and would therefore demonstrate that he was getting nationalized coverage), in reality they're not: all three of them are actually in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, the same publication as most of the other sources. Plus fully a quarter of the sourcing here is sitting on primary sources like his own website and his own LinkedIn and a WordPress blog he was the writer of. And even the ones that are reliable sources mostly aren't about him, but merely namecheck his existence in coverage of events. So none of this is enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable city council member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 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 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; narrowly fails WP:NPOL. FalconK (talk) 05:52, 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) 06:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duvalier Malone[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. He certainly seems like a kind person, but I was only able to locate one reliable secondary source [43]. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nice guy but not sufficiently notable. Quis separabit? 23:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having an article one wrote published by USA Today is not alone on its own grounds for having an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanity bio. FalconK (talk) 05:42, 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. MER-C 12:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuria CyberSense[edit]

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

This software does not meet WP:GNG. This source in the article is essentially based entirely upon a press release, and this source does not appear to be reliable per Wikipedia's standards. The company PDF press release in the article also does not confer notability. The Softpedia article provides some information and is bylined, but source searches are providing no additional significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - there's been a pile of bad articles on Assuria products created and deleted lately, we may have to start salting as well - David Gerard (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assuria Log Manager - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt -- an unremarkable software package and a WP:PROMO article, with "product brochure" content and nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More corpspam; absolutely no notability. FalconK (talk) 05:40, 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. Sandstein 14:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Smith (attorney)[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for office. As always, an election candidate is not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles because candidate -- if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of his candidacy, then he must win the election, not merely run in it, to become eligible for one. But what we have here for sourcing is two primary sources (his own campaign website and a press release), two dead links and just one news article about the launch of his campaign -- and one news article is not enough coverage to get him over GNG in lieu of failing NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and our various biographical criteria. FalconK (talk) 05:39, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farswal[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:25, 29 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:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kethwal[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is certainly a name and also apparently translates as slap but I can find nothing but passing mentions in reliable sources. Those mentions are not remotely clear about the caste claims and that also makes a redirect implausible. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:25, 29 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) 06:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manjotha[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they are notable Boleyn (talk) 09:57, 14 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) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the unreliable Horace Rose (Glossary of the Tribes and Castes), I haven't been able to find anything that even discusses this community. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- dubious and not supported by RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL7. I insist on scholarly sources for ethnicity related articles. This one doesn't make the cut. One of the spellings does have some coverage although one of them is a colonial era book. I found one SPS here, though it also uses a 1911 census data. Nothing much in contemporary academic literature though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dasti (tribe)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 14 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) 12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep another tribe mentioned several times historically. This looks like a really good source (1863, British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers)Memo on the Dashtee tribe. Also mentioned in Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan(as part of an alliance fighting against the British, Encyclopaedia of Untouchables Ancient, Medieval and Modern <- also mentions the Nutkani (see deletion discussion below) on the same page. Fraenir (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fraenir: you've done a similar rationale at the AfD for the Nutkani article in the last hour or so. For the record, again, by long-standing consensus British Raj sources are not reliable, and nor are books published by Gyan. That pretty much covers your entire list here. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: - To further my education, do you have a link to a relevant discussion on why British Raj sources are not reliable, and Gyan in particular as well? I'd like to see where consensus was formed, and why. I don't necessarily doubt you, I just want to learn something new, and my attempts at searching for this discussion have so far failed. Fieari (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fieari: you'll find some notes via this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: - Thanks! That makes a lot of sense, particularly with Gyan (being a circular reference). With the British Raj, however, the idea seems to be that the idiots of that period made shit up to justify their rule (and is therefor unreliable). Would it be fair to say that they would be acceptable for providing notability towards an idea that is false or non-standard? In terms of this article, for instance, could British Raj sources be used to make an article that said something to the paraphrased effect of "Dasti is a made up fake tribe created by the British Raj in order to justify their imperialism." The reason I ask is that if these British Raj sources are mentioning this thing, it might be useful to a student doing research to find a Wikipedia article explaining why the thing is BS. Fieari (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't do it to "justify their rule" per se. It was far more complex and indeed they saw it as a way to better understand the native people of their colonies. The Victorian era, in particular, was one of remarkable inquisitiveness. Beyond that, I think we're drifting too far away from relevant discussion here. And whether something is sufficiently notable to justify an article - such as one on a "false or non-standard" idea or even a fake or hoax- is entirely related to WP:GNG. I did it for Census of India prior to independence but we already have articles for Scientific racism etc and would have to beware of synthesising sources for the issue you suggest. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you claiming this source cited earlier is "unreliable" [44]? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding your dismissal of British Raj sources - this seems to suggest such a sweeping dismissal is unfounded: "Early in the 19th century the British set about gathering and organizing information on the whole of India, which they eventually published in the form of district gazetteers. The district gazetteer series for Baluchistan (1906-08) comprises eight volumes". ... "The Baluchistan series is an extraordinary compendium of information, and ranks among the best of all the Indian gazetteers (Scholberg, p. 49) as well as other literature of the same type". [45] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Dashti is also wikilinked to Rind (Baloch tribe) ("Dashti or Dasti is another name for the Rind (tribe), a Baloch tribe of Baluchistan"). Though there is no content in the Rind article mentioning this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my dismissal; it is consensus. I know of Scholberg's bibliographic efforts but he is erring to link the early 19C information gathering to that which appeared in the gazetteers. The gazetteers were a response to the Indian rebellion of 1857, after which the British authorities - who were indeed now the Raj rather than the East India Company - determined that the best way for a civil service of ca. 800 people to control a nation of many millions was to "know thy enemy" (so to speak). They may have taken some information from the writings of early amateurs, such as James Tod, but those amateurs were also being heavily criticised by that time. It is true that modern academics do cite Raj works for certain points but that doesn't contradict our position: the Raj works are primary sources for practical purposes, and we're ok to accept mention of them where reliable modern sources have reviewed and commented upon the things. I can't comment on the relative status of the Baluchistan gazetteers vs all of the others, nor on whether Scholberg was placing any particular emphasis on how they covered communities compared to, say, how they covered the terrain or the economy or the history. Here's what Richard Carnac Temple wrote (and he'd said more or less the same thing several times previously because it formed a part of official policy): He wrote in 1914:

The practices and beliefs included under the general head of Folk-lore make up the daily life of the natives of our great dependency, control their feelings, and underlie many of their actions. We foreigners cannot hope to understand them rightly unless we deeply study them, and it must be remembered that close acquaintance and a right understanding begets sympathy, and sympathy begets good government.

Is this any help re: your query? - Sitush (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. I see no evidence for a legitimate "consensus", (your) user pages are not consensus and do not have to stand up to OR examinations, you have not explained why you dismissed the Tapper source (which at the very least disproved the hoax allegation), and your quote seems bizarre and contradictory in this context (you claiming unreliability, but the quote explaining why accurate information was necessary and desirable for good governance). The issue is whether this tribal group is notable enough for an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you obviously haven't read the information properly. For example, I see no relevant mention of hoax in this discussion (it was a side-issue) and my user pages have links to consensus discussions, as is confirmed pretty much every week (eg: a thread on Bishonen's talk page from this last weeked). I can't help you if you do not read what is offered. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any useful mentions in reliable sources. We do have articles about people who bear the name and those should probably be added to the Dasti dab page. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can discover, they are a minor Baloch tribe, a part of its Rind subdivision. However, given that even the Rind article is little more than a stub, and the Baloch article barely acceptable, I don't see enough notability for a separate article yet. Perhaps a redirect to Baloch people would be correct, based on sources (but not based on current content of the Balloch article - which does its best to not contain such content). I'm concerned that there is past record of deleting content that details Baloch tribes - I don't know if this is due to prejudice against the sources that list them, or against the fact that they exist. Deleted articles include "History of the Baloch people"; "Baloch tribes"; and "List of Baloch tribes". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:20, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nutkani[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: mentioned here [46] in the Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, and two very old sources here Chiefs and Families of Note in the Delhi, Jalandhar, Peshawar and Derajat Divisions of the Panjab (1890) and here The Baloch race: A historical and ethnological sketch (Royal Asiatic society, 1904). There are also several other google books covering history that mention this tribe. Fraenir (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are reliable. By long-standing consensus, we do not use stuff from the British Raj era. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:24, 29 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 05:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jasgam[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no source that discuss this community other than the unreliable H. A. Rose, reprints of his efforts and mirrors of Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 17:04, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jattak[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 14 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) 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reliable sources that discuss this community and we have no articles for people who bear the name. - Sitush (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:23, 29 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dogar[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:23, 29 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:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Prigorje-Zagreb Party[edit]

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

A very minor non-parliamentary party. Very little information can be extracted from sources, does not meet WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:22, 29 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 05:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poswal[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they are notable. Possibly worth merge/redirect to Arabs in Pakistan#Tribes with Arabic heritage. Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 14 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) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reliable sources, I am unconvinced that the one source present is reliable and we have no articles for people who use the word as their name. A redirect to Arabs in Pakistan#Tribes with Arabic heritage doesn't seem particularly useful - that article section is dreadfully sourced and, again, there seems to be nothing else out there that relates to it. - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough sources to establish notability. utcursch | talk 02:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be failing WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 17:08, 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 keep. Seeing as the latest keep argument has been gone uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sein Lyan Tun[edit]

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

The page creator whose username suggests WP:COI has admitted that he is not notable in their edit summary.

And he has not received any media coverage. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sein Lyan Tun may not be Google News but He is somehow well-known as award winning documentary filmmaker in Myanmar. Here you may want to see some of his news.

Media Coverage in Myanmar On Myanmar Time Newspaper (Yangon, Myanmar) About his award winning documentary film http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/lifestyle/18709-new-documentary-calls-for-justice-for-disabled-rape-victim.html

On Malaysia Media, http://majalahjom.com/2016/09/13/unsilent-potato-perjuangan-menegakkan-hak-wanita/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PS Films (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of 2016, he is not a notable filmmaker in Myanmar. He has not directed any direct-to-videos or big screen movies. As Sein Lyan Tun is the managing director of PS Films [47], it is likely the COI editing. Phyo WP (message) 16:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm verging on keep, currently undecided. This source in the Myanmar Times is actually quite fantastic coverage, focused on him and his work, and pointing out that his previous films are "award-winning," although it doesn't clarify which awards. I at first assumed this was a run-on-of-the-mill student film-maker, but I sometimes forget that there are entire film festival circuits dedicated just to short films, and that their awards are as legitimate as awards for feature-length works as well. I am not personally familiar with the awards he has won, however, so I don't feel comfortable assessing how much that helps with notability in this case. Also some mentions of his work at this location. But I think he might pass 4 of WP:FILMMAKER, and possibly number 3 if more reviews are found (possibly not in English?) Yvarta (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per my comment above and this source showing he won at the Freedom Film Fest in 2016. I am not incorporating this in my vote, as I am unfamiliar with the publication or its legitimacy. Yvarta (talk) 15:37, 29 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 Praful Bidwai. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Praful Bidwai Memorial Award[edit]

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

Praful Bidwai is a notable person, but this award is not notable. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Praful Bidwai, nominator could have performed a WP:BOLD redirect to save community time. Anup [Talk] 03:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Praful Bidwai Award is not independently notable. The person is. Hence a redirect is best here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:53, 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 and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2006#District 8. Consensus is for removal, seeing as the redirect has gone uncontested and has a supporting argument I'll go for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Welty[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school board trustee and an unsuccessful candidate for higher office. The only marginal claim of "more notable than the norm for unelected candidates" here is that he was the first-ever candidate of a shortlived new political party that never really had any electoral success -- but that's not an inclusion criterion that passes WP:NPOL, so his eligibility for a Wikipedia article would depend entirely on being sourced well enough to get over WP:GNG. But none of the sourcing here accomplishes that; apart from two local news articles about being elected to and resigning from the school board, the only other sources we have here are a self-published article on his own blog and three dead links of raw election results. This is not the kind of coverage that it takes to make a school board trustee or an unelected candidate for office notable enough for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2006#District 8 My edit of 20:59, 11 November 2006‎, was "(moved Harry Welty to Minnesota 8th congressional district election, 2006: Moving to campaign article per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, because individual is non-notable per WP:BIO - failed candidacy.)" However, the article about that specific district election is gone, and is now just a redirect to Minnesota's 8th congressional district (Back in 2006, we had fantasies of having one article for every House of Representatives election for every year; in 2016, all we have is one section in one article for all the elections of a district.) So there no longer is room to even include minor parties in the relevant, existing Wikipedia article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Enos733 pointed out the existence of a page that I wasn't aware of, and I've fixed the redirect of Minnesota 8th congressional district election, 2006. For the Welty article, a redirect serves roughly the same purpose as deleting the article (because it fails WP:N), but does provide someone doing a search with a bit more information (they'll see that Welty got less than 2% of the vote in the election). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both of the above. Also, we almost never keep unsuccessful candidates' articles, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. This is a run of the mill local activist who is screaming on a soap box. This page literally angers me. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. I note that (within the United States at least), there are usually election pages for each State's U.S. House and Senate races (e.g. United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2006). These election pages are an appropriate pages to place information about the candidates (including unelected candidates - subject to WP:UNDUE). - Enos733 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy was not just defeated, he was trounced in his races for congress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Coombs[edit]

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

Fails ONEVENT; all identifiable sources for this name deal either with the subject's death, or another person entirely. —swpb^T 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two sources in the article are now 404s but the other describes him as stated and is neutral, third-party coverage. There is a legitimate question if this is a BIO1E situation or if his notability as a Native American is enough, at least along with his murder. I'll do a bit more digging and see what else is found. Montanabw^(talk) 22:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up: I added "+Wampanoag" to the search and got better results. I think this one is a keeper, though it needs more work and sourcing. He appears to have had respect as a modern Wampanoag person who worked to preserve cultural traditions. Here is what I am finding:

http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/19970909/news01/309099806 News coverage discussing his impact in the area and his importance to his people.
newspaper coverage of the murder
http://www.wldwind.com/qf.htm solid obit, describes his accomplishments
Tribal newsletter notes a memorial competition named after him: here, also noted here, and here.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/x1098996353/PRESERVATION-PERSPECTIVE-The-wonders-of-wampum Local press coverage noting something he did in the course of his cultural education work prior to his death.
Minor stuff: noted in list of people representing ethnic groups in his area, art depiction in traditional regalia.

- In short, I'm pretty well convinced

Keep - per improvements made with sources. also WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Any renaming, merging, etc can be discussed on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Waynesville Baptist Church[edit]

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

Delete — The church is needing to have this article removed because they are going through a branding process and search engine optimization of the existing website of the church and any activity online is being hindered by this article. It is promoting itself above everything including Facebook, google maps, and search engines which list this article above any searches that include the name East Waynesville Baptist Church. This article is also damaging the churches ability to develop a better rapport within communities locally after many years and many changes within the church that have been established. Please also see how having a Wikipedia article can negatively effect a entity online trying to brand itself. I have created the official Facebook page and website for the church but Facebook will not allow the removal of the Wikipedia related page they created. Google has also integrated this article on its own into the quick facts section of its maps.google.com website. This is also referenced below. Timothywebb (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4][reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FWIW, I don't think we should rewrite history. WP:GNG shows it as notable enough. No compliance with WP:Before. Their "branding process" is encylopedically irrelevant. And no compliance with procedure as required by WP:PROD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ FWIW, We are not rewriting history. If some one wants to know the historically noted events on the church there are many other ways to obtain them online. The process is called research and many other outlets are available that contain the same information noted in this article. Per the guidance of 7&6=thirteen, I have corrected this article and tried to follow the procedures for WP:Before and WP:PROD. I did not know it was a requirement to do. Thank You --Timothywebb (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You already registered your opinion above. Vote early; vote often? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Sorry, nominators may not reiterate their position with a bolded delete !vote, below. I've struck that through. For more information, see WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — Procedurally and technically invalid filing of the deletion discussion. No valid policy case made in nomination. Additionally, the article appears likely to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:GNG, and there is no suggestion being made that it is factually inaccurate. Being undesirable or inconvenient for PR purposes is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a responsibility to accurately document history where notability is present. As and when the church makes a notable positive impact on the world, which is documented by independent reliable sources, that can be added to the article, in addition to the current content. Murph9000 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added to and reformatted the references to make them in line. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As long as the article is accurate we can't really determine what Google does with it. Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this AfD was generated without the proper layout, and without entering it into the AfD log. I've now had a go at tidying it up, but more needs to be done to put it in the correct format, so more editors will have a chance to see this and join in the discussion. I can't see any procedurally valid deletion reason given in the original submission; perhaps the original poster might want to see if they can provide one? -- The Anome (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Yes, I was tempted to close it early per WP:SKCRIT as there simply isn't a valid deletion rationale, here. The nominator is asking for a sort of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE for this church and its political past as I understand it, which of course doesn't apply to organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though it does occur to me that we don't need this and Chan Chandler? That does seem like overkill and the church isn't notable except for Chandler's actions, is it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am in discussions with the church in review of the article for facts, modifications, inaccuracies, dead links, along with questionable content and I will comment further at a later time. Timothywebb (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothywebb: In that case, you need to be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (COI). We will be glad to improve the accuracy of the article. Please cite reliable sources for all suggested improvements to it. Significant changes which do not cite a reliable source are likely to be rejected. Wikipedia is generally not interested in what a subject (i.e. the church) says about itself, only what good independent sources say about it, but will always take feedback from a subject. You should make any suggestions for changes on the article's talk page, and not directly edit the article (due to your COI). Murph9000 (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By and large I have put in most of the WP:RS that are presently on the web. There are blogs, however, which didn't seem to fit the bill. The article could be broadened out to reflect current events, etc. at the church. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and selectively merge to Chan Chandler I'm going to go the other way on this. The church is not notable, except for the unilateral actions of Chandler, am I correct? And if that is so, Chandler is no longer associated with that church. If others agree we might then need another Afd to see if Chandler remains notable under Wikipedia:BLP1E, too. At any rate it seems unfair to permanently tar this otherwise non-notable church for the actions of one man -- if I understand correctly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is correct Chandler is no longer associated with that church. http://www.ewbaptist.org/node/4 Timothywebb (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pastor Ray Sharpe from East Waynesville Baptist Church does officiating for http://www.smokymountaincremationsandfuneralservice.com/obituary/Christine-Ann-Gilliam/Bethel-NC/1569344 and http://www.wellsfuneralhome.com/obituary?id=1607037 . Timothywebb (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was the church, including its pastor and board, that expelled the members. I disagree with the proposed merger to the ~~hypothetical~~ article. It was. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Chan Chandler It isn't "hypothetical." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "It was?" The article has existed since 2005. They were actually created a mere 13 days apart in May of that year, by two different editors. Anyway that's not the issue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have nominated Chan Chandler for deletion, as it quite clearly fails WP:BLP1E. We don't have a similar policy for organizations, but this is clearly an "organization notable for only one event". St Anselm (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is a 100 member congregation. There is just not enough sources to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beyond the 18 19 that are there, how many more are needed to conclude it is notable? Just asking. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we all need to read the requirements for notability because I have reviewed them and I find that the notability of events in my mind is making this article completely non notable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28events%29 Timothywebb (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a 100 member church that attained notability through multiple reliable sources. That remains true, even if people and circumstances have now moved on. -- The Anome (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: The Anome (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per the extensive coverage on the controversy. South Nashua (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it actual coverage or just many entities using the church as a point of reference when discussing other larger topics not related to the actual incident and political agendas? Remember wikipedia does have a policy about election years in which this was one. Timothywebb (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers

Shortcuts: WP:NEWSBRIEF WP:109PAPERS WP:WIDESPREAD WP:WSNC Many stories are reported in the news just once on a single day, or over a period of a few days, and then are forgotten. They may receive coverage in newspapers in every city and town across a nation, or even throughout the world. But they do just for that short period of time.

Many newspapers are reliable sources. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And notability is not temporary. News does get shared between news sources, and is often printed in hundreds of papers, covering a large geographic area, identically word-for-word in each paper. So an article may look impressive and pass for being notable if it has 109 references, each from a different paper. But just because you bombard an article with identical sources does not mean it can never be deleted.

This is especially true of biographical articles. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. That person should instead be covered in the article about the event itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Existence_%E2%89%A0_Notability#Don.27t_create_an_article_on_a_news_story_covered_in_109_newspapers Timothywebb (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to Strong Keep. This subject received national coverage from various sources and differing angles. I disagree with the assessment that this was just copy and pasted between "109 newspapers." South Nashua (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we allowed to do duplicate voting here? Timothywebb (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strike South Nashua's duplicate vote. Just to keep it tidy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. It's just an update to the original comment. South Nashua (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. I can see an argument for deletion given that A) it is effectively self-requested and B) one could make a ONEEVENT argument. As advice: I'd suggest changing the name of the church as part of the rebranding... Hobit (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a source written by Senator and former comedian Al Franken:

Al Franken (2005-10-25). The Truth (with jokes). Penguin Publishing Group. p. 74. ISBN 978-1-101-21333-9. Retrieved 2016-10-07. Thankfully, when even the Southern Baptist Convention said the Republicans were getting a little too cute, the "Safe Harbor for Churches" amendment died a quiet death. It seems that not every pastor got the word about section 692 of H.R. 4520.

Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian Right, or delete and redirect As a suggestion for further development, consider expanding Christian Right to cover the "Safe Harbor for Churches" act as discussed by Al Franken.
As per this source, churches with 100 members are medium size churches. It is my opinion that medium-size churches are not generally notable. While some of the burst of attention in 2005 is going to the church itself, more of the attention is going to a national political story. If the attention is going to the church, why do we know nothing about its founders? There seems to be a tentative opinion that the topic satisfies WP:GNG, but there are several reasons why such an article should not have a standalone article. For one, the topic fails WP:SUSTAINED. To some extent, the article fails WP:COATRACK, and as such, the topic might be deleted under WP:DEL3, "pages that exist only to disparage their subject". A core policy that has not been mentioned here is WP:NPOV. Articles require sufficient WP:V WP:NPOV material to write an article, which we don't seem to have here. Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The sources present show that the church is notable. If the name has changed, we can just rename the page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:33, 10 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.