The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is no discussion or coverage of the MacOnLinux software in third-party independent sources that establish notability via the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. The additional guidelines for software do not provide a reason to keep. Consensus is to delete. Malinaccier (talk)21:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: The author of this article has requested deletion in good faith by adding a prod tag to the article. He has also sent me an email stating this. However, G7 doesn't apply here as at least one other user has made substantive edits. Please consider this request when closing this AfD. Thanks. —KuyaBriBriTalk15:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC— does not hold any named chairs, is not a department head, etc. I don't think that academic fellowships and visiting professorships will satisfy a notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. A quick search on news, journals. google proves that the nominator did not take the time to research before nominating for delete. May i respectfully ask why KDS4444 (talk) did you not do the necessary research? The subject of this page has been cited at KNPR, Nature Magazine, Nature.com, Middletown Press, Yale News, the Chronicle for Higher Education, Jordan Times and others. You did not do your homework, kind fellow wikipedian before nominating for deletion, no? If so why? So many women are deleted without any background checks, without checks of their maiden names, without checks on alternative news sources that are not dominate by the male mainstream corporate funding sources. Why so trigger happy, my brother? I have not even looked at books, jstor, and other scholarly sources, yet there are so many! - why delete without inquiry, kindness and generousity, sir? What gives? Too many keys to compress or? PRACTICE Restraint. Research. Resitance. PLEASE PEACEFUL contributions to our global encyclopedia, dear. SUBJECT CLEARLY MEETS WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNPNetherzone (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, there's quite a lot of coverage [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], which clearly meets the WP:GNG from where I'm standing. Her GS record has a couple of highly-cited papers that may constitute a very weak argument for WP:PROF#C1, but she's more notable for her work on educational outreach and as a commentator on evolution and Islam (i.e. WP:PROF#C7). – Joe (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please see resources in my sandbox. there's wide of coverage about dr al dajani. Also i am planning to improve the article as soon as possible in my leisure time----مصعب (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In response to claims I did not "do my homework" before making this nomination: a Google search on her name turns up Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, MyLife, Whitepages, Intelius, YouTube, InstantCheckmate, 411, NamesDirectory.net, MyHeritage, and a series of other directory listings. I did not look beyond the first 50 hits because none of them qualified as relevant for a Wikipedia notability argument. She only got 266 hits overall, including all of these directory listings and social networking sites. Given this, the subject does not WP:CLEARLY seem to be notable. Promises to improve the article come right out of WP:AADD. What would have been better is if someone added some of the "references" mentioned above to the article so that her notability could be made more evident and reviewable rather than having them added to her deletion discussion where they are much, much more difficult to assess. KDS4444 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KDS4444, it was I who used the term that offended you, "do your homework" and for that I apologize. I'm sorry I made you feel disrespected, but for some reason, we are getting remarkably different search results. What is perplexing about your response, is that when I do a Google Search, I come up with 7,840 hits, the first five ones are: Nature.com, Yale News, Arabian Business (that BTW, this publication names her one of the top 100 Arab women in Science), the Jordan Times, and MIT News. When I look on Google Scholar there are 232 citations and she is the lead author of some of the scientific papers found there. I'm wondering if it has something to do with browser settings? My searches did not come up with any of the social networking sites that were reflected in your results. Netherzone (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KDS4444: I must also be using a different search engine to you because for me this search returns 20,000+ hits and there are dozens of reliable sources in the first 50. All of the twelve sources I linked above constitute significant coverage of Dajani in a reliable source. There are several more in مصعب's sandbox. These do not have to be added to the article to make Dajani notable; it's enough that they exist. – Joe (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have a look at some Google settings, because perhaps maybe MINE are the ones that are off. Here is a link to the page that Google generated when I did my search, please let me know (any of you and for my own sake) if you get a list longer than I indicated above: <https://www.google.com/search?num=40&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=%22raja+dajani%22&oq=%22raja+dajani%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i13i30k1j0i8i13i30k1.1827.8388.0.8937.14.12.0.0.0.0.438.848.4-2.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..12.2.846.0..0.wDJYZRPaNoQ> Also, @Joe Roe: I am familiar with the fact that sources merely need to exist— I've been around long enough to be familiar with that guideline. What I meant above was that I wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion if I saw such sources already in the article. I didn't say it was mandatory, I said it would have been helpful (and I am still somewhat mystified that it was not done, if they exist). I am on the verge of withdrawing my nomination— please show me how my Google results are turning out so differently from those of others! (Note for Joe: you must not have put Raja Dajani in quotes, meaning you got all results that contained the word "Raja" as well as all results containing the word "Dajani", almost none of which are for "Raja Dajani", yes? Also: the 6th citation, to Nature, is an article she wrote herself— i.e., a primary source, which can't be used to substantiate a notability claim, as far as I can remember.) KDS4444 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KDS4444 it seems that you may have misspelled her name in your Google search. Try searching for: "Rana Dajani" and you will find the correct person - a woman scientist of note. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is "one of the 20 most influential women scientists in the Islamic world 2014, #12 among the 100 most powerful women in the Arab world 2015 and 2014, and in the women in science hall of fame 2015." See this link for verification. Her being in the Science Hall of Fame passes the requirements without having to look further, but when you see her other accomplishments and how she has made an impact, this one is a no-brainer. Atsme📞📧12:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she's a Fulbright Scholar, been spotlighted by magazines, is in a Hall of Fame, got a Library of Congress award that's not a grant, King Hussein Medal of Honor. How can her notability even be a question? Hildabast (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Political candidate of no apparent note, no sign of meeting WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Comments on the page admit it was written as a promotional piece by a campaign staffer to "establish his legitimacy." A7 was declined but this clearly is, at best, WP:TOOSOON pending the election. JamesG5 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I think TOOSOON is accurate here. In the future, this topic might make the grade, but for now, and as it is right now, it fails POLITICIAN. South Nashua (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates for office do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot show and properly source that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides their candidacy, then they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election. And one piece of routine coverage verifying the fact of his candidacy is not a WP:GNG pass in and of itself, either, because every candidate in any election could always show that. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an unreferenced one-sentence article. I moved it to draftspace to be worked on, unfortunately it was just moved back to mainspace with no attempt to add references or establish notability in any way. No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of evidence including Current views on taxonomy and zoogeography of the genus Sus; Pigs and Humans: 10,000 Years of Interaction and the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do we now apply notability guidelines more widely? I would think that any widely distributed species would deserve an article, and a subspecies would deserve either an article or a redirect. The Uninvited Co., Inc.22:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an unreferenced two-sentence article. I moved it to draftspace to be worked on, unfortunately it was just moved back to mainspace. No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable being covered in detail in sources such as A history of pigs in Africa and Hunting practices and consumption patterns in rural communities in the Rif mountains (Morocco)—some ethno-zoological notes. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an unreferenced one-sentence article. I moved it to draftspace to be worked on, unfortunately it was just moved back to mainspace with no effort made to add references or address concerns in any way. No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find sources for such topics. For example,
Wild Pigs in the United States
The Walking Larder
Vegetable and animal food sorts found in the gastric content of Sardinian Wild Boar (Sus scrofa meridionalis)
Damages caused to crops by wild boars (S. scrofa meridionalis) in Sardinia
Reproductive and demographic parameters in Sardinian wild boar, Sus scrofa meridionalis
and so on. Neither AfD nor Prod are for cleanup. Our editing policy states clearly that "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, by moving them back to mainspace within hours, without clear edit summaries as to why and without an attempt to improve them, is not 'collaborative editing' by any means. I didn't suggest they need cleanup, they need deletion or redirecting, or such serious work that it isn't clear at the moment that they can possibly meet our criteria - which is what draftspace is for. This is part of a series by an editor, Dennis the mennis, who has refused to communicate or add sources. Boleyn (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid subspecies, material plainly exists and just needs to be added. Granted, Dennis the mennis hasn't covered themselves in glory with these unreferenced stubs, but now that they are here, we might as well spruce them up. Did the minimum for this (and the other two - in process). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Playing a major role in London and then taking it to Broadway is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. There are adequate sources to support the topic and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BEFORE, nominators are expected to "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources". Naturally, I have done this already using search links such as those provided above. It should therefore not be necessary to list them here as participants are all expected to have this competence. Andrew D. (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Same reasoning as deletion for Template:The Monks stories. There is no indication that the characters are going to be recurring throughout the series, therefore this article is unnecessary, as it does not expand upon anything not already given by the episode articles. -- AlexTW21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have only three continuous episodes with them, and no indication of being a recurring villain. Add there's little discussion of these characters in secondary sources beyond these episodes. If they get more episodes we can talk about a standalone article then. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Up/Downmerge There is nothing here that can't or shouldn't be covered in either Doctor Who (series 10) or the three individual episode articles. No prejudice restarting an article on the critters if they end up appearing in a different season, or if they end up getting substiantial RS (e.g. academic) coverage as a species, a la Silence (Doctor Who). Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject to an unconfessed paid job and now CU-banned accounts (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji), therefore this violates our WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:NPOV, WP:Five pillars, WP:Terms of Use and WP:Paid, all fundamental laws in terms of what content can and cannot be used. If we examine that alone, it's enough for any deletion, but especially when the sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 (this one especially known for taking in "donated" stories), 8 (a labeled "local heroes"), 9, 10 - local indiscriminate story, 5 - personal website, 6 - a hosted story, 11 is another listing and 12 is yet the same as before. If we consider that in weight alone, it shows this is meant as a locally hosted article in addition to what he's used, and that is immediately what an encyclopedia is not. SwisterTwistertalk20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Standup paddleboarding § History. From source searches, this appears to be a WP:BLP1E situation at this time. However, it is verified that the subject has been listed in the Limca Book of Records (source), which is certainly noteworthy, and the main article has no mention of this. Regarding "subject to an unconfessed paid job and now CU-banned accounts..." in the nomination, I could be missing something, but the article creator has not been blocked or banned (block log). More context about this aspect of the rationale in the nomination would be appreciated. Is there an SPI report available about the matter? North America100021:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a non-notable TOU violation by a CU confirmed sock that was created after the initial block. This isn't even a moral certainty of G5 case: the initial master was blocked on 19 July. The article was created on 1 August. Clear cut case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Notable. Foreign Policy magazine say Harvard is the best place to study foreign relations(#1 on list of 10), specifically mentioning the HIRC [14]Rhadow (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. I agree with Rhadow. Just because the sources are bad does not make the page irrelevant. Someone just needs to put in the work to update them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.232.67 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. POV fork from the two articles cited. It is not an encyclopaedic article unto itself - per WP:OSE - as it is not inherently notable, just bits and bods put together to create WP:SYNTH. As it stands, any relevant content should only constitute a brief subsection in one or the other article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of this makes sense. For one, Sri Lankan culture(s) existed for thousands of years and every facet and religion therein was homophobic and patriarchal. Britain hasn't controlled Ceylon since 1948, almost 70 years ago. Secondly, the colonial service was a den of homosexuality (see Roger Casement). Third, it's mostly illogical nonsense and synthesis mixed in with soapboxing. Tamil LGBT may be an oppressed minority subculture, but don't blame the Brits for what's happening in 2017. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I was the original creator here, at a time when Wikipedia was a lot looser about the notability of mayors than it is now. Under current standards, Niagara on the Lake is not large enough to automatically get its mayors past WP:NPOL, being chair of the regional council doesn't automatically make him more notable than the norm, and the coverage of him doesn't have the depth or range needed to satisfy the ultimate notability criterion for local politicians, "has been the subject of significant press coverage". There was once a time when all that had to be shown to get a basic stub started and presumed notable was that he could be verified as holding the mayoralty of a place that had a credible claim to "regional prominence", but we require quite a bit more than that now. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The applicable pages here are WP:Indiscriminate (policy: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion), WP:Not catalog and WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists (Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists). To find sourcing, I went here and here but could find nothing to suggest there's coverage for a "List of press release agencies" and there's [[Category:List of press release agencies]] instead, and this was the PROD basis in January. The current appearance of "press release agencies" is a concern in WP:Not brochure since it reads like a basic listing, and not a serious encyclopedia article; equally, the lead is simply a copy of Public relations; the link sources are simply about the public relations business and, likewise, are best suited at the relevant page. ⓏⓟⓟⓘⓧTalk19:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Press release agencies. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. It is not an indiscriminate list; rather it has a very focused scope, as a list of notable press release agencies. I created this article on 05:44, 1 August 2017 (less than two days ago) and am still working on expanding it, which takes time to perform. Also, why was this nominated for deletion in such a rushed manner? North America100020:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, the nomination says we have both WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Notability lists here, and I actually visit the link WP:NOTDUP only to see there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia and there's also WP:V concerns given the dryness of sources here, not nearly enough to suggest there's full evidence of "List of press release agencies" in coverage. SwisterTwistertalk20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appropriate list. We have for many years interpreted the inclusion criteria for lists very broadly. This list will of course contain only those which are notable in the sense of having WP articles. It's no more a "Basic listing"than those of any other line of business. List of organization in any line of business whatsoever or any profession are justified when there are at least a few individuals ones notable enough for WP articles. When I first came here, there were challenges to such lists based on the hypothesis that there had to be sources that made such lists to be used as references, but it has since been accepted that the presence of the WP articles is sufficient. I find it difficult to imagine any WP category at this level which should not have a corresponding list. (as distinct from very broad categories such as American people, or very narrow ones which can justify a category to keep the system parallel with other categories, but which be combined into a more comprehensive list article). A list is appropriate bother for identifying and for browsing, because it can give some identifying detail not present in the category. Since this is just such an obvious keep as our tens of thousands of other such lists, I am puzzled to see the motivation for selecting this one for an AfD. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Re: "I am puzzled to see the motivation for selecting this one for an AfD", the nom has rapidly nominated several articles I have created for deletion in the last few days. See their recent contributions, which denotes their deletion notices to my talk page for more information. Perhaps I slighted the nominator somehow somewhere, and they are seeking to "get even" by getting my articles deleted. I could be wrong, and I try to assume good faith, but something is awry. I'm a Wikipedia:Autopatrolled user, so new pages I create are automatically approved on the new pages log. Other pages they have nominated for deletion are much older. It seems rather clear what's actually occurring, to me anyway. The nominator is very likely following my edits and working to get my work deleted. See also WP:HOUNDING. Perhaps I will stop creating new articles for some time; that way, I don't have to worry about spurious, knee-jerk nominations such as this, with walls of text copy-pasted from policy/guideline pages, wasting my time defending works that are typically appropriate on English Wikipedia. It's a real time waster. North America100012:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
my intention was to imply this qy, but without mentioning any specific person. I try to minimize ad personam arguments at afd. I do not, for example, mention at AfD the puzzlement felt by those trying to remove promotionalism in response to your defenses of borderline notable promotional articles. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. You seem to be ignoring valid hounding concerns, though, by not addressing them, instead discussing other AfD discussion I have participated in, which is entirely off-topic. I view it as fair game to present actual events that have occurred relative to this article being nominated for deletion, which is objective. However, I digress, as AfD decorum is based upon topics, rather than users. My !vote remains for the article to be retained. North America100015:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Press release agencies. And per WP:LISTPURP. Despite the detailed nomination statement, there is no policy reason to delete. There is nothing indiscriminate about the list and basing it on '"nothing to suggest there's coverage for a "List of press release agencies"' is just plain silly. That ain't how it works. You know what also probably doesn't have any press coverage? Category:Press release agencies and every other category we have. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete non-notable company: sourcing is either not independent or trivial mentions, and none of the awards are generally big enough to be considered notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion as a copyright infringement of various sources. There is, of course, nothing to prevent anyone from creating the suggested redirect: the history of this article is not needed for that to be done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. This was a declined prod with the edit summary "Decline Prod. A TV series translated into multiple labguages sounds notable to me". However, nothing in the article establishes notability and notability is not inherited. While the original series may be notable this does not automatically mean this version of it is. There is a section in the article titled "Adaptations" but this seems to document (without sources) adaptations from the original, not from this version. Searches all seem to point to the original series, not this one. AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable publication - website indicates it isn't a newspaper per se, it's more of an advertising medium for the Fredericton area. PKT(alk)18:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every local newspaper is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists — it needs to demonstrate and reliably source a claim of notability that would pass WP:NMEDIA. But that's not present here, and I can't any evidence that improvement is possible at all. Creator's rationale for declining a prod attempt in 2015, "Basically, just want to list Freddy Plus as a paper being produced in Fredericton", is not a valid reason to keep it — our role is not to be a comprehensive directory of everything that exists, but to maintain properly sourced articles about things that satisfy our notability standards. No objection to having it listed in Media in Fredericton, but nothing here qualifies it for a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I did a little digging & there seems to have been a big effort to publicize this man, but it's hard to see where this meets WP:GNG. It's certainly tragic when a firefighter loses his life when trying to save others, but that doesn't automatically rate a page here. Absent a lot of sourcing on why this is important I can't see this as a page. JamesG5 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could have been deleted speedy, due to non-citiation. He doesn't seems to have received press coverage, even during his death. --Saqib (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep leaving aside the "paid promotion" issue, it is actually not that badly sourced, with a local CBC Saskatchewan piece and then Associated Press story (in different forms). Then I see we also have a bylined piece from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I think the film meets GNG. Yes, the creator has been blocked but I think we have a notable documentary film on an important topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some coverage, but without the depth required to establish notability according to WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Perhaps it will become notable after the release, and someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest will write about it. Rentier (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It had several pre-premiere showings. I'm referring to the public release in September 2017. I disagree that the depth of coverage is sufficient to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Note how references 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have the same title, being rehashes of the same news. 2 and 10 are in fact the same article. The film has received no notable awards or nominations, no "full-length reviews by nationally known critics", there is no indication that the film is widely distributed.. Rentier (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon again, but there is no policy demand that we treat its multiple screenings as if inconsequential. And please, we DO NOT use WP:OEN for films less than five years old or as if its suggestions for instances which might indicate notability were themselves mandates to somehow over-rule WP:GNG. I am minded that Star Telegram is quite in-depth and substantive, as are Blasting News and Siglo. Schmidt, Michael Q.07:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Level of sources seems to indicate notability that is likely to develop over a relatively short term. If moved to draft and later submitted for restoration to mainspace, a neutral evaluator can decide at that time whether the article has been rendered neutral and well-sourced enough to merit inclusion. bd2412T02:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Q Schmidt - it's not a "Puff piece" as the nominator suggests - the topic of the film is worthy itself. It could do with some tidying up, but find me an article on here that doesn't. It needs fixing, so let's fix it. Dane|Geld19:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is an article written by a "retired engineer" who had "served as Senior Manager in an aircraft manufacturing company", posted on a citizen journalism website, a reliable source for an encyclopedia article about a film? Rentier (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the Siglo article is a more or less literal translation of the original AP story, as are the articles in CBC, Boston Herald, Fox News and US News. It seems to me that the independent reliable coverage is limited to the AP story and the Star Telegram article. The latter is something of a local news: "Shree, who is spiritual director at the Siddhayatan Spiritual Retreat Center and Ashram in Windom about 100 miles northeast of Fort Worth". If that's enough to meet WP:GNG, then I have nothing to add. Rentier (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteand allow restoration to userspace if asked, because what the one fundamental policy the Keeps have considered or said yet, is our Terms of Use at Wikimedia Foundation which says in bold: These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities....As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation and considering the user apparently never cared to openly disclose it, but worse actually make an extensive list of such activities, it unquestionably shows they must not be given the luxury of such covert attempts. After all, our WP:Five pillars says, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and must not be used for promotion or advertising. This is no different if we honestly take our Terms of Use seriously, since one exception will inevitably lead any advertiser to ask for it again, that is not concept of this encyclopedia, especially when such votes above only care to mention "Sources exist", "Has sources", "Good sources, "Article can be improved" (the latter, how exactly? If the Terms of use is different than any simple content guideline). Another comment then says "it's not a puff piece" yet that's contrary to what our Terms of use listed above says it to be. SwisterTwistertalk21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: This page was previously nominated for speedy deletion, by the same nominator, on grounds that it lacked credible claim of significance. My response to this, which can be found here, was that while he plays non-league football, WPFOOTY allows for instances where a player can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. In particular, the player obtains significant notability in the records he holds for Aldershot Town; being the club's youngest ever player and youngest ever goalscorer. This notability is further reflected by the level of media coverage (from reputable outlets such as the BBC) in respect of the aforementioned records and of him in general, from both youth level and current senior performances. Furthermore, this page previously passed a DYK nomination without any issues and featured on the home page on 31 December 2016. The speedy deletion nomination was promptly removed by RickinBaltimore. I hope the same logic can be applied here. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Granted there is some coverage of this playerthat is outside of routine match reporting / transfer talk, but this seems to be restricted to local news outlets. The reason it is restricted to local news outlets is because this is a player who play at a level that generally only gets local news coverage and as such is not generally notable. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)3[reply]
Comment: As pointed out before, NFOOTY cannot be read in isolation when it allows for instances where a player can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. These requirements are summarised as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The player has received both national (various BBC sources) and local coverage; the coverage is reliable, especially in respect of the records which come directly from the club whose records he has broken; the sources are clearly independent; and the player is suitable for a stand-alone article. As for the statement that "[there is] no indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG", I disagree and point you again to the fact that he is the youngest player EVER to have played and scored for Aldershot, regardless of the league. In the club's entire history, he is the youngest to have achieved that feat. There is certainly notability in that. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bombard each editor with lengthy comments and rebuttals, particularly when they are basically word for word copies of previous comments. Firstly, my argument clearly acknowledges GNG as being more important NFOOTY. Secondly, I explain satisfactorily why this subject does not meet GNG. The fact that he is the youngest goalscorer for a club makes no difference if this is not discussed in a significant manner. As there has basically been no coverage of this player outside of routine match reporting beyond a local level, I do not see him as passing GNG, very brief articles like this in a local news source do not to my mind constitute significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the comments can be considered bombardment. This is a discussion after all, and he does arguably meet WP:GNG. It's not clear cut one way or the other. It would be wrong of him not to discuss further, for surely it is discussion that will lead to the kind consensus, that I think we all seek. Nfitz (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple local rag articles but wider coverage is not beyond WP:ROUTINE. Could be argued that coverage is more than some in his situation, but it is not notable, and therefore does not meet GNG. Fails subject specific NFOOTY guidelines. As for the claim he is the club's youngest player and youngest league goal scorer, well it would be fair to say that EVERY club has a youngest player and youngest league goalscorer. Notability is meant to be permanent; when a younger Aldeshot kid comes along, and one will, that little claim to fame disappears. Can be rcreated IF he starts to achieve.ClubOranjeT12:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My comments on GNG and NFOOTY are above so I won't repeat those. My take on the permanence is a little bit different, though. Someone will, in all likelihood break those records (bearing in mind that this could take decades), but he will always have been the club's youngest player / league goalscorer. A sprinter who holds a time-record doesn't lose his notability when his time is broken. Similarly, a younger player/scorer popping up doesn't change the fact that he was once the club's youngest ever player/scorer. At the time he appeared/scored, there had never been a younger player/scorer for the club. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response If the lad is 'notable' for being the youngest scorer for Aldershot then he is not notable by Wikipaedia standards. This is even below that threshhold of WP:ONEVENT in that it is a non notable event. At best you might give this kid a temporary mention on the Aldershot page. Several tens of thousands of clubs and you want each of their youngest scorers to have a page? To take your example, A sprinter who holds an time record is notable if he holds the world record, not if he holds the record for East Hampshire Amateur Athletics club. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable things, not the archive version of semi-interesting local events. Not everything that gets written in papers qualifies as WikeNotable. ClubOranjeT12:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that he passes. Liam, try to be a bit more patient next time and wait till a player actually makes his debut, rather than making everyone waste their time like this. Cheers, Number5717:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm familiar with the standard required and was of the opinion that his achievements passed GNG. Whether I was correct or not, which is/was the subject of this debate, the creation of the article was done in good faith. I'm not an editor who creates articles en masse for the sake of stats so your suggestion that I wasted everyone's time is out of line, especially for an admin. Nonetheless, thank you for changing your vote in light of the new circumstances. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete due to lack of evidence of independent achievement. Some high cites on GS on a super-hot topic: functional MRI. Part of a large team. Can't find any single-author papers that would indicate independent achievement WP:Too soon. This is a case where high cites don't lead to a pass of WP:Prof. BLP is atrociously written, was created by an spa blocked account. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
One media coverage is found. else typical Startups with cause. Press coverage. but written or intended to be promotional alone. 2. there are several noble ideas, but it does not mean they are encyclopedia notable. Too early to write a wikipedia article. Light2021 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient independent coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition to the three substantial independent sources in the article, I found several more, mainly in Indian newspapers. The articles that talk about the company's plans also include material about their current work, so editors could easily expand the article without WP:CRYSTALBALL.
This is exactly the WP:SPIP coverage that is not sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as in "Eckovation launches 'Open School' programme, eyes a billion users by 2020!" This is all about company aspirations, funding and future looking plans. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account WP:SPIP, it looks like these sources generally qualify because they're from reasonably reputable newspapers/publications that pass the WP:ORGIND criteria, unlikely to be paid placement. For WP:CORPDEPTH, it helps that most of the articles go into several paragraphs of detail, instead of being simple statements. Some of the articles (such as "Eckovation launches 'Open School' programme, eyes a billion users by 2020") are primarily quotes from the staff, which is a point against them for WP:CORPDEPTH, but others include some material not directly quoted from staff (such as "Two IIT Graduates Found a Lack in Parent-Teacher Interaction. They Are Solving It with an App!" and "Exclusive: Chandigarh Angels Network backs social learning platform Eckovation"). Dreamyshade (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of these sources have an appearance of being driven by launch publicity. An example from "They Are Solving It with an App!":
"Ritesh Singh and Akshat Goel, graduates from IIT Delhi, met the parents during the school’s annual PTM. They introduced the parents to Eckovation, a mobile app that can help them be in constant touch with the teachers at school and remain informed about all important school activities. (...) The more they looked, the more they felt that one of the main reasons behind this difference was the complete lack of communication between parents and teachers in smaller cities as compared to the schools in the bigger metros."
This presents the POV of the founders, telling their "origins story". Getting coverage is largely a PR driven exercise, CORPDEPTH requires third-party, transformative analysis, and I don't see it in the sources presented. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these pieces look driven by the company wanting to tell their story and seeking press, although that doesn't seem to disqualify the sources under SPIP or CORPDEPTH, since it's still independent coverage and not paid coverage. I'm reading CORPDEPTH and I don't see it requiring transformative analysis to meet the requirements, especially if there are multiple independent sources available, and I'm seeing coverage from 8+ independent publications and authors. I'd prefer there to be some deeper critical coverage available in order to build a strong and balanced article, but it still looks to me like the minimum notability threshold is met. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is simply a starting company going about its business and with the usual processes of gaining attention: Publicity press or public relations which is natural for businesses, but not for an encyclopedia. What WP:CORPDEPTH actually says is articles must not be excluded from WP:What Wikipedia is not and notability is not a guarantee. The sources:
"A startup company....which is engaged....to make its platform smarter....[the founders] launched Eckovation....[and has] taken initiative....The firm has completed....The aim has been...." (first one),
"[They] created this social network....[says co-founder]....download the app, register and start....Interested students can....add themselves and the courses....series via YouTube or Google. Courses fees start from....The start up earns a commission on...." (second one)
"The programme aimes to....[Co-founder] says the initiative....[Eckovation employee] told....He explained....[CEO said]....For Eckovation [he] added....and he said..." (third one)
"The startup will utilise the money....Eckovation connects....Eckovation was co-founded by....The platform hosts....and plans to....[They] compete....[They have] been generating interest....aims to invest...." (fourth one)
"[They] have come up with....[They] wanted to provide....[They chose]....[He] hails from....he said....According to him....[He] says the....says the [co-founder]....Eckovation has allowed....[They have] raised money...." (fifth one)
"They have developed....They attended....They introduced....[He] joined....[He] started discussing....[They] observed...."
"In order to....[They] came up with Eckovation....can create their own accounts....With Eckovation, you can....[They] are currently looking for....As claimed by the founders, the app...."
"The app is available for free....[The employee] said....[Business partner] has teamed....Through this initiative....She says....Available on eckovation.com....She added...." (this one was especially a few paragraphs with each one starting on a "employee says" or "they say")
If this is all the sources have to offer, it's not independent as by WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:V without outside involvement. This is not only indiscriminate, but each one clearly labels the self-servicing by the business itself, but we're not a for-hire agency. What our notability also cite is the need to ensure all the sources are examined to see if they're otherwise unacceptable, and the analysis here shows quite the opposite of "significant". SwisterTwistertalk03:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source from among those above that might seem to be best, the Economic times is an interview, 95% written by the founder; ditto for the second & third; the 4th is a series of notes about recent announcements from various companies; the 5th, 6th 7th and 8th are just the same sort of interviews. I do not understand how any responsible journalist can put his name on a melange somebody else's quotations this way, and the journals that publish it stand self-convicted or irresponsibility. (of course, we knew that before, but this batch is a nice confirmation. Until India has a responsible source of business journalism , we will be unable to write reliable articles about small and medium Indian companies. Perhaps we need a proper statement that these particular sources are never acceptable for purposes of RSs for notability. We could then simply delete any article which has no better sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a minor company which is one of the many educational startups by IITians. I have never heard of this earlier and I do not know of any significant impact this has (this is far from being a popular lms). There are a few articles about the company, but these are fairly routine ones based on the launch press release. If this was truly notable, there would be a lot more coverage in HT/TOI/Hindu and others.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been unreferenced (and orphaned) since it was created in 2006, since when the only changes have been to cleanup tags, categories and wikilinks. I could find only a single reference to this term in the scientific literature: [2] which is a translation of a German-language article. The only books on Google Books which use this term are copied from this Wikipedia page. If a disease caused by Filicollis species had a name, it could well be called filicollosis, but this term is not used by anyone in the English language for writing about the disease. I request that this page be deleted per these criteria: WP:DEL6 (neologism), WP:DEL7 (no reliable source), WP:DEL8 (not notable, no significant coverage). DferDaisy (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^HOFMANN, U., G. GRAFNER, and W. TSCHERNER. "EPIZOOTIOLOGY, CLINICAL COURSE, AND DIAGNOSIS OF ACANTHOCEPHALOSIS (FILICOLLOSIS) IN COMMON DUCK." MONATSHEFTE FUR VETERINARMEDIZIN 44.16 (1989): 576-578.
Redirect to Filicollis anatis; nom is correct that "filicollosis" is almost never mentioned in scientific literature, but there's plenty of research on F. anatis—I just found and added highlights from two papers, and the second indicates how detailed the scholarship on this parasite is. Nonetheless, I can't find enough about the pathophysiology of infection in the final host (waterbirds) for an article on Filicollis infection as a disease (from the host's "perspective"); in the literature, that seems to be mostly discussed in the generality of Helminthiasis. FourViolas (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Notability in the french software industry is well established by numerous articles in tech/business press. Arguments that the article has an advertorially tone does not justify deletion, rather page edition would be more adapted. Ichikokoko (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I fortunately speak French enough to read the sources but even those, are simply announcements or notices (2, 3, 6, 13-15, 18, (22 is a press release notice, FYI), 23, 25, 33-35 and 37-38. This is not nearly the independent significant coverage by WP:CORP and WP:N and since we can actually apply our WP:Deletion policy#14 which itself mentions "Anything unsuitable for an encyclopedia". The one Keep vote has stated they have a WP:COI and, while that may not immediately a criteria for deletion, the need to remove whatever promotionalism exists, actually is. SwisterTwistertalk20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there is consensus here that the article can be redirected to the school, and the only !vote for outright deletion mentions listing the sub-unit in the article, which is a strong argument for redirection as well. After talking to the original editor who relisted, I'm closing this as redirect because I think there is a clear consensus in favour of that outcome without the need for another 7 days of discussion. (non-admin closure) . TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect - This is not a school, but a program. WP:BEFORE shows no coverage outside the local area. As this is a program, not a diploma-granting institution, our traditional lower hurdle to notability does not apply and this program would need to meet WP:ORG. It doesn't. A redirect to Plano Independent School District would be an acceptable outcome. John from Idegon (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The school district is the best redirect target, particularly since the program is split over two schools. Meters (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An advertorially toned page for an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. The claim to notability in the article as the CEO of one of the first internet companies has not resulted in sources that discuss the subject of the article directly and in detail: sample book search result; I'm seeing directory listings only. Article has a history of apparent SPA / COI based editing, with maintenance tags persistently removed by IPs. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable store chain. Google search shows that it exists. Google search is primarily about its bankruptcy, which this article promotionally glosses over. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Generally unsourced biography that doesn't show how she is significant to her voice acting world. Being a voice double for The Powerpuff Girls toys, but not the cartoon itself. None of the anime shows are with prominent starring roles. Biography section seems copied from some other website profile as it is unsourced. WP:TOOSOON? Also no anime conventions. [21]AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC) updated 00:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially per nom. Unable to find any sourcing, behindtheactors and imdb are essentially directory listings, no indepth coverage. I'm not sure drafting a 2 year old article will gain much. Someone can always ask for it to be userified later if they start work again. At Draft, it'll just end up deleted as abandoned. -- ferret (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previous discussion was closed as speedy deleted per CSD G12 as virtually every sentence was a copyvio from a new source. I'd like to return the article to AfD to test the consensus of the community of on the merits of the article: all of the sourcing is either primary sourcing, trade magazines, or press releases, failing the test of WP:N that requires the sourcing to be independent. Additionally, it fails WP:N because it is currently written promotionally, thus being excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, this article is similar to the previous one, and the points against it remains the same. The coverage of the subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and consists of trivial mentions or "About CDM" citations.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted I spoke with the Wikipedia community about this article before, and I have discovered what seemed to be promotional and have removed all promotional content. In addition, I have provided three additional independent sources to provide a backbone to this article while removing the source that mentions "About CDM" in the citation. I firmly believe that this article should not be deleted, considering there is plenty of opportunity for this page to grow in the Wikipedia community. I would also like the opportunity to further research the company CDM Electronics, Inc. and improve the content on this article even more. — Wholeteam39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- strictly advertorial with sections such as "Authorized distribution lines" and "Current work". Distribution companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark with its WP:SPIP sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have fixed the issues listed above and firmly believe that the article CDM Electronics, Inc. is completely informational rather than an advertorial article. In addition, the article is backed by several secondary sources. The article now meets both WP:NOTSPAM and WP:CORPDEPTH standards.--Wholeteam39 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete The editors of CDM Electronics, Inc. seem to have resolved all of the issues listed above, and the page therefore meets both WP:NOTSPAM and WP:CORPDEPTH standards. I have also noticed that this page already contains categories, and is not an orphan. CDM Electronics, Inc. seems to be a legitimate company.--Anthonyjvezza (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] — Anthonyjvezza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Anthonyjvezza (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - NN poet lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. It appears when outright removal of CSD tags failed to stop deletion process, the author created this second article to try to stop deletion. reddogsix (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. The author originally created Anil Patil which I tagged BLPPROD, then added a non-reliable source, blanked the first article and recreated it at this title or Anil Anantrao Patil where BLPPROD could no longer be applied. The author is blatantly gaming the system. Cabayi (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nom is justifiably ticked by his discovery that this was created by a paid editor (presently blocked). Nevertheless, the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing in article can be improved (there are quite a bit of sources on this winery - in Hebrew & English). This winery is notable for producing wine from pomegranates - and they are the leaders in this rather small and unique field - and due to this they get/got quite a bit of coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have read through the discussions on User talk:Yinonk and believe the page reads like an advertisement. I do however see that based on whats out there, that it does meet WP:GNG, especially being the first winery to make pomegranate wine. - GalatzTalk16:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just another article in need of an upgrade, but WP:SIGCOV exists, especially teh Haaretz article below.. Here are some that can be added to article:
Haaretz: "Israeli Family Takes Pomegranate Wine to Heady Heights" [22]
Vogue Italia: "Seminascosta tra le montagne di Galilea c'è la Rimon Winery, la prima cantina al mondo a produrre vino (ma anche prodotti di bellezza e olio)...."[23]
I think all three are already in the article. It definitely still needs work, but I removed all the stuff that sounded like an advertisement and added a bunch of content. I think it now proves its notability. - GalatzTalk20:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The broad coverage about the winery in the article and available to be added more than satisfies the minimum levels of notability for this winery. Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Advertorially toned WP:BLP of an actress, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NACTOR and no valid reliable sourcing. The notability claims here involve appearances on reality and pseudoreality shows, such as playing a plaintiff on a judge show and appearing in a 1000 Ways to Die scene (a show in which non-speaking extras act out the scene while the only voice the viewer hears is that of the show's narrator), and the referencing here is entirely to primary and unreliable sources, such as IMDb, a Facebook post, a video clip on the website of the network that airs one of the shows she was in, a "weird news" blurb on the Huffington Post and a database of film posters. As always, a person does not get a free pass over NACTOR just because she's acted -- she gets over NACTOR when her acting has been the subject of reliable source coverage in media, but none has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, the original comment contains some incorrect information. Roberts was not an extra on 1000 Ways to Die, she was the lead actress who spoke many lines. She was also nominated for an award by Disney and Lucas Film last year. And I watched her NBC interview last year. She has broken 3 Guinness World Records as a contortionist, all of which aired on TV. She isn't just an actress but also contortionist and has been on lots of shows. Her role on America's Court was not reality or pseudoreality. America's Court is categorized as a drama. She played a mom with kids and her name was Maria. She was acting, not being herself. For more sources, she's on the Today Show website and some other places. User:Floppy292
There are no "lead actresses" on 1000 Ways to Die; it's an anthology show where each episode consists of three or four discrete "sketches" cast with one-off actors, and appearing on it does not count as a "major" role for the purposes of WP:NACTOR's "major role" criterion. America's Court with Judge Ross is a pseudoreality judge show on which actors play the litigants in a small claims court case, not a "drama", and appearing on it does not constitute a "major" role either. And there is no claim of notability that anyone can make that ever entitles them to an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist — a person must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media for an article on here to become earned, so to get this kept you would have to show much better evidence of media coverage about her than is present anywhere in this article right now. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a television series, a lead actor is a person who has a regular role as a main character across multiple episodes, not just one. Also, YouTube videos, blog entries and photographs in photo repositories do not assist in demonstrating notability under WP:GNG — a source has to represent written content about her in reliable sources, such as real newspapers and real magazines and books. The fact that somebody took video of her performing and posted that to YouTube does not represent reliable sourcing, because anybody can post video to YouTube of anything. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I didn't say she was a lead actor of the "television series". She was the lead actor of the episode titled "Stench of Death." Wikipedia's definition of lead actor states that it can be a film, play, or piece. "The word lead may also refer to the largest role in the piece and leading actor may refer..." She was the lead of the piece. Wikipedia also says it can include people who have recognizable awards in their specialties. Bria has that. And there are sources with written content about her. Yahoo TV News, The Huffington Post, AOL News, and an Australian printed magazine in public circulation. I posted the Huffington link already. Here is the Yahoo TV News link.
Quibbling over whether the dictionary definition of "lead actor" covers off the main actors in one 10-minute dramatic reenactment sketch on one episode of a pseudoreality show that has no regular cast doesn't change how Wikipedia's notability criteria work — for starters, our notability criteria for actors do not contain the phrase "lead actor" at all. We do not extend an automatic inclusion freebie to every actor who's ever acted just because they have had roles that can be verified by an IMDb page. What we require is substantive coverage about her acting in reliable sources, such as actual critical reviews of her performances and/or substantial articles about her in the entertainment sections of real newspapers.
But that's not what you're showing: the Yahoo link is a blurb, not a substantive piece; Huffington Post is a source that can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but cannot confer notability by itself if if's the best you can do for sourcing; and "an Australian printed magazine" can't assist notability until you provide a lot more detail about it than you did: it's not enough to just say a magazine article exists, but rather you have to provide the exact name of the magazine and the exact title of the article and the exact issue date in which it was printed. Anybody could claim that sourcing exists for anything — we have to be able to verify that the claimed sourcing actually does exist, which we can't do without its exact and full publication details.
And, for that matter, we don't extend an automatic presumption of notability to every person who can be claimed to hold a world record, either — such people still have to be the subject of better coverage than this before they get an article, especially when their record is for some manufactured distinction that they created for themselves by being the only person in the world ever to even try such a meaningless thing, such as "Most Skips With Leg Behind Head in 60 Seconds". Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss the newly mentioned Yahoo News source. Also, please remember that NACTOR might not be the only applicable guideline (cf. WP:BASIC or WP:GNG)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy13:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, she isn't the "only person in the world to try such a meaningless thing," as you worded it. The original record was held by a different person, as explained in the episode of Guinness World Records Unleashed that she was on. She had to break someone else's record. So again, you're providing incorrect negative information. It is correct that she later broke her own record (In the link provided) but her original record on TruTV was breaking someone else's record.
Whether or not you think she meets all the criteria for an actor, she meets the criteria to be included according to other Wikipedia guidelines that SoWhy gave because of the awards in her specialty and media and source coverage. She has also met criteria for making a unique contribution to entertainment. Floppy292 01:05, 3 August 2017 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floppy292 (talk • contribs)
It's already been explained above why the sources you're showing don't cut it. Awards only confer notability insofar as the media cover the presentation of that award as news (e.g. Oscars yes, Local Businesswoman of the Year no) — but you're not showing the kind of media coverage that it takes, but mere blurbs and unreliable sources and vague intimations of other coverage you're refusing to name. And you are not making any strong demonstration that she's made a notably "unique" contribution to entertainment, either — every person who exists in the entertainment industry could always claim that their contributions were "unique", by simple virtue of the fact that their contributions were theirs and not somebody else's. What that criterion refers to is unique contributions like being widely recognized as the originator of an entire notable musical genre or an important stylistic innovation within an existing one, not every single thing that could possibly be described as "unique" even though there was nothing important about it, because everybody who exists in any industry could always describe their work as "unique" in some way. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the "media" has covered the presentation of the award. and there are hundreds, yes, hundreds, of people in Wikipedia who's only notable award is a Guinness World Record. A girl who broke the record for longest hair, a guy who broke the record throwing a playing card the farthest, and other things of the sort. they weren't on NBC, yet they're included and considered "unique." Not because they called themselves unique, but Guinness World Records did. They and their awards are respected. Bria Roberts clearly holds a Guinness World Record and was clearly on television and in news for it. The sources showing this are more "reliable" and notable than the sources for the other Guinness World Record holders in Wikipedia. NBC is one of the world's biggest networks and if their own website isn't considered "reliable," then what is? These are all "reliable sources"...NBC News, Yahoo News, Guinness World Records, Today.com She is also on Ellen's verified page.
Blogspot and Yahoo News are not reliable sources; Spike's and Guinness's own self-published websites are not independent sources; and the problem with the NBC/Today links is that they're not substantive coverage about her accomplishing a trivial feat, but simply video clips of her accomplishing a trivial feat. They do not represent substantive coverage about her for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG, because they don't verify anything about her biography. You're simply not providing, and appear not to even understand, what kind of sources are actually needed to get a person into Wikipedia — none of the links you've provided so far represent the type of sources we require. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. Since this AfD was started, multiple users have improved the article such that it is not eligible for deletion. I commend these users for their actions. I may even further improve it myself at some point. On a side note, a frequently used fallacious argument I find at AfD is that "sources exist, such as [1] [2] [3]." To those who !voted and provided this as a rationale: add them! Saying a topic is notable is all well and good but sources aren't going to add themselves: we assess articles on their current state, not on things outside of Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) DrStrausstalk18:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The singer fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lots of irrelevant and unsourced information in the "Early life" and "Personal life" sections. There's a lot of puffery throughout and the sources show a lack of notability.
Source 1 is a broken link.
Source 2 is written like an advertisement and Jasraj is not the primary subject.
Source 3 is a book in which I can only presume he is mentioned in passing as he is not the primary topic, failing WP:SIGCOV.
Source 4 is just an anniversary: fails WP:1EVENT. Having a birthday doesn't make one notable.
Source 5 is a miscellaneous collection of interviews, none of which confer notability.
Source 8 is a massive list of minor award-recipients, all of which can gain no claim of notability as the award is not a Grammy etc which gives automatic notability per WP:MUSICBIO.
Source 9 is a press release and a broken link.
So sources 2, 4 and 5 could in any way be considered the sources which are primarily about him, none of which appear to be more than either opinion pieces, birthday celebrations or random information. Most of the important music-related claims are unsourced and I cannot find any sources which could back them up.
Keep - The subject in discussion is a recipient of both India's second-highest civilian award - Padma Vibhushan & third-highest civilian award - Padma Bhushan (And also, Sangeet Natak Akademi Award). Regarding the sources listed one has to admit it does not provide enough vital information. The article can be improved with well written, broad coverage and better referencing. -Ninney (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Meets the criteria for 'Others' within WP:NMUSIC which is for "composers and performers outside mass media traditions". Apparently a legendary musician who was deemed worthy of a tribute concert in a 60,000 seater stadium to recognise their 80 year musical career. The article can be improved. Why are we discussing this??? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability not in question: has been given India's second highest civilian award, several thousands of news stories, several thousands google books hits...@DrStrauss: I'd suggest you withdraw this nomination: it is highly unlikely to go anywhere. Indeed I almost closed it as a "Speedy keep" myself. Vanamonde (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A Google search on "jasraj music award" turned up this: Pandit Jasraj to receive lifetime achievement award, on the first page of results. I wish I could honestly say "Speedy keep" but this travesty of an AfD doesn't quite meet the current very restrictive standards of WP:KEEP, though it might well make a good argument for broadening those standards. I agree entirely with Vanamonde that DrStrauss ought to withdraw the nomination.
@Vanamonde93: I was about to withdraw it but after reading all the !votes I have decided that I would prefer it to run its 7-day course. I noticed Curb Safe Charmer listed it under the Article Rescue Squadron-related articles and I think closing it now would remove the impetus to improve it. Whether he's notable or not, the article is an absolute mess (per RegentsPark) and a pending deletion discussion spurs on improvement. TL;DR: admins, please don't prematurely close this. DrStrausstalk14:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete -- The origin of the St Thomas Christians is a significant subject, but we have other articles on it. This article appears to be quoting at length a chronicle without any citation. IN any event a long quotation from a chronicle does not make a satisfactory WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I love art, but this is going a bit too far. She studied art when she was seventeen, but we have no further information, no works, no records beyond that one mention... she simply is not a notable artist by any stretch of the definition (note that for artists, just like for some other groups like nobility, there are books which don't specifically select notable members, but try to list every single one of them: being included in such books shouldn't count towards notability if there is literally nothing to be said about the person) Fram (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete We have no mention of any works by Parigi. We have no clue at all what happened to her after 1738. She does not in any way fit any definition of notability. I have to admit part of me is frustrated that we have so few articles on ever leaders in pre-colonial Ghana, I justcreated the article on Babatu (warlord) probably the over-arching figure in what is now northern Ghana during the last 2 decades of the 19th-century, yesterday. Yet we have an article on someone in the early 18th-century in Europe who literally did nothing. I am all for avoiding presentist bias, which we see in the extreme with an article on a Nigerian tabloid celebrity but lacking one on the first female Nigerian finance minister of the same name. But keeping articles on people who we know nothing substantive about is just not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep! Ngrewal1 is requesting to keep this ghazal singer's article. He had many popular hit songs to his credit in the 1980s - 1990s. I am confident I can improve this article, if given a chance and some time as I have been doing since 2012. In my view, he's a notable singer from Pakistan.Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Article fails to cite substantive sources, and the subject fails WP:TOOSOON. Note that while several sources establish who the article subject is, (most reference a connection to his families' fruit cake business) they do not cover the subject in depth beyond his candidacy, which by itself does not confer notability per WP:NOTE. Other sources that only contain adds for the candidate ([30]), are non third party ([31][32]), or are standard press releases ([33]) should be discounted.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. My first idea was a redirect to Collin Street Bakery, which mentions McNutt. However, I think there's a high chance that would misdirect people who are actually looking for Thomas MacNutt. I appreciate the efforts Flatoncsi has gone to in an attempt to rescue this, but although there's a possibility the election itself meets our notability criteria, McNutt himself just does not. Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections — if you cannot show and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides the fact of being a candidate, then he has to win the election and become an actual holder of political office, not just have his name on the ballot, to get an article for his political activities. But nothing here demonstrates that: all of the sources here are either primary source references to his own campaign literature, or local election coverage of the type that's routinelyexpected to exist for all elections, so nothing here demonstrates that his candidacy would somehow qualify as that exceedingly rare "notable because his candidacy exploded to garner a lot more coverage than normal" special case either. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previously deleted as non-notable in 2015. While not applicable for G4, not much seems to have changed since then as I'm still unable to find substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a German television presenter, which makes no actual claim of notability and contains no valid reliable sourcing for it -- as written, this just states that she was born, got her first job, got married, the end, and the only reference present is a primary source that doesn't even verify any of that content. And while the article on de is longer than this one is, it isn't sourced any better, so simply translating it isn't the key to a keep here. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better, but this isn't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TNT. I translated some GNews articles and found some. "Aleks" appears to be pretty popular 1, interview, 3, appears to have created a diet or some health thing. Obviously there are some issues with determining the exact wording of the German sources (mein Deutsch eist wenig) but I think she is notable. I am busy writing another article so I can't drop the nukes now, but I will try to add the sources to the article. Thanks, L3X1(distænt write))evidence(20:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss L3X1's changes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy07:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to L3X1. The article does still need expansion, obviously, but there's enough reliable sourcing present now to cover off the main reason why I listed this — so I'm hereby withdrawing the nomination. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Once the self-published sources from his business at examdoc.com are stripped away all that's left is an associateassistant professorship which fails WP:NACADEMIC. Cabayi (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Removing content from ExamDoc.com, adding more content from outside sources. Benjaminjsmiller (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)benjaminjsmillerBenjaminjsmiller (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)— Benjaminjsmiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
Delete. Article is promotional garbage and the subject is nowhere near notability. I don't think WP:NACADEMIC even applies: his degrees are from dubious institutions, his publications are all in chiropractic pseudoscience, and I can't find a reliable source to verify that he is an assistant professor at Missouri. And as far as I can tell there are no independent sources that would count towards the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject appears to have published a few books and has a column in a magazine but the only source providing coverage is his own website. There isn't really anything to suggest notability when judged against WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Keep - I've never watched nor have any interest in the programme, but I know many programmes have wiki articles associated with fictional characters and for all intents and purposes, this is reasonably well written. The character is no less notable than the other wiki articles for other characters of this programme. An AfD of this nature should instead consider every character of a programme for a wider discussion of notability, rather than singling out just one. Bungle(talk • contribs)10:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it makes no difference to me personally, the only reason I didn't suggest a merge was due to a) the amount of prose that someone would have to condense and b) whether the character is significant enough to warrant not being on a minor characters article. Bungle(talk • contribs)17:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with partial Merge - the plot summary stuff detailing each appearance is best left to individual episode summaries though, if of importance there. Artw (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Mr Smith is an important character in the show, often aiding the gang in their adventures. He has just as much, if not more, relevance than the likes of Sky Smith - who has her own page despite appearing in 3 stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:281A:8F00:F12C:61B7:F0AE:88E2 (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not seeing much in the references to denote notability. Simply non-notable awards, and news of it being bought out. They do have a Guinness record, but notability isn't inherited. WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk05:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to Hunter Douglas - I'm only finding sources on the takeover and nothing more essentially making this ONEEVENT, The info in the article could be sourced with cites from their website however I would prefer sources outside of their website which unfortunately there isn't any, Anyway bits of the article/takeoever can be merged into Hunter Douglas. –Davey2010Talk13:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable wedding DJ who fails WP:N A7 was declined about a year ago but there was no followup by the original tagger. Article is also promotional in tone and excluded by WP:NOTSPAM, but not sufficient enough for G11. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominating article for deletion on notability grounds. The sources cited by the article describe the subject as a photographer and cite his photos ([34][35][36]), but are not based on the subject himself. The Huffington Post article cited [37] likewise refers to the subject as a photographer and quotes him, but the article itself is not about him and quotations of the subject are minor. The final source cited is owned by the subject [38] and falls under WP:COI. This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion by myself on notability and advertising grounds. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article contains numerous sources such as [39][40][41] which contain significant coverage about the subject, therefore the article passes WP:GNG. The articles do not have to only cover the subject alone to count towards notability. To use the inclusion standards outlined by nominator above would leave practically nothing that would count. Please see WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From my inquiry, none of the results provided by the search you linked turned up any results for the article subject. Most turn up a reference to Sandoval and nothing else.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources currently on the page provide in-depth coverage of Sandoval, as required to meet the general notability guideline. Google hits are not an indicator of notability. My own searches have found no reliable, independent sources where Sandoval is the subject or discussed in depth. Howicus(Did I mess up?)16:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two delete !votes are based on failing WP:NPOL without any discussion of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Bearcat mentions GNG but does not address sources brought later despite relists. SoWhy06:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our notability criteria for politicians do not include "ran in a nomination contest or primary and lost" — a person has to hold office, not just run for it, to be considered notable as a politician per se. But the claims of notability as a lawyer aren't automatic notability passes either — being chairman of the Law Society has potential, but it would still require more than just one piece of media coverage about his initial election to that role to clear WP:GNG for it, such as some properly sourced substance about things he did in that role. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as chairman of the Law Society of Kenya that alone I believe makes them notable, ignoring the ran but failed political career. As chairman of a governmentally set up body that it is mandatory for all lawyers to be part of, I believe that provides notability. Needs expanding and more references though. Canterbury Tailtalk16:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to just assume that maybe the referencing might be improvable — the equation is not "notability comes first and then maybe referencing", but rather the referencing inherently defines the notability or lack thereof. For a poorly referenced article to get a presumption of notability on the grounds that it's improvable, it has to be shown that the necessary depth of sourcing does exist — an article about a person can make no notability claim that confers an automatic "notable because X has been stated even if proper sources for it don't exist anywhere". So it's not enough to say that it "needs more references" — it needs to be definitively shown that there are more references that can be added to fulfill that need. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject appears to be covered in several large news outlets that cover election events: The Kenya Star 1, The Kenya Star 2, The Daily Nation 1, and The Daily Nation 2 for example. There are a fair number of additional articles in these two publications, which are the top two newspapers in Kenya. It seems that Mantua was involved in some significant and interesting election drama that netted him some news coverage. This establishes notability alone. With some expansion relying on this coverage, the article itself will improve in quality. Malinaccier (talk)18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for analysis of sources presented late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America100004:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did anyone do a WP:BEFORE here? There's tons of news coverage of this guy, and not just related to the election he lost. Here's an article about him being called to the Supreme Court in 2013. Here's coverage of him starting his term as Chairman of the Law Society, and here's coverage of him ending. Here's another article focused on just him and his supporters. And those don't even include ones where he's just quoted. This is substantial coverage. Just because he happened to then lose an election does not mean he's non-notable. agtx21:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete The one source suggested as supporting notability, a list of statistics in The Telegraph (Calcutta), clearly fails WP:GNG. It is not in-depth coverage of the film. It is merely a list of basic statistics for seven different films, and it says almost nothing about this film. The fact that some particular actor is in it means nothing, because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. To establish notability, the topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and "multiple sources are generally expected". This article clearly fails the test. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Didn't notice that the title lacked the word "admissions" - delete as implausible redirect along with everything else wrong with it. ansh66618:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Note that the current title is completely unsuitable for a redirect and should be deleted. It makes no sense. "Rescinded controversy"???? If that phrase means anything, it means a controversy which has been rescinded. Possibly "University of California, Irvine rescinded admissions controversy", but I'm not sure any redirect is warranted for this utter trivia. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Keep Namiba's work is enough to meet WP:SPORTCRIT for me, if just barely. There's probably more out there that can be added to improve things here if there's this much already. South Nashua (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete the sources are questionable, the claims are even more questionable, and the grouping together of the subjects, and using sources that claim this skews "female" and then listing a male as the only named participant just shows sloppy writing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there really is a Trump Resistance. It's a big deal, albeit a tad amorphous. So, while this is a paltry stub written by an SPA whose lone edit it is, I think that the topic merits an article. Editor who closed the previous article User:Drmies writes that User: NewsAndEventsGuy and I made some useful improvements to the previous article. @Drmies:, I wonder whether he or I wrote a lede, or organized the article in a way that is at all useful or that could be retrieved. As a start to turning this into a respectable start on an acceptable article. I have posted this on the Rescue list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue working for now. It's true there was just an AfD, but EM Gregory came late and posted a list of sources specific to "Resistance" -- only 3 votes came in after him and 2 were Keep "per EM Gregory". There is some kind of campaign(s), organized or not, around the word "Resist". I get them in my mailbox! This is different from protesting. It's also used for fundraising for example. I'd like to see the article provide more context and backstory, where the "Resist" meme started and how it become institutionalized. It's exactly like the Stop Trump movement. -- GreenC02:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to fundraising, there's also a grassroots movement in which Democrats without prior political experience are lining in large numbers to try to flip districts currently held by Republicans. For example, eight Democrats have already lined up to challenge Barbara Comstock in 2018. This is being encouraged by organizations under the "Trump resistance" umbrella. 172.56.3.174 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Comment - if the article is kept, at the very least the entirety of the current content should be deleted. It is obviously a pertinent topic, but I think it is covered well in articles like Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Anti-Trump protests. Not to mention there is an article for every single controversy Trump was involved in. There is a lot of Trump coverage on WP. The Article for deletion makes it sound like Donald Trump resistance is a political party, and arbitrarily recites facts which may or may not be true. Just my opinion. I totally understand the keep, but this would be a complete re-write - and to accurately cover the issue would need a substantial article - I would say the readers would be better served perhaps by a list of anti-Trump sentiment articles. Poor wording but you understand. Maybe there already is something, like I said, the Trump article count is astronomical. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peadorᐐT₳LKᐬ13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further, look at the into to Anti-Trump protests (I just noticed this): "Anti-Trump movement" redirects here. For the conservative-led anti-Trump movement during his presidential campaign, see Never Trump movement. Further information: Timeline of protests against Donald Trump --‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peadorᐐT₳LKᐬ13:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El cid, el campeador, It is precisely because we have such an enormous number of article about opposition to Trump that we need an article on "Opposition to the Donald Trump Presidency", the "Anti-Trump movement," or whatever-we-decied-to-call-it; a "master" article, much as we have for Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War, Abolitionism and other big topics. (After giving this some thought, I think that an good aritcle on "The Trump Resistance", focused on the further left segment of the American left that favors the word "resistance" could be written.) I, however, am not presently inclined to write such articles. I VERY MUCH LIKE your suggestion that we start a list to collect this explosion of articles, this embarras des richesses.. If a capable editor steps forward to revise and make this into a good article, or, atl least, a good enough article, I will support keeping. I do, obviously, agree that it cannot be kept in the condition in which it stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made a good run at trying to make an incomplete list of Trump controversies, but truthfully it became too much haha. But, look here [[Category:Donald Trump controversies]]. It is a pretty good collection of relevant controversies, protests, resistance, etc. Obviously a category is not as good as an article, but it can be considered the 'center' of the issue. I will tag your new article with one of the sub-cats. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peadorᐐT₳LKᐬ19:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It is with great trepidation that I bring this to AfD, given WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and all. But, despite my efforts, I couldn't establish this meeting WP:GNG. Additionally, it is written so promotionally, it's hard to think it could survive without a total rewrite. I'm happy to be wrong about this, but this entirely unsourced private school article seems to warrant a deletion discussion. Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk02:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. While the article does need more substance and better referencing, we do accept national First Ladies as notable — even if they hold the position primarily by virtue of who they're married to, the position itself is still a notable public role in its own right. For that very reason, WP:NOTINHERITEDspecifically states that national first ladies are not deemed non-notable on "inherited" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Igor Dodon - WP:BASIC still applies, and an official biography, along with an article that rehashes that biography, is simply not enough to indicate significant coverage.
I find Bearcat's line of reasoning deficient on two grounds: first, WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not policy; second, the line about the first lady (in particular, the American first lady, who'll always have loads of coverage) is merely an example, not a dispositive finding that all spouses of national leaders are notable.
This individual's accomplishments can easily be summarized in about two lines. There's really no need for a separate article to do that. - BiruitorulTalk14:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It hardly matters whether you find my reasoning "persuasive" or not. Firstly, WP:ONLYESSAY is invalid reasoning in an AFD discussion, as essays are binding expressions of the rules that pertain in the absence of a specific reason to treat the case at hand differently from the established practice for other comparable topics. And secondly, that rule is not limited to First Ladies of the United States; we also have articles, for example, about Justin Trudeau's and Emmanuel Macron's and Jacob Zuma's and Narendra Modi's wives, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife, Theresa May's and Angela Merkel's husbands, and on and so forth — and most of them don't have the kinds of independent accomplishments that would have gotten them into an encyclopedia independently of being a national leader's spouse either. But the simple fact is that being a national leader's spouse is in and of itself a role that gets a person into an encyclopedia right on its own face, period — not because "inherited notability", but because it is a notable role in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You just cited an essay to support a claim that an essay is binding. According to WP:POLICIES, which is an actual policy, "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval."
I never claimed only US first ladies are notable. I merely pointed out the example in the essay is an obvious straw man - of course the wife of the American president will always be notable. When it comes to Moldova (or Bulgaria, or Cape Verde, or Djibouti, or Estonia, or Fiji, or Sri Lanka, or Slovakia, or Tunisia, or Tajikistan, or Switzerland), the case is less clear.
It comes down to significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. If the only thing to be said about someone is that she is married to a head of state, then no, that really is not enough for standalone notability. - BiruitorulTalk18:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay". Congratulations, that's the most tautological nothingburger of an argument I've ever seen in almost 15 years of contributing to Wikipedia. Please note the following: "We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made."
At any rate, WP:GNG is not solely a question of whether the article's quality is already up to scratch or not — even a poorly sourced article can still be kept if it's demonstrated that the sourcing necessary to repair it with exists, regardless of whether it's actually present in the article yet or not. So for a person with a strong and properly verified notability claim, what would need to be shown to get the article deleted isn't that it's inadequate in its current state, but that it's entirely unrepairable because the depth of sourcing we require for GNG simply isn't out there to be found and added. Lots of Wikipedia articles are inadequate in their current state, but still have a valid and properly sourced notability claim that buys them the time to get better — but we keep or delete articles based on whether or not they're improvable, not just whether or not they're already perfect.
So if you really want this deleted, it's not enough to just argue that the article's current state is inadequate — the notability claim is one that Wikipedia accepts, so what would need to be shown is some hard evidence that the article can't be improved because better sources about her don't even exist. And as for those other redlinked first ladies you pointed out, it's not that they fundamentally lack basic notability — the only thing stopping any of them from happening is that nobody's gotten around to it yet. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it so happens that such sources really don't exist, at least as far as I can tell. The only other one I've been able to find, and which isn't a direct rehash of the official biography, is this. In it, we find out the following highly interesting data: in 2014, Mrs. Dodon earned a base salary of 110,568 lei, which fell to 54,075 lei the following year. In the same period, her social insurance payments amounted to 42,893 and 33,887 lei, respectively. The family owns a plot of land (0.059 hectares) and a house (422.8 m2) in Chișinău - and both are registered in Igor and Galina's name. Galina also has two bank accounts: one for social payments, totaling 16,839 lei; the other, a salary account, has 65,427 lei. - BiruitorulTalk01:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Igor Dodon, as is common for spouses and close relatives of notable people. Galina's article is really short so could easily be merged, Igor's article has very little information about his family beyond the fact that they exist (not even names), and there's no clear evidence that she's notable or there's anything much to say. If someone can find good sources in other languages, then fair enough, expand the article instead. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a presumption of notability for national First Ladies spouses. This is an international encyclopedia, and the community consensus is that the position affords the presumption of notability, which not limited by country or nation. So, a national legislator in Nahru is treated similarly to a national legislator in India. Once there is a presumption of notability, all that is needed is a reliably sourced statement that the subject holds that position (which could be an independent news source or an official government publication). --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that WP:POLITICIAN specifically applies to national legislators in a way it doesn't to first spouses, for which no presumption of notability has been demonstrated. I agree we should have a line about this individual in her husband's biography - one line being about the extent of what reliable sources have to say about her. However, there's really no call for a standalone article. - BiruitorulTalk20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat and Enos733. She is the First Lady of a modern nation. I would oppose a merge, though this article could be expanded and probably should be. But length or quality are not the same as notability, this is a clear keep. Montanabw(talk)05:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
In my opinion the page does not qualify for WP:NOTE and some sources do not qualify per WP:VER. One source [43] is a blog with a trivial mention of the subject. One is a page on a independent, but sponsored chamber of commerce website [44], which serves as the basic descriptor of the subject. Other sources cite the subject's own website ([http://www.cardrates.com/scholarship/] [http://www.cardrates.com/about/]), or are third party sources with content sponsored by the subject ([45]). That leaves the Forbes sources, one of which [46] only mentions Cardrates.com as a past employer of the writer of the article (note that this article is produced by Forbes/nextavenue, and is written by contributors, labeled as *Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own* by Forbes), while the second [47] is attributed to the current CTO of Creditrates.com and is likewise created by contributors not employed by Forbes. In short, no verifiable sources, claims that could be read as adverts, and lack of notability qualify the article in question for deletion. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SamHolt6's argument may possibly justify the insertion of the (( third-party )) tag, however, I see no evidence that the article reads like an advertisement, nor that the subject of the article is entirely non-notable. I have just added an additional independent source and piece of information which assists in showing notability, in addition to cleaning up and improving the article altogether. Also worth noting: A Google search reveals HORDES of other sites (including some high-profile ones) linking to this site. It has certainly gained some significant recognition. Steevven1(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)00:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nom is absolutely correct on this one, and although the article itself doesn't read like an advertisement, all of the sources really are. I did a search in books and in Google, and although Steevven1 is correct -- there are a lot of hits -- they're all either written by the company itself or are just automated items that were created by them. Does not meet the criteria at WP:RS. Nomader (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references in the article provide any significant coverage of this website in independent, reliable sources. This debate has been going on for three weeks and nothing that shows notability has come to light. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I understand that this had been relisted 3 times, (and depending on which en.wiki cult you are initated in that is 1-3 relists to many :)) niether HazardBot nor the final relister addded the "Afd debates relisted 3 times or more" category, which is watched by a multitude of editors. If this can be relisted, or closure delayed a few days, we may be able to get some eyse on this for better consensus. Thanks, L3X1(distænt write))evidence(01:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
this is just the same as the results of group stage which already appear in 1970 Rugby League World Cup + team line ups. Also nominating for identical reasons:
they are identical to the full world cup article even verbatim match summmaries except team listings. It is not like the FIFA World Cup where there are several groups requiring separate group articles. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, was only referring to the Team listings. Please feel free to tweak the language used in the body text so that it does not offend.Fleets (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with the main Rugby League World Cup articles. No need for a separate article with so few teams in the competition at the time. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: no need for an article on the group stage of the tournament when the tournament consists entirely of the group stage and one final match. Mattlore (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable company. A minor record label of the late 50s/early 60s that (after its owners gave up and went on to other careers) was reformed by one of the founders as some unclear form of music licensing service. No significant coverage of either entity to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please see the talk page discussion. In my estimation there is quite a bit of collector interest in this label, so it is a useful topic from an "specialized encyclopedia" standpoint. There's probably some articles in obscure record collecting rags that I'll never see in my lifetime. All the online sources I could find are listed on the talk page, except for numerous message board postings. Article was created to promote the "re-formed" online music licencing company, which is utterly non-notable by any viewpoint I can think of. For a record collector, there are merely two pieces of useful information in the current article. 1st is the name of the founders (probably verifiable by the Billboard article and the Galen Gart independent labels book (which I don't have handy at the moment)), and the recording and pressing locations, which probably fail WP:V. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)14:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only thing I could find about the label was this: [48], it says on this website they released one album for a reasonably notable band, the Berry Brothers (every other band or performer listed are very obscure), but just releasing non-notable album or single (sources vary) for a vaugely notable band in the late 50s doesn't give notability in my opinion. Also this looks very promotional. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete candidates for office will get news coverage, but we have decided not all candidates are notable. Subject does not pass notability guidelines.
Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just because some campaign coverage exists — campaign coverage always exists for all candidates in all elections, so every candidate would always clear GNG if that were all it took. Rather, to get a candidate into Wikipedia, what would need to be shown is that either (a) he already had enough preexisting notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article for some other reason anyway, or (b) the campaign coverage exploded significantly out of proportion to what most other candidates could show. But neither of those things is being demonstrated here at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources given and I cannot find any additional. Sources listed in the article fail WP:CORPDEPTH, they are either press releases or unrelated to the company. shoy (reactions) 19:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've assessed the sources in the article and they are either press releases or news about the company being acquired – both not significant. My search also did not come up with any additional source that can be used here. Fails GNG and ORG. Lourdes01:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete He is a marketing person for a small law firm. A listing in a local "30 under 30" article does not confer notability, and the coverage is of the "local boy makes good" variety. Consensus only a few months ago was to delete, and all that has changed is that his middle name was used to create a new article. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another biography of the Investor Relations Manager at HART Legal. The article makes no claim to encyclopaedic notability and the coverage provided and found is local and mundane. No reason to overturn the April consensus to delete. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Delete I tend to agree. I could not find even one source (web or news; unreliable or reliable) that could confirm the existence of this band. The article contents too are downright unacceptable (for example I just removed the sentence "... is a fuckin’ loser with no skills at all.") Why not speedy delete this as a hoax? Lourdes01:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete It's a couple of computers running a radio station using an over-the-air setup flirting with the Part 15 line (if this was in Brooklyn the FCC likely would've killed it as a pirate station). This is pretty much most radio stations today; doesn't meet WP:BROADCAST as it isn't licensed. Add in a WP:COATRACK complaint about the SoundExchange royalties system and you have a very wordy article for a generic Internet oldies station. Nate•(chatter)06:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither online radio stations nor Part 15 operations get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just for existing — they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG. But that's not what the sourcing here is showing: except for one article in a radio trade magazine that's actually about Carolina Classic Hits, all of the content that's actually about CCH itself is referenced to primary sources rather than reliable ones, while all of the other properly reliable sources are supporting a WP:COATRACK essay about the general challenges of radio broadcasting in the 21st century while neither being about CCH nor even mentioning CCH at all. This is not what it takes to make something like this eligible for a Wikipedia article — the radio trade magazine is literally the only source here that counts for anything at all toward supporting notability, and one acceptable source doesn't count for enough by itself. Also, conflict of interest (what a shocking surprise) if you compare the creator's username to the owner's name in the article's infobox. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regarding the "flirting with the Part 15 line (if this was in Brooklyn the FCC likely would've killed it as a pirate station)," the station is fully compliant with the FCC's regulations and restrictions for Part 15 broadcasting. Under no circumstances, would we engage in or condone any illegal or 'pirate' operations. "Regarding the "complaint about the SoundExchange royalties system," this is simply an example of the methodology and if there is a better way to convey this information, please advise me or edit the article. This information conveyed here is in answer to the questions asked by other Internet radio broadcasters and individuals who desire to start their own station in the future. There is not an abundance of sources regarding CCH because the station is part of an industry that is just beginning to become a source of mainstream listening. CCH also serves a niche audience in that it is an older demographic than the 12-24 demographic which currently listens to Internet radio the most. These numbers are broadening as the reach of Internet radio broadens and includes in-car listening apps which are already available in some vehicles. Small (one-man) operations, especially in this form of broadcasting, are becoming more prevalent as the expense to operate a station is very low and the interest in starting a radio station by both veteran broadcasters and those new to medium with a unique form of programming to share. The fact that any operation is small has no bearing on the interest that others may have in the operation or the contribution that makes regarding entertainment and/or the conveying of information. I am totally open to any suggested editing of the article and please note that CCH is not a commercial operation or business. Advertising proceeds goes directly to licensing and the cost of streaming is paid out of pocket by CCH; we have no revenue and we have minimal expenses. CCH refers other broadcasters, potential broadcast programmers and listeners to Wikipedia to get their questions answered through this article and any supporting articles that are referenced. I have made some edits to the article as of August 6, 2017 and I welcome any further suggestions. Thank you. Rick04:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part 15 stations are not accorded an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NMEDIA's rules for the notability of radio stations. If a station does not have a full-fledged FCC license, then the only way it can still qualify for a Wikipedia article is if it has enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. If that's not present and can't be provided, then the station simply does not get to have a Wikipedia article at all — the facts that it's "part of an industry that is just beginning to become a source of mainstream listening", or that it "serves a niche audience", do not grant it an exemption from having to be properly sourced. Reliable source coverage is the notability test, and a thing that doesn't have that doesn't get to put itself into Wikipedia just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While I would request Edwardx to comment on the reasons for nomination, my initial research suggests the subject doesn't catch up on either GNG or CREATIVE or MUSICBIO. Unless something terribly important comes up to the contrary, this seems a Delete. Lourdes16:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oops, don't know why it didn't save my reasoning for this AfD nom. Think it was the lack of any independent in-depth coverage. Edwardx (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.