< 2 August	4 August >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Abubakar Lajada[edit]

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

Nothing could be found about the subject to meet WP:BASIC or WP:NPOLITICIAN —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He apparently aspires to run for president, but being an unelected candidate for political office isn't an automatic notability freebie in the absence of any properly sourced demonstration of preexisting notability for other reasons. But nothing else here demonstrates that at all — the infobox lists the Economic Community of West African States, but both it and the body text fail to clarify what role (if any) he actually held with that organization, and the organization's article fails to shed any light on that either. And the sourcing doesn't pass WP:GNG either: there's one article about his announcement of presidential aspirations, which is a type and depth of sourcing that would be simply and routinely expected to exist for anybody who ever declared themselves a candidate in any election, and one primary source that he wrote about himself — and that's nowhere near enough to cut the mustard. Plus the article was created by a user named "Ilajada", meaning somebody needs to read our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How oblivious of him to have stated his interest to run for the presidency in 2015, when he was constitutionally unqualified to be elected. You must be 40 years minimum to be eligible as Nigerian head or deputy head of state, he was merely in his early 30s. He is likely to constest in 2019, since the senate recently reduced the minimum age to 35 but that sounds like Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL to me. Concerning his wealth, we only consider individuals who are billionaires in dollars. He is a billionaire in naira, but a millionare in dollars, so that counts for nothing. He might be rich, but not notably rich. I endorse this delete vote. (orig un-signed entry by Darreg on 20:55, 5 August 2017)
Delete. Nothing but self-provided sources. Not notable (or possibly even all factual). Loopy30 (talk) 15:27, 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.

The result was speedy delete. by User:SpacemanSpiff as WP:G11. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ManageWP, Ltd[edit]

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

Not seeing any major coverage. Appears to be created for payment. Maybe redirect to GoDaddy? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising, complete with the list of Features. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure. Expanded by Special:Contributions/Fasuaye, a user with a strange pattern of bahavour. I've requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 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.

The result was keep. So Why 17:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Roland Shearer[edit]

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

This article has multiple issues including Notability, BLP, Neutrality, Lack of secondary sources (many of the cites are on sites that the subject controls. MrsMickie (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have many issues with this page.

It seems self promotional in tone. It contains original research. Many of the citations link to sites and.or articles either authored by or connected to the subject and not not independent or secondary. Does not meet BLP standards. Her only real notability is that she is the widow of Stephen Jay Gould.

MrsMickie (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate indicia of notability independent of her spouse. Article needs work on tone, but that's not what AfD is about. Montanabw^(talk) 05:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's loads of info about her behind paywalls that I can't access, but you can see the cites on Newspapers.com and EBSCOhost. I've added what I do have access to and what I have time to get to today. I agree with Montanabw that the article needs a rewrite, but the subject is clearly notable and passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to be originally created at the request of the subject. Notability is borderline, many of the cites I saw were subjects own websites, or related to a 9/11 event that isn't directly related to her being worthy of encyclopedic entry. The article itself is a self promotional hot mess and would need to be completely rewritten not only for tone but for promotional context. Better to delete and start over that work from an article that shouldn't have been created in the first place TarHealer (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is disjointed, self promotional. Checking the links the majority redirect to her own site. At first I was going to suggest a keep and work on the article, but after I started looking at it I changed my mind. Delete per the nomination or fail notability journalist, artist.. Let someone not connected to the source create a new and proper entry. Maugster (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The tone issues can be fixed through normal editing. There's plenty of coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 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.

The result was delete. A large number of sources were presented, but most editors here felt some of the sources failed WP:SPIP or WP:ORGIND, and in aggregate, they failed WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Ziggy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An obsolete advertisement. Checking Google, the top 10 hits are either the company, us and our mirrors, and microsoft. As far as tell, it's as obsolete as the Windows phone it was designed for, and very much less important. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gonzales, Ann (2012-08-26). "Popularity zooming for Ask Ziggy. Rocklin Man Has a Hit with Windows Phone App". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Shai Leib, a third-party developer based in Rocklin, has seen meteoric success of his Ask Ziggy voice-powered app, launched in late December for Windows Phone platforms. Since then, the free app has gone viral worldwide. Leib's fledgling company has attracted two rounds of venture capital funding, including a recently announced $5 million.
  Ask Ziggy is expected to launch on Android, Apple and Microsoft devices this year, including older versions of iPhones and iPods.
  Leib, a 20-year software developer, was the sole designer and developer. He said he had tinkered with the app for years, and put the finishing touches on it while working as a consultant, plugging away on it at his home office and the local Starbucks shop.
  ...
  Leib developed the app for Windows Phone because he received some early support from Microsoft, and he has a strong background in Windows systems. He also figured developing the app for the Windows Phone would help distinguish him from the pack of third-party developers.
  ...
  Leib named his app after the artificial intelligence computer featured in the old TV show "Quantum Leap."
  The article contains negative coverage of Ask Ziggy:
  Jay Donovan, a tech blogger and app developer, said Ask Ziggy does some functions better than Siri, but struggles with others.
  "I find (Ask Ziggy's) performance to be good for some tasks, not so good for others," Donovan said. "Either way, it fills a void for Windows Phone users by offering a voice command solution."
2. Van Sack, Jessica (2012-04-17). "Ziggy leaves Siri speechless - New app challenges Apple for future of voice recognition". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Siri was once the Apple of my eye. But then I met Ziggy, and things changed.
  My love affair with Apple’s handy voice-recognition assistant Siri, the crowning achievement of the iPhone 4S, began with my recent switch from Blackberry. But the highly touted feature, made with technology from Burlington-based Nuance, is getting a run for its money thanks to a man named Shai Leib, who developed Ziggy all by himself.
  The 40-year-old software developer from Sacramento created his voice recognition assistant “Ask Ziggy” three months ago. It comes in the form of a free app available at Windows Phone marketplace and Leib wants to make it available to Apple and Android customers soon.
  ...
  I ask Ziggy whether I should gamble, for instance, and he tells me, “It is always good to gamble from time to time. You just have to be careful not to gamble more than you can afford to lose.” Thanks Ziggy. Siri, by contrast, gives me a list of places where I can gamble. Still useful. But Ziggy just understood me better.
3. Posey, Brien (2014-05-27). "Overcome the language barrier with these five free translation apps". TechRepublic. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Ask Ziggy isn't a dedicated translation app, but it does do a good job of translating phrases. It provides a Siri/Cortana-like interface that allows you to verbally interact with your smartphone.
  ...
  Ziggy requires you to manually enable translations. When you do, it will translate anything you say. When testing Ask Ziggy, I made the mistake of saying, "translate good morning." It translated the phrase "translate good morning." I got over the initial learning curve in about five minutes and the app seemed to do a good job.
  Ask Ziggy is available for iOS, Android, and Windows Phone.
4. Friedman, Lex (2013-03-11). "An iPhone fan's month with Windows Phone: Week two". PC World. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  There are a few third-party apps for Windows Phone that aim to offer a fuller, Siri-like experience. I use Ask Ziggy for reminders now, though it’s a far cry from Siri paired with the Reminders app. For one thing, you need to launch the app, instead of holding down a button. Its transcription and interpretation are accurate, but slow. It takes a somewhat odd, tile-based approach to reminders; if you have more than nine, new ones are added off the bottom of the screen. And it takes a whole lot of presses of the Back button to return to the screen where you can give another vocal instruction.
  Ask Ziggy can handle a lot of other actions though, including calendar-related tasks, emails, directions, and more. Many aren’t handled especially deftly, however.
5. Whitney, Lance (2012-01-04). "Windows Phone's Siri rival off to a good start. Microsoft's mobile OS already includes its own voice recognition feature called TellMe, but the new Ask Ziggy is developer Shai Leib's attempt to bring voice assistance to a higher level". CNET. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  I ran a quick, informal competition between Ziggy and Apple's Siri, giving Siri--which debuted on the iPhone 4S in October--the same voice commands issued to Ziggy in the video displayed below.
  Ziggy functions similarly to Siri at following basic voice commands. You can ask Ziggy to phone a contact or dial a specific number, and e-mail or text someone with a certain message.
  You can ask Ziggy to provide directions, find local businesses, tell you the weather, perform calculations, and handle a variety of other tasks. A help page set up by the developer offers suggestions on what you can ask Ziggy.
6. Smith, Chris (2012-01-03). "Windows Phone App News: Ask Ziggy Siri-alike launched". T3. Archived from the original on 2012-03-10. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Windows Phone owners now have your very own answer to Siri and it's not just some buggy cheap rip-off, it's actually the real deal.
  Apple's Siri personal assistance app for the iPhone 4S has sparked a slew of Android imitators and now Microsoft's Windows Phone has its own impersonator with the Ask Ziggy app.
  The free app (which also comes free of any advertising) has, like Siri, the capacity to turn your speech into transcribed text. So that means, just like Siri, you can ask the app all manner of questions and receive surprisingly in-depth results.
7. Gibbs, Sam (2012-01-03). "Who Needs Siri When You Can Ask Ziggy". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  We've known for a while that the iPhone's Siri isn't actually all that unique -- more of a clever combination of existing technology with a bit of Apple-polish. But now a free app for Windows Phone, Ask Ziggy, goes ahead and proves that outright.
  The impressive app combines Nuance's great voice-recognition software with some intelligent data fetching. It goes way beyond what Bing Voice is currently able to do on Windows Phone, allowing you to search, dictate, update statuses, do maths, grab the weather, and even ask proper questions.
8. Glover, Mark (2012-08-25). "Firm secures funding to rival Siri app". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ask Ziggy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ask Ziggy Inc. participants and closer: NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs), Missvain (talk · contribs), Someone not using his real name (talk · contribs), and Mark Arsten (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the removal of a large number of sources and content before the start of this AfD. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (responding to ping) Wow, that last discussion was a while ago. In it, I said the article should be rewritten to be about the app, but it looks like I never got around to it. That still seems to be a valid response – the sources above look like they're mostly about the app. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this is excessively promotional and beyond the lasting improvements both policy and notability, see the highlighted examples: [He] has seen meteoric success of his Ask Ziggy voice-powered app, launched in late December for Windows Phone platforms [and] was the sole designer and developer. He said he had tinkered with the app for years, and put the finishing touches on it while working as a consultant, plugging away on it at his home office and the local Starbucks shop. He also figured developing the app for the Windows Phone would help distinguish him from the pack of third-party developers" and the next quote which supposedly criticizes the subject, is only a one-time quote, not enough for "significant coverage", and the next one is easily as thin, The 40-year-old software developer from Sacramento created his voice recognition assistant “Ask Ziggy” three months ago. It comes in the form of a free app available at Windows Phone marketplace and Leib wants to make it available to Apple and Android customers soon. The next one is a classic case of WP:Not guide since it literally sounds like a guide and the same goes for #4, see For one thing, you need to launch the app, instead of holding down a button. Its transcription and interpretation are accurate, but slow. It takes a somewhat odd, tile-based approach to reminders; if you have more than nine, new ones are added off the bottom of the screen. And it takes a whole lot of presses of the Back button to return to the screen where you can give another vocal instruction. Ask Ziggy can handle a lot of other actions though, including calendar-related tasks, emails, directions, and more. Many aren’t handled especially deftly, however. and #5 Ziggy functions similarly to Siri at following basic voice commands. You can ask Ziggy to phone a contact or dial a specific number, and e-mail or text someone with a certain message. You can ask Ziggy to provide directions, find local businesses, tell you the weather, perform calculations, and handle a variety of other tasks. A help page set up by the developer offers suggestions on what you can ask Ziggy. and a later one too, The impressive app combines Nuance's great voice-recognition software with some intelligent data fetching. It goes way beyond what Bing Voice is currently able to do on Windows Phone, allowing you to search, dictate, update statuses, do maths, grab the weather, and even ask proper questions. The principle of articles here is never the amount of sourcing but a matter of our policy, and WP:Not guide is our perfect example of it. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources presented above are not convincing, with some being WP:SPIP, as in:

"Leib developed the app for Windows Phone because he received some early support from Microsoft, and he has a strong background in Windows systems. He also figured developing the app for the Windows Phone would help distinguish him from the pack of third-party developers.

This type of coverage presents POV of the company founder and his hopes and aspirations. This is not truly independent coverage that would allow to create an article beyond a directory listing, which WP:NCOPR specifically discourages. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, to quote, WP:Notability, articles can only be accepted when notability has been established, and not suggested, since articles must be accepted in an uncontroversial state; an easy task here shows no serious coverage exists outside of announcements or notices, therefore no basis on improvements. SwisterTwister talk 18:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: an easy task here shows no serious coverage exists outside of announcements or notices, therefore no basis on improvements. – the sources I linked above are not "announcements or notices".
Articles that present the "POV of the company founder and his hopes and aspirations" are not automatically "not truly independent coverage". That same article has negative coverage of the subject:
Jay Donovan, a tech blogger and app developer, said Ask Ziggy does some functions better than Siri, but struggles with others.
"I find (Ask Ziggy's) performance to be good for some tasks, not so good for others," Donovan said. "Either way, it fills a void for Windows Phone users by offering a voice command solution."
To present both the founder's viewpoint and an opposing viewpoint to make for a well-balanced article is good journalism.
Cunard (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it was hard to find info on the actual company and its history, so it became obvious (as others mentioned) that the software should be the focus. I modified the article to reflect this, but haven't taken the time to change the infobox. The software is notable to me for two reasons. When it came out, it was the first Windows Phone answer to Siri, cementing its place in voice computing history, and it was developed by one person - a truly remarkable feat that writers mentioned, contrasting with the problems that Microsoft was having developing Bing search (now Cortana). It got good initial reviews, and one writer even suggested that Microsoft should buy Ask Ziggy. The news coverage at the time was sufficient to show notability - I don't think that can be taken away. Nowadays, they appear to have gone dark, but I weakly support a keep for the current state of things. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zppix and K.e.coffman. Rentier (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails criteria for establishing notability. Even a reliable source can print an interview or a press release and fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH and this is exactly the case for the long list of references provided above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources cited speak for themselves. Wikipedia decided long ago that the personal opinions of editors could not be a standard for inclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right. Which is why you should make your argument based on policy and guidelines. Otherwise your !vote is the epitome of the very statement you're making above. Unless you were being ironic in which case please ignore. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are hardly the type of in-depth coverage needed to show it passes WP:GNG. In fact, the citations make a better case for an article about Leib, rather than this product. I really wanted to keep this one, because I love the tie-in to one of my favorite sci-fi shows, but the references simply don't warrant it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 12 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 speedy delete per WP:A7. So Why 14:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microflik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Microflick Software Corporation

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

Article exists only to promote subject company which also fails WP:NOTE and violates WP:ADVERISE. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and the name of the creating account implies a conflict of interest, as a similarly named individual is affiliated with the subject company. Note this article was speedy deleted for violating A11, A7 , etc years ago. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:23, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shobdogrontho[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Google search for the name only brings up 21 unique results, mostly Facebook. ... discospinster _talk 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's point, non notable company that does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any mentions in the Bangladeshi press, English or Bangla. Fails WP:CORP. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:05, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Gilliam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted at AfD, but that was 5 years ago. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Creator is an WP:SPA (promotional?). Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here constitutes an automatic pass of any Wikipedia inclusion criteria: borough councillors are not deemed to have an automatic WP:NPOL pass, university professors don't get an automatic WP:ACADEMIC pass, and writers of books don't get an automatic WP:AUTHOR pass, just because they can be nominally verified as existing: reliable source coverage about their work is required, but all of the sources here are completely primary. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill, both as a local politician and a professor. I feel his pain. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near meeting the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet any of the relevant notability criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 13:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 SOCATA TBM crash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH as a crash of a small civilian aircraft and WP:NOTNEWS. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable general aviation accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. A commonplace accident with no notable events, persons or consequences. Merge to Socata TBM# Accidents and incidents, which i believe has already been done!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:36, 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.

The result was speedy delete. by User:Alex Shih. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International TV on Youtube[edit]

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

I am not sure if this is English with the effect that this article is useless and not understandable The Banner talk 18:02, 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 result was keep. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit[edit]

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

This is essentially an ad for a particular type of guided bus, which appears, like some other Chinese wundermaschinen, to be as much conceptual as real. Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been covered by Channel News Asia, in The Independent, and by China Daily. I suspect they're all recycling the same story, presumably from Xinhua. And that's without looking at media in Mandarin. It's not really a very wonderful machine (it's self-driving technology applied to a guided busway). What makes it notable is that it's the metro system of a city of a million people (for comparison, the USA only has 9 cities larger than that). CRRC is a major, world-class manufacturer of bus and rail systems and has a large factory in Zhuzhou, so I think this thing is very likely to get built. An analogy: if newspapers reported Boeing was planning to start self-driving helicopter service in Seattle, it would be notable. Matt's talk 18:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, rather, that they all are recycling information from CRRC. (I'd also add that, unless you are making a narrow point about city limits, the US alone has a good 50 metro areas that big, many of which naturally break down to further transit watersheds over a million.) It isn't "the metro system" of anything yet, and perhaps an article -as opposed to a section in some other article - should not exist until it does. Anmccaff (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to avoid debates over "what is a city", so I just used our List of United States cities by population. That strategy obviously failed! And yes, I suspect a CRRC press release is the ultimate origin of this reporting, but it seems unlikely that The Independent and others would be on their circulation list, so I would speculate that a Xinhua wire report is the common point of origin. If so, Xinhua will have checked basic facts. But I haven't found it (yet). Matt's talk 21:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There really aren't any basic facts to check, are there? This is a work-in-progress which so far, IMS, has never left a figure-eight test loop; all of the reportage ultimately leads back to the manufacturer. That's not something that belongs on an encyclopedia yet. Anmccaff (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not an ad, because it's author is not affiliated to the subject and raises some concerns about the use in ice and snow, which is shown in one of the simulations. A part of the test track is in operation, as shown in some videos. The system is similar to Phileas and de:Mettis, which have their own articles on Wikipedia. The article is important, because there is a lot of confusion, whether ART is driverless or just assisting the driver. The large number of references demonstrate the public interest. Wikipedia is clealy not "America first!" Thus, please keep and expand the article. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, no. Articulated buses, even with multiple sections, aren't new, and that's about all this shares with Phileas and de:Mettis.

Large numbers of "gee-whiz" technology articles prove nothing about a subjects encyclopedic notability; the amount of "flying car" crap found in certain magazines is an eternal illustration of that. Anmccaff (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know for a fact that all of the Chinese-based sources are recycling their information from a single source? I'm not saying that they are not recycling the info, but proof would be nice. Also, I see that Popular Mechanics (based in the US) is used as a source in the article, and I'm pretty sure they don't have any direct connections to Chinese newspapers or companies. BTW, I've always felt that Wikipedia has a "Commonwealth first!" slant to it, more than anything. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 19:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photos were the giveaway for me - I find it hard to believe all these outlets had photographers who stood in the same place. Matt's talk 21:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the solution would then be to replace the duplicate sources, and use the main source to replace their citations in the article. I don't think this article's shortcomings are enough to warrant its deletion, imo. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 22:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems notable enough to keep, and different enough that it couldn't be easily merged into another article. Useddenim (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by M.R.Forrester. Even if those sources are "recycling" information from another source, just by the fact they made the editorial decision to publish coverage on a certain topic is the whole point of WP:GNG and is what makes this topic notable. --Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources provided. Passes GNG. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:25, 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.

The result was speedy delete. by User:Alex Shih. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omroepstatus[edit]

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

I am not sure if this is English. The original author clearly lacks the competence to read Dutch with the effect that this article is useless and not understandable. The Banner talk 17:53, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PhDTree[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/PhDTree

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

In the first place, the PhDTree home page is dead and buried, and that alone should be sufficient reason to get rid of this Wikipedia page. Note that this page is the only contribution its author, User:Jack1898 , has ever made which immediately raises the suspicion that the only purpose of this page's existence is nothing but self-promotion i.e.: it is spam; that alone should raise a huge red flag.
Secondly, the PhDTree.org domain stands accused of spamming, see Scientific Spam Once again, that alone should suffice to zap this page: AFAIK Wikipedia has always taken a dim view of spammers, or is that perhaps changed since I left?
In the third place, PhDTree is notorious for plagiarism. It started of by wholesale copying the entire Mathematics Genealogy Project and the Academic Family Tree, and Proquest databases, and perhaps some other websites as well, without any acknowledgement whatsoever. I could demonstrate that in a minute if PhDTree were still alive. Clearcut case of plagiarism, Once again, it has always been my understanding that Wikipedia takes a dim view of plagiarism. JdH (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because it's only mentioned in a couple of forums. Also delete Template:PhDTree. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with the article is the fairly terrible quality of the sources. I could imagine keeping it if there are reliable sources (for example, for the plagiarism and spam allegations, which could actually make the site more notable than an honest one). So delete (but note that the only argument given by the nominator that has any weight in my view is the "self-promotion"/"spam" claim). —Kusma (t·c) 20:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This source never achieved any real impact/recognition/use, which is reflected in the (lack of) good sources. Seems to have died an unceremonious death. Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CALinnovates[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourced, but sources are passing mentions and quotes by the director. Was CSD-A7, but the template was removed by the main author. Still no credible claim of notability. Kleuske (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No claim of notability in the article. It has sources, but there is no in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no claim to notability. Also, the CSD tag should never have been removed as it states on CSD page "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag". I was going to put a warning on their talk page for removing it, but saw that I was beaten to it. I have gone ahead and renominated as A7 due to the fact that it was improperly removed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:36, 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 result was keep. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Wood (journalist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television journalist, notable primarily as a single-market local news anchor. As always, every anchor for every local television station does not get an automatic free pass over our notability standards for journalists, but there's no particularly strong claim here to being more notable than the norm — and for referencing, all we have here is her own staff profile on the website of her own employer (a primary source that cannot support notability) and one article about her in the local newspaper. So while source #2 counts for something, it doesn't count for enough to clear WP:GNG all by itself. If you're going for "notable because media coverage of her exists, even though nothing in the article actually passes any subject-specific inclusion criteria", then we require multiple reliable sources and not just one. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons laid out by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Sourcing now. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. My sin: presentism. turns out she was a pretty bid deal in the '90s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Noon and Daybreak (the work she's stated to have done in the 1990s) do not constitute "big deals" — they're CBC Radio One's local programs in the Montreal market, which means they aren't notable enough to hand an automatic "notable for hosting them" freebie to a journalist who isn't sourced to enough reliable source coverage about her to clear WP:GNG. For comparable examples, Matt Galloway has the sourcing to clear GNG and also hosts a network-wide show in addition to Metro Morning, and Gill Deacon already had an article for being a national television personality years before she joined Here and Now — but conversely, we deleted Deacon's predecessor Laura Di Battista for having neither a strong "more than just one media market" notability claim nor enough reliable source coverage to make her notable just for her presence in one media market, and I could neither properly source nor credibly defend Wikipedia articles about Joan Melanson, David Schatzky, Joe Coté or Matt Maychak, also prior hosts of the same programs. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably WP:TOOSOON. Her career is building, but I don't think she meets the Wikipedia:GNG bar yet. PK T(alk) 19:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an individual with a 30-year career and per [1], a national reporter having worked throughout Canada, a groundbreaker for women in journalism and clearly subject to enough significant coverage to meet GNG. It appears that her current spot represents something of a setback following a more prominent position. As always, some of these articles need work, but that's separate from notability. Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough in an AFD discussion to just say that a person has received enough coverage to meet GNG — you have to show the evidence that she's received enough reliable source coverage to meet GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep changing my iVote after reading User:Montanabw's comment and taking a closer look. Plus a news archive search. There are sources on her career - I added a handful of them, more exist. When she was hired and very quickly fired as host of a popular, English-language morning show in Montreal, she became something of a Cause célèbre - a battle of the op-eds, columnists, letter to the editor and blogs ensued. quite a few are detailed enough to make a better article possible should someone choose to write it. That, together with her record as a journalist, carries her past WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more convinced of notability on that basis if there were any evidence that the battle of the op-eds had expanded beyond Montreal's local newspapers, like into The Globe and Mail or the National Post. But a purely local media firestorm just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring or extralocal interest. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Montreal's big city, and it's not just that 2010 firestorm; there have been several in-depth analysis and profiles of Wood and her career, the first back in 1996, and considerable WP:SIGCOV since. I'll back off and let other editors take a look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Big city" counts for nothing more than "smaller city" in terms of being able to local-coverage its purely local media personalities into notability. A radio or television personality needs to have a nationalized notability claim backed by nationalized coverage, or they're nowhere at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, forgot to mention that I added a few details and some sources. Also, she has done print and television, but the heart of her career was in radio, the BBC (you know the CBC, it's the BBC / ABC / NPR of the frozen north) The early morning show she anchored is how the Anglophone chattering classes in Montreal start their day.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the CBC is the BBC/PBS/NPR of the frozen north — and notability for being a CBC personality attaches to its national network personalities, not to every person seen or heard on one of its local stations. That is, Peter Mansbridge and Ian Hanomansing and Rosemary Barton and Annamaria Tremonti and Carol Off yes, but Garth Materie and Markus Schwabe and Hallie Cotnam and Mike Wise and Makda Ghebrelassie no. So kindly spare me the sarcastic attacks on my awareness of the very radio network I'm listening to right this very minute. A person gets a Wikipedia article for being nationally known, not for being familiar to "the chattering classes of Montreal". Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'zat true? (and, I truly wasn't being sarcastic, Americans do not know what the CBC is.) But, is it true that major city hosts of CBC radio programs are not bluelinked? 'cause south of the border lots of 'em are: Tom Ashbrook, Christopher Lydon, Brian Lehrer, Leonard Lopate, lots of talk-and-news show hosts on statewide and major city NPR affiliates are bluelinked. Category:NPR personalities It never occurred to me that I was proposing anything novel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, most CBC personalities below the level of the national networks don't have articles (and virtually all of the ones that do, it's because they also have nationalized notability claims, such as Matt Galloway also hosting Podcast Playlist and Stan Carew having been the original host of Prime Time and Craig Norris's preexisting notability as a musician and national host on CBC Radio 3.) And, for that matter, many of the local personalities for individual NPR stations who have articles don't actually qualify for them either; just like the usual problem that commonly infects articles about journalists and broadcasters, far too many of them are just thinly veiled rewrites of their own staff profiles on the websites of their own stations, with little to no actual evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. But it's an established consensus that to get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, a radio personality has to have national prominence, such as being heard across an entire national network — local personalities can sometimes still qualify for articles if they can be sourced as significantly more notable than most of the thousands upon thousands of other people who've been local radio personalities, but they get no automatic presumption of notability just for existing, and getting them over the bar takes quite a lot more than just the run of the mill coverage that any local radio personality can always expect to get in the local newspaper. Even I've heard of Leonard Lopate, for example — but he's not notable just because New Yorkers know who he is, he's notable because the rest of North America outside of New York knows who he is too, and even his article is overly dependent on primary sources in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on her multi-decade long career, the subject of this article is passes notability requirements. Netherzone (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity of career is not a notability guarantee in and of itself, if none of that longevity ever nationalized. Hosting local radio programs in a single market is not a notability guarantee. Local coverage of the type that any local radio personality anywhere could reasonably and routinely expect to receive is not a notability guarantee. So what notability criterion are you so sure that she passes, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly passes WP:Notability (people) ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article needs some fleshing out Maugster (talk) 12:03, 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 result was keep. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Better World (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Jax 0677 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. Multiple coverage can be found in seconds. [2], [3], [4], etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wiki criteria for notability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums) include "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." This album was top 10 (number 7) in Germany, remaining on the charts for 3 months (https://www.offiziellecharts.de/album-details-311499), and was number 60 in the UK (http://www.officialcharts.com/search/albums/a%20better%20world/). If this is not sufficient to qualify for notability, then I would suggest that neither are either of de Burgh's previous two albums (The Hands of Man and Home), both of which have individual pages. If this page is removed, then for consistency so should those be. Spl237 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also charted in Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. Richard3120 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spl237, you've spent a lot of time discussing the chart positions etc., but why have you not added them, with their source next to them, in the article? Then it would be clear for everyone. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that hasn't been done on any of the other CdeB album pages - the chart position details are on the main CdeB discography page (as indeed they are for this album) but they aren't on the pages for individual albums (none of which I wrote). I'm very keen on consistency (which is why I added this page in the first place), and simply copied the style, format and content of the other pages for CdeB albums. Spl237 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article people will look at to find out information about the album. This article has very little information about the album, including nothing which shows notability. There is actually more useful information for a reader in the artist's article. Our job is to make it easy for people to find information on the album. I've repeatedly pointed out to you that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't relevant, it sounds like they all need improving, whixh isn't strange - Wikipedia is a permanent work in progress. But this article offers not even an assertion of notability. Boleyn (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so if I add those details with sources to this page, this discussion will be over and the page will no longer be marked for deletion? Because I really don't have time for this ongoing debate - I was simply trying to be helpful and improve consistency across CdeB's discography by adding a missing page which matched the format of the other relevant pages. I am beginning to wish I hadn't bothered. If rules are to be applied, then they should be applied consistently - clearly this requirement for chart positions was not applied when any of the other individual album pages were added, so I really don't understand why it is being insisted upon so heavily here. I will add the chart positions and sources to the page as you suggest, but beyond that, I really don't care enough to bother further - delete it if you want (but if that is the case, then the total lack of consistency in the application of the policy on notability would appear to me to be a problem.) Spl237 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spl237 Improving the article can help your argument, yes, but it's not a requirement or anything. It just aids in convincing others. Don't feel obligated though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable artist, arguably sufficient sigificant coverage, significant national chart placings. --Michig (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Jax 0677, would you consider withdrawing the nomination now it has been improved and notability has been asserted and backed by sources? Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Per WP:NALBUM, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677 - a helpful hint, since you keep citing that clause in your nominations without much success in convincing anyone - that application of NALBUMS isn't usually used for newer releases, its usually used for albums that have been out for a very long time and still have not seen any improvement. Its used on albums that are unlikely to ever be expanded. Something like, for example, Here We Go Again (SR-71 album) - because it's sat as an unsourced stub for over a decade. You keep trying to use it on albums from the last month/year - its far less convincing when used in that way, because coverage on the subject is still ongoing. The album came out less than a year ago, and charted in multiple countries, so people are less likely to believe that improvements are impossible or never coming. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Sergecross73:, WP:BURDEN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677 That doesn't make any sense. What exactly are you suggesting I have a burden to prove here? This comment didn't suggest the addition of any content or argument toward notability, it was an observation on why you're not persuading anyone with your application of the guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Sergecross73:, per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Per ((nn)), "Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very aware of BURDEN conceptually, I just don't understand why you'd follow up a comment that wasn't about notability, with a statement about the burden of notability being placed on me. That has nothing to do with the comment I made. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Sergecross73:, the policy does not say anything about whether an album is new or old. The burden to provide more than a track listing is on the writer who writes the material, or writes the article. There is a Personnel section in the article, so Here We Go Again (SR-71 album) is past a stub. My articles for Lies to Light the Way and The Young Souls are well referenced, and well past a stub. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, WP:NALBUMS does not say anything about article age. But my point is the part that reads "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." Operative word here is "unlikely". You're not using it in cases where the article is unlikely to grow - new albums, recently released, by notable artists on record labels are not unlikely to grow. You'd know that if you did a proper follow-through of WP:BEFORE like you're supposed to too. Obviously, "unlikeliness" is a subjective concept, but come on, there's a reason that in these most recent three nominations of yours based around this approach - here, here, and here are almost unanimously trending towards "Keep". You're clearly not doing something right here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per charting in multiple countries. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:ITSA, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:WAX, WP:AON. The material/references need to be in the article and the album article needs to go beyond a track listing, especially one that has been around as long as this one has. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very misleading. An editor above presented three sources about the subject, of which you have not addressed. And no, there is no requirement for the content to be present in the article. It only needs to be presented here, at the AFD discussion. It's helpful to add it to the article - it usually helps persuade people to keep articles - but it is not required in order to have an AFD close as keep. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 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 result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of copyright case law[edit]

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

Per WP:NAD. and because this page is both impossible to maintain, and so incomplete it represents a hazard to anyone using it. additionally someone may look at a page like this as being accurate and it is not. depending on the response here i will busy myself with other similar pages that are equally incomplete and pointless. NB. if you like pages such as this one i sincerely apologise for being so rude about it, my opinion is of course subjective. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's an annotated index of WP articles on this topic that satisfies WP:LISTPURP, complementary to Category:Copyright case law per WP:CLN. If there are articles we have that are missing from this list that should be included, add them. That's the only kind of "incomplete" that matters for this kind of list. Cf. Template:Dynamic list. I have no idea how WP:NAD is supposed to apply here. postdlf (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and CLN. It's a perfectly valid main list that complements Category:Copyright case law. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit, when i say its incomplete, i mean its missing some 160,000 + cases. unless you count worldwide, in which its missing 633,000 + cases. cant we just leave WorldLII to do this work? wikipedias coverage of cases is scant at best. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have articles on 160,000 or 633,000 cases and we never will, because most of those cases will not be notable. We will list the ones we do have. I think you're just unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines and practice in both case law articles and lists. It's better to get more experience under your belt before nominating articles for deletion. postdlf (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LSC. If the list becomes too large, we can subdivide if necessary, but that is no reason to delete this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. It should be a list of notable copyright case law matters. May need pruning for those that may be non-notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Postdlf comments i have realised that lists are not supposed to be: 1. complete, 2. fully representing the topic in question, 3. for the general public. infact after examining WP:LISTPURP it is clear that list such as this one are mostly for easy navigation and categorisation, rather than being a rather basic article. I believe that this AfD can be closed now. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extremely useful cross-reference; a start of legal research. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 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 result was delete. And salt, this should not be overturned without a WP:DELREV given all the prior deletions Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Reynolds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league. LTFC 95 (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far below the way too lenient standards of notability for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 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 result was delete. So Why 11:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Group Holdings Limited[edit]

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

Promotional article sourced entirely to the company's own site and press releases. No decent coverage found beyond the usual business listing sites. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Entertainment Group. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising, with a doze of WP:TNT due to strange language of:

"The public offer will begin on 29 January 2008 and end on 1 February 2008. The allotment results will be announced on 11 February 2008" -- and that's for an article created in 2011.

In any case, just promotional cruft. I'll request a G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Liu, Lillian (2008-01-30). "New Media offering falls flat". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-08-04. Retrieved 2017-08-04.
  The article notes (my bolding):
  The initial public offering (IPO) by New Media Group Holdings, the only ongoing share sale in town, received cold market response yesterday as investors shunned the volatile market.
  That prompted some analysts to call for the company to put the deal on shelf.
  The magazine publishing unit, owned by tycoon Yeung Sau-shing's Emperor Group - which planned to raise up to HK$112 million from the new share sale - received very few subscriptions for the share.
  Analysts said the overall IPO market was bleak as almost all offerings have been called off in Hong Kong, and IPO activities will not pick up until the global economic outlook becomes clearer.
  A report from CASH Financial Services released yesterday said it did not recommend the stock to investors, citing slow growth in traditional publishing industry.
  "Traditional magazines and book selling businesses have very little room for further profit growth. New Media's counterparts in Hong Kong recorded losses in profit in recent years," the report said.
  New Media publishes five Chinese-language magazines, namely Oriental Sunday, Weekend Weekly, New Monday, Economic Digest and Fashion and Beauty.
  This verifies that CASH Financial Services published an analyst report about New Media. The quote "That prompted some analysts to call for the company to put the deal on shelf" also indicates that New Media has received substantial analysis by other analysts who have likely written analyst reports about the company.
  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):
  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
  Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.
  Analyst reports can be used to establish notability per the quote "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
2. Ching-hoo, Hui (2008-02-13). "New Media's doubling debut". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-08-04. Retrieved 2017-08-04.
  The article notes:
  
  The IPO listing of New Media Group Holdings yesterday bucked a recent trend of poor public offerings when it more than doubled in value.
  Analysts predicted the first public listing of the lunar new year would do well, but New Media's 112 percent surge was well beyond the more conservative estimates of around 20 percent.
3. "Emperor media unit turns new page in IPO bid". South China Morning Post. 2008-01-16. Archived from the original on 2017-08-04. Retrieved 2017-08-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Emperor Group, the privately owned investment flagship of Albert Yeung Sau-shing, will list its magazine business on the main board as early as next month.
  But demand from investors for the offering may be blunted by growing competition in the crowded Chinese-language magazine market.
  Market sources said New Media Group would start marketing the offer to potential investors later this month. The size of the offering has yet to be determined.
  ...
  New Media publishes magazines covering everything from gossip to stock tips in Hong Kong, with titles including Oriental Sunday, New Monday, Weekend Weekly, Economic Digest, and Fashion and Beauty Weekly.
  Women's gossip weekly Oriental Sunday, with a circulation of more than 120,000 copies a week, is the best-selling title in the group. However, it goes head to head with Next Media's Sudden Weekly, which sells 190,000 to 200,000 copies.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow New Media Group Holdings Limited to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the article to qualify for speedy deletion under ((db-spam)). The article in general is neutrally written. Any promotional wording can be removed without deleting the entire article. Wording like "The public offer will begin on 29 January 2008 and end on 1 February 2008. The allotment results will be announced on 11 February 2008" for an article created in 2011 is probably due to incorrect tense usage by a non-native English speaker.
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fully support deletion and agree with the nominator's reasoning. Initially I speedy deleted this, but have restored it so the discussion can reach its natural conclusion. Deb (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, CORP, CORPDEPTH. No independent and reliable sources available. This article is part of a promotional campaign - see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Entertainment Group. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, per WP:PROMO. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:PRESERVE, the article should be merged/redirected to the parent company, Emperor Group, if the consensus is that New Media Group Holdings Limited is not notable. The company is notable, however, with coverage in China Daily and South China Morning Post.
Cunard (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the parent company should be deleted as promotional as well, so there will be nothing to redirect/merge too. Additionally we have WP:DON'T PRESERVE and WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, which make it clear that removal of content and even deletion are appropriate measures when content is unacceptable for the encyclopedia. In this case, the sources that Cunard has provided do not establish notability: the are passing mentions in articles that give more coverage to the parent company. In regards to the parent company: it is clear promotionalism that is eligible for deletion on those grounds alone. Since none of these articles are suitable for Wikipedia, deletion is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:40, 12 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 merge to Trisha Paytas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Trisha Paytas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Trisha Paytas

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

There already is a discography section at Trisha Paytas — that's sufficient when virtually all of these songs appear to be self-released. Anyone can self-release songs; that doesn't make them notable. This article is a blatant attempt at promotionally adding more and unnecessary pages to Wikipedia in order to further her brand — including by inappropriate addition of purely decorative images of artists in no way involved with the subject and only here to make this seem more notable and important. The main article Trisha Paytas is constantly beset by promotional and evidently WP:COI edits. Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find evidence to suggest that this meets WP:LISTN. gongshow talk 00:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Trisha Paytas. Vorbee (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Trisha Paytas. No harm would be done to WP if it was deleted, 19 songs is hardly significant. NB. Is it only me that is offended by semi-related pictures of other artists on these lists? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am as well. See my original post. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back this trivia into the main article of this marginally notable singer. Bearian (talk) 12:55, 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 result was procedural close. I'm going to boldly update it via a redirect. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 13:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue waffle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This hoax was inherently web-based but it doesn't pass WP:WEBCRIT. Its only claim to notability is that a councilwoman misused it, which fails WP:1EVENT. There's not much really that the article says about it other than that: Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme and isn't an indiscriminate collection of internet crazes. If one compares it with other hoaxes such as dihydrogen monoxide, one can see that the latter does meet the criteria for inclusion because it has received sustained coverage and had a wide-ranging impact, whereas the first was merely a prank which a councilwoman fell for. DrStrauss talk 13:26, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabform[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Online media platform that's been around <2 months with <5k subscribers according to the infobox in a previous revision, which, according to my highly scientific research, is somewhat less than your average 13 year old Minecraft youtuber.

Almost no news coverage, which is unsurprising given how new it is, and even less once you discount coverage of the Oregonian company Fabform Industries. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a new YouTube-based proposition. The most substantial coverage is the IndianTelevision.com item, but that is promotional start-up coverage ("Vishal Mull, former executive producer and creative director at Idea Shop, announces his first independent digital content network – ‘FabForm’ that will bring comic and quirky content on-the-go to the country's internet generation...") rather than bylined in-depth analysis. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AllyD. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. gongshow talk 07:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOOON and GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:38, 12 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 Procedural close. Article was nominated twice. An active debate is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Yavneh attack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTNEWS Article about stabbing attack with 1 injury. Received minor international media attention. Suggesting it to be merged into the 2017 Temple Mount crisis article.JBergsma1 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JBergsma1: how did you create this AfD? Did you follow a template or freelance it? In its current state, the page is missing some features that I am sure you are familiar with at other AfD discussions. Could you address this for other editors coming to this discussion?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheGracefulSlick: I've been trying to put this AfD to the discussion page, but as I tried to put this article there according to the guide to AfD I didn't succeed in posting it there like the other articles. Only the sentence above appeared. I'm kind of new to this part of wikipedia, so indeed I could ask some users for help.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination) L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 12 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 delete. So Why 17:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Nafees al-Hussaini[edit]

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

Spend much time searching but found nothing. Pride of Performance is not enough to have a stand-alone bio, although it is unverifiable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Created by SPA and his account User:Khmohsin 1 is a redirect. Greenbörg (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so few Ghits as to be not even verifiable. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 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 result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PDL Finance[edit]

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

Smallish and apparently unremarkable ~~loan shark~~ pay day loan company. Their legal name has basically zero coverage, and their DBA has... some passing mention, and apparently there are a lot of males with the last name "Lender". But nothing I'm seeing that amounts to sustained in-depth coverage, and nothing to suggest they are not just one of many probably tens of thousands of regional ~~extortionists~~ pay day loan companies that have garnered media attention only because of their ~~racket~~ ... ~~theft~~ ... because of the controversial nature of their industry. TimothyJosephWood 12:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; no in depth coverage. I still feel it merits speedy deletion(though I understand opening this discussion and do not fault the nominator in any way) 331dot (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG/CORPDEPTH, the refs seem to be about the industry as a whole, not this particular business. South Nashua (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks corporate Depth coverage on media. What it says on matters does not establish the purpose of notability. Light2021 (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, fails GNG/CORPDEPTH. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:41, 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 result was delete. So Why 17:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behzad Ranjbari (acoustician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written like a prosified résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, about an acoustical engineer. Buried in the bumf are certainly claims that might qualify him for an article if they were reliably sourced to media coverage about him, but he's the author, not the subject, of 10 of the 12 footnotes here. As always, a person doesn't get a Wikipedia article by being the author of media coverage of other things -- he gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage written by other people. But nothing like that is shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable accoustical engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for taking your time to review my first submission. I have tried my best to better manage the photographs permissions (still in progress), references/footnotes as well as the content. I would appreciate if you would let me know to improve it even better as I'm still learning. Sincerely--Maryam Sadeghi V. (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1. We are not a free web host or resume bulletin board; that's what LinkedIn is for. We are a charity, with fiduciary duties to the taxpayers. 2. I see nothing but primary sources in this Biography. 3. I don't see how getting one minor award suffices for notability. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 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 result was delete. Sandstein 15:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiritual divinity of Indian life[edit]

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

Non-notable book, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BK. I could not find any coverage or reviews in secondary sources. CataracticPlanets (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a book. Despite inside-cover text which indicates publication by OUP (apparently without normal proof-checking, for example "Avinash Patra has asserted his right under the University of Oxford press Copyright, Designs and World-class Family Act 2010..." and "This Article is belong realist work on The Spiritual Life ..."), Amazon indicates it to be published via CreateSpace. I am seeing no evidence of attained notability. Fails WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:01, 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 result was speedy keep. disruptive nomination from a sock, no outstanding comments. Any good faith editor can create a fresh nomination (if needed) without any waiting period. —SpacemanSpiff 09:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amol Ramsing Kolhe[edit]

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

There are few passing mentions per Ghits with nothing significant either as a politicians or as an actor. Fails WP:BLP. Malunrenta (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:22, 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 speedy keep. disruptive nomination from a sock, no outstanding comments. Any good faith editor can create a fresh nomination (if needed) without any waiting period. —SpacemanSpiff 09:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neena Raut Entertainment[edit]

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

After carefully checking the sources I found almost all sources are about the film "Lokmanya: Ek Yug Purush" with no/passing mention of the company. Clearly fails WP:ORG. Malunrenta (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:21, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farrah Alexander[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. Fails WP:AUTHOR and other criteria. reddogsix (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR and no other claim of notability. Most of the article is simply listing the subject's HuffPost blog posts. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Maugster (talk) 12:01, 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 result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deen (Pakistan)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Not even a 'minor newspaper'. Greenbörg (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see a whopping two sites, possibly for different places. Neither has received any notice whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local Pakistani newspaper doesn't make the grade. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 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 result was delete. Despite the cleanup, there is consensus that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability. So Why 11:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PDQ (restaurant)[edit]

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

advertising. they use fresh ingredients! They have human beings to take the orders! And , as would be expected, the refs are only press releases and notices. I wonder how many other pseudo-articles of this sort we have.... DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article does not have a promotional tone. It is entirely based upon what sources state about the company. Bylined news articles that objectively state positive things about companies are not automatically "advertising" as a default. Perhaps the nominator could provide some press releases from the company, which could then be compared to the news articles about the company. Otherwise, it's just speculation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is actually a fairly big chain. The article currently has a bit of promotional language, but the current references aren't "press releases and notices", but actual news and in-depth descriptions. This definitely shouldn't be deleted; it just needs some more work. I also agree with what Northamerica1000 said above. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 05:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to add that when I wrote "a bit of promotional language", I meant that it put the restaurant in a positive light. This isn't necessarily bad at all. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 05:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD. Also, does not have a promotional tone. See my comment above for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those seem to be relatively local/niche press mentions. I found John Sculley (13 October 2014). Moonshot!. RosettaBooks. pp. 93–. ISBN 978-0-7953-4336-0., though. Chains may be notable but... borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually John Sculley is an investor and at one time was chairman of the South Florida group of PDQ so book isn't an independent source. CBS527^Talk 00:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I see all of these sources are promotional such as local newspapers and republishings which is not our goals here, see: 1-10 are all local business announcements for the company's own gains, not what an encyclopedia considers its own, and the sources posted above are also local business announcements. WP:ORGIND and WP:CORP quotes: Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources or passing mention". Our priorities here are, not to service company PR, but to actually maintain non-promotional pages here (part of our WP:Five pillars). GNG and AUD actually emphasize our need for independent coverage, not simply making exceptions on rehashed press releases. If we removed the current promotionalism, they would literally be nothing to save, so it's not worth an article. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The current references aren't all "trivial coverage"; there are pieces that have substantial information on the company, i.e. its history/founding. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 17:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources offered recently above are heavily promotional, see [PDQ] aims to enhance consumers’ store experience in a variety of ways. Before consumers even walk through the doors, Basham says, they’ll notice the modern, sleek building design, which is two stories tall and has a large footprint. In the restaurant, PDQ provides a hand-washing station, multiple high-definition TVs, and a variety of seating options to help guests feel at home. [In addition], guests appreciate the high quality of the menu. PDQ’s chicken tenders are hand-breaded, fries are fresh-cut in the restaurant, milkshakes are hand-spun, and signature sauces and dressings are homemade every day. The brand offers guests homemade lemonade, bottled Cheerwine (a favorite in the South), and hundreds of soda options thanks to the Coca-Cola Freestyle machine...."It’s about fresh food fast, it’s about quality, it’s about great hospitality", this is exactly what my highlighted quote above considers as unacceptable sources; worse, the publication is a service trade publisher, so it can't be used in WP:CORP. The 2nd source is instantly similar to the first, Outback Steakhouse co-founder Bob Basham is launching a quick-service chicken sandwich and salad chain called PDQ — which stands for “Pretty Darn Quick” — with plans to open eight to 10 restaurants in Tampa Bay, Fla., and Raleigh and Charlotte, N. C. and it instantly starts with the CEO's words, and this too was a service trade publisher. The last one is a local newspaper in the company's town, saying co-founder Bob Basham describes his two-year-old fast-casual, Tampa-based restaurant concept, PDQ, which opened its first Northeast Florida location this week....Offering a limited menu – chicken tenders, chicken-based salads, chicken and turkey sandwiches, hand-cut fries and hand-spun shakes – allows PDQ to focus on delivering fresh food fast, much the same way popular Western U.S. chain In-N-Out Burger does with burgers, chose PDQ (“Pretty Darn Quick”) for his new concept. When it comes to food quality, PDQ prides itself on freshness. Meals are prepared at the time of order in the restaurant’s bustling open kitchen....also includes fresh-squeezed lemonade, which is on prominent display at the head of the line to place orders. With its limited menu and emphasis on freshness, there’s no need for a freezer in PDQ’s kitchen. Fresh chicken and turkey are delivered to the restaurant’s coolers twice weekly. With no freezer, don’t expect to see an employee rip open a bag of frozen fries and pour them into a fryer. Instead, drive-thru customers can watch employees hand-punch french fries from whole potatoes via two large windows in the rear of the restaurant.. As if this wasn't enough, the article goes on to list the company menu. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's [5] a pretty neutral source, here's [6] a positive, but still independent source, ~~and there are many [7] other sources of new franchies opening.~~ Franchise openings don't give notability. Whoops --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 00:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

but accounts of new franchises opening are exactly the sort of refs that are specified as not giving notability . Otherwise ever organization or franchise with 3 or more location would be notable, for each one of them notmally gets a local press announcement That's what local newspapers and the corresponding websites are intended for. But not encyclopedias DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. PDQ has 55 locations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The 2 sources now posted above are in fact the one and same since they have the same published contents, but the same ‘’author” in both. I analyzed these sources and found promotionalism: His new gig: leading the development and growth of a new restaurant business launched by Outback Steakhouse co-founder Bob Basham….PDQ, which technically stands for people dedicated to quality, though many say pretty darn quick. The concept is a hybrid of fast casual, with fresh and daily made food and sauces and no walk-in freezers, and fast food — but without burgers. The menu focuses on fried and grilled chicken tenders and sandwiches, fries and hand-spun milkshakes….It has two locations in….It plans to open 15 stores….PDQ hired its first executive….The goal is to find a manager’s strengths first….Part of the PDQ model is to invest heavily in the stores, front and back. Its restaurants, usually around 4,300 square feet, cost around $3 million to build, including the land. The concept inside is to have a bright, airy and chic ambience, more fast-casual than fast-food joint….The list includes new seasonal sandwiches, such as the Southern Pimento Chicken, with Tillamook cheddar and homemade pimento cheese, served with sea salt potato chips….also a Grilled Hawaiian Chicken sandwich and a BBQ Bacon Ranch sandwich. Another twist comes in rice and vegetable bowls. Options include: Thai Peanut, Smokehouse BBQ and Southern Buffalo….worked at PricewaterhouseCoopers in Tampa prior to the Buccaneers, where client accounts he worked on….One of his favorite interview techniques is to take the candidate to lunch or dinner (and this is also when the publication is local to the company). Now, as for the last link (2 and 4 on the list is the same one offered above): 1, 3, 7 and 8-18, and 5 and 6 were actually general food lists, which mean nothing for notability. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could participants in the post-relist discussion please consider the validity of the sources in the article and in the links offered up above? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 10:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's what I'll say about the sources: This one is an objective take on the opening of the entire chain. This is another by the same author that compares it (somewhat favorably) to similar chains, like Chik-fil-a and Popeye's. Here's an opinion piece, so it's mostly positive towards the company, but still has facts that we can use in the article that aren't promotional. This is a positive review that is still independent from the company. Here's an article about Tim Tebow owning part of the chain, that's objective and non-trivial.

Also, on WP:NOTGUIDE: This states that "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". This has nothing to do with references or establishing notability. It means that unnecessary details, like the price of things, should not be included in articles. The sources can still be guides, as long as they're reliable and independent. I thought that this was part of this conversation, but it was for this one.

I'm just going to end by saying that this is really a big chain, and just because they may not be in your area doesn't mean they're not all around where others are. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 16:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could provide a source that refers to PDQ as a big chain! I haven't found any. By industry standards this is a small restaruant chain. CBS527^Talk 18:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article is absolutely promotional. It reads like a franchise ad, as in:

...changed it later to "People Dedicated to Quality" in order to allow it to qualify a trademark on some form for their name.[2][3]
It was founded by Bob Basham, a former Outback Steakhouse founder, and Nick Reader, CEO of MVP Holdings.[3][5]
PDQ has 55 locations in eight U.S. states.[6]
According to Basham, each store "averages about $3 million in annual sales".[7]

Not every retail chain is notable and this one misses the mark; most sources are WP:SPIP presenting the POV of the company. Nothing in the current article is worth keeping; hence it should be excluded per WP:N.

Sources listed above are not convincing for notability, and are opinion pieces, routine and / or local, as in jacksonville.com:

The large flat screen TV screens cycling through images of the menu and specific menu items helped us decide on what to eat: a Fresh Tenders Meal ($7.29-$9.29, includes side and drink) and a Spicy Buffalo Tenders Sandwich Meal ($4.29, includes side and drink).

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds promotional to me. References are mostly routine - new store openings. Not yet n any case Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there have been claims the article could and can be improved yet none has happened as the AfD advanced, this is far unlikelier if the article would be kept and nothing was improved if nobody can take the bold initiative now especially as GNG says the article must be in a state of proven notability to be accepted, not asserted; see the other news links found, they're all equivalent to announcements, notices and similar therefore there's nothing in what WP:Notability actually needs, which is independent reliable coverage and not primary sources. As always, Draftspace exists for work areas and mainspace is not that, so it's non-negotiable. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – AfD is not cleanup. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a minor essay used by a minor group of people, it's not an accepted fundamental policy, but to quote that page, it says based upon the issues listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It is important when taking part in deletion discussions to anchor one's rationale in relevant Wikipedia policies.... such as verifiability, what Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view and I have, so the argument of whether the article is unacceptable in policy has been answered by these relevant ones. However, I will say that the page also have the neutral comment: As problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources in the article. This article from Financial News & Daily Record provides extensive coverage of the subject:
Reader, in 2008, had just left a high-profile job, CFO of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. His new gig: leading the development and growth of a new restaurant business launched by Outback Steakhouse co-founder Bob Basham.
At the front of the lineup was PDQ, which technically stands for people dedicated to quality, though many say pretty darn quick. The concept is a hybrid of fast casual, with fresh and daily made food and sauces and no walk-in freezers, and fast food — but without burgers. The menu focuses on fried and grilled chicken tenders and sandwiches, fries and hand-spun milkshakes.
...
PDQ opened its first store in 2011 on South Dale Mabry Highway in Tampa. The high traffic location is a little more than a mile from the first Outback. PDQ is now up to 56 stores, with locations in eight states, including Florida, Texas, New Jersey and Nevada.
...
PDQ officials decline to disclose average store or companywide revenue figures. Industry consulting firm Technomic projects the firm did about $100 million in sales in 2015, up 250 percent from $28.5 million in 2013.
...
New York City private equity firm Alliance Consumer Growth, with previous stakes in Shake Shack and Krave Jerky, among other brands, made a minority investment in PDQ in 2014. Others who have backed PDQ include former University of Florida football star Tim Tebow, an investor in some PDQs in Jacksonville and Georgia; Outback co-founder Tim Gannon; and Tampa-based real estate firm DeBartolo Development.
...
Part of the PDQ model is to invest heavily in the stores, front and back. Its restaurants, usually around 4,300 square feet, cost around $3 million to build, including the land. The concept inside is to have a bright, airy and chic ambience, more fast-casual than fast-food joint.
...
PDQ spent two years in research and development mode before it served its first sandwich. The company bought a restaurant called Tenders in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2009. It overhauled the menu and concept, spending more than $2 million in the process.
This extensive profile of the company is not an announcement or notice or routine coverage. It provides substantial coverage about PDQ's origins, its history, its projected sales from consulting firm Technomic, and its investors.
This article from Business Insider notes "Research firm Technomic provided data for which chicken chains are growing the fastest" and included PDQ as one of the fastest growing chicken chains:
PDQ
Number of US restaurants in 2014: 33
% change from previous year: 83%
Sales in 2014: $62 million
PDQ, which stands for People Dedicated to Quality, serves fresh hand-battered chicken tenders, made-to-order sandwiches, hand-spun milkshakes, and fresh salads, according to the chain's website.
It's owned in part by one of the co-founders of Outback Steakhouse and counts former NFL quarterback Tim Tebow as an investor.
PDQ has locations in eight states including Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and Texas.
There is also this review from the Las Vegas Review-Journal in Nevada, this article from the Houston Chronicle in Texas, this article from The Augusta Chronicle in Georgia and this article from Winston-Salem Journal in North Carolina. The coverage in multiple states passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience.
The Wikipedia article is neutrally written. Facts like:
1. "It was founded by Bob Basham, a former Outback Steakhouse founder, and Nick Reader, CEO of MVP Holdings",
2. "PDQ has 55 locations in eight U.S. states", and
3. "changed it later to 'People Dedicated to Quality' in order to allow it to qualify a trademark on some form for their name"
provide a historical overview about the company. This language is not promotional.
Cunard (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are simply including a repeat of the sources above and, even if it wasn't, the sources still indiscriminately promotionalism, see:

"PDQ serves....in battered chicken...."...
PDQ has locations in....
"It's owned in"....
"PDQ spent"....
"PDQ officials".....
"The concept is"....
"The founder...."....
"The sales are...."....
"Part of the model is to invest...."....
This is classic business brochure material, and none of it is actually independent. Take for example, how they're similar in words yet published differently with the company state of mind still there; that can only mean the company is responsible for pushing its own PR and that violates WP:Not catalog (policy). The linked GNG actually even says "A topic must not be excluded in WP:What Wikipedia is not". How could this be fundamentally addressed if the promotionalism isn't acknowledged. Then it's also important to remember there are claims the article can be fixed, but GNG also says "Articles must be in an acceptable condition before being accepted" and the promotionalism hasn't been addressed or plans for it to happen. SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still agree with the analysis by myself and ST's above. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a source that said they were the fastest growing small chain in the US in 2014. Since they now have 55 franchises averaging $3M revenue, which comes to $165M total, that seems notable enough to me. As a B2C franchise, you'd expect a lot of coverage to be blogs - franchises are extra promotional since they are frantically competing for not just consumer dollars but new franchise investors. Seeing promotionalism in some sources doesn't surprise me, but hopefully any such language has been excised here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's contrary to what our policy says:

listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions or then the WP:CORP:
routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or or passing mention
"franchises are extra promotional since they are frantically competing for not just consumer dollars but new franchise investors. Seeing promotionalism in some sources doesn't surprise me" is exactly why they would be WP:Promotion, because gaining attention is for local trade newspapers, not for a WP:NPOV encyclopedia, as would be "a lot of coverage to be blogs" since this is not the significant independent news needed for WP:Notability. Since I quoted WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:CORP and WP:N, what policy would apply in keeping? SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being on top of WP policies, but I think I may have confused you. I haven't done as many AfD discussions as you and am using arguments that may not have been made here before, so please bear with me. With many years in the business world, and an understanding of business marketing, my point was two things: 1) New editors sometimes come to add info about companies because they are employees and may not know the rules. What brought me to Wikipedia years ago was a desire to do an article on my father, which was a COI that I subsequently disclosed on its page and recused myself from further edits to that article. Despite this violation, it led to me being more experienced with the site, since I was not chased away. I became a contributing editor and now try to participate in many different projects including feedback request service, AfD and fixing articles in draftspace. Novice editors make mistakes, such as adding promotional info, and there's certainly a lot to choose from with franchises. Our role is to remove this type of info, which I think we've done. I removed anything that looks to me like promotionalism - including press releases, paid advertising and primary sources. And I think I need to stress that I'm not saying this franchise is notable because of these promotional efforts - I'm just saying that I understand why bad sources might find their way into articles. Let's educate new editors about the rules, assume good faith, and help them, so they can stay active and become productive editors. 2) The second point is that articles like this shouldn't be rejected because one finds promotional info about the entity in Google searches, as long as the info hasn't made its way into the article. It can be an easy line to cross to go from being informative to promotional, and I'm probably more on the side of allowing some details that might irk you, so let's work together to make sure what's on Wikipedia is as useful for everyone as possible. I can see why franchise openings and closing might seem trivial and non-encyclopedic, which is why there shouldn't be a listing of all 55 franchise locations in the article, but the article should include the total number, which I added. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether TimTempleton's edit addressed the promotional language concerns. Remember, per WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, WP:NOT violations can also be handled by editing, so if the article's tone is no longer promotional, WP:NOTPROMO is not necessarily a reason for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that WP:NOTPROMO is concerned with more than the wording of any given Wikipedia article. This "policy", or aspect of that policy, is in place to remind us that we are not in the business of carrying information that promotes unqualified organizations per GNG, ORG, CORPDEPTH, NPOV (and so on) - with or without promotional wording. Even if promotional wording is removed, NOTPROMO still strongly applies. This because NOTPROMO also says: "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable." This is relevant because this is a small company that has not garnered notice in independent and reliable sources - as has been shown throughout this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are the usual promotional symbiotic advertorials and fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH since they invariable rely exclusively on material and/or quotations from company sources. I agree with most of Tim's sentiments above and I also agree that if an article is overly-promotional but that it can be fixed through editing, the first course of action should be to fix the article. But in this case, in my opinion, there are not enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. One reference which I believe meets the criteria is the review in the Las Vegas Journal. If another reference that meets the criteria for notability can be found I'll happily change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more reliable sources, some of which I've already posted in this discussion:

Janjigian, Robert. "New restaurant puts Outback co-founder back in the culinary spotlight". Palm Beach Daily News.
Gordon, Mark. "Quality, Quickly". Business Observer Florida.
Taylor, Jessica. "Restaurant Review: PDQ lives up to both definitions". The Florida Times-Union.
Gurbal Kritzer, Ashley. "Why Bob Basham, co-founder of PDQ and Outback Steakhouse, doesn't want to retire". Tampa Bay Business Journal.

To me, these establish its notability. I'd also like to mention that "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "reliable sources" and "sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability". For example, a reliable source (such as this Business Observer link you posted above) fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because the material is all sourced from company sources. Try finding a reference that doesn't include photos or extensive quotations from company sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unchanged, still "Delete". The article continues to read like a franchise ad ("According to Basham, each store "averages about $3 million in annual sales"!), while the sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources offered immediately above -- www.businessobserverfl.com, jacksonville.com, www.bizjournals.com/tampabay -- are all local to the stores and fail WP:AUD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing doesn't meet our standards: not independent, not enough depth, or utterly local and feel good (see depth). This combined with what K.e.coffman pointed out above, swings it to delete. As for SoWhy's relisting comment, WP:WHATISTOBEDONE lists deletion as a viable option for dealing with NOT violations, and as recent consensus at AfDs is showing, violation of NOTSPAM is considered reason alone for deletion by many in the community regardless of sourcing. In this case, we get a double shot, because it fails both the NOT prong of WP:N as well as the general guideline prong. The policy based way of dealing with this article is to delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 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 result was merge to Cirrus SR22#Accidents and incidents. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Cirrus SR22 crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable small plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to fall under WP:ONEEVENT, but at the same time it's a well referenced and complete article. Not a spam by any means, borderline, informative... pure rules lean towards deletion, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to even say week delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:AIRCRASH. The loss of a small private airplane must be unusual for notability to accrue, and this one isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly Merge with 2014 SOCATA TBM crash. Thank you all for your input! These kinds of discussions keep wikipedia consistent and with good content!! I would like to reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 SOCATA TBM crash as a similar example where the article doesn't necessarily meet requirements but is interesting enough to keep: military aircraft intercept the pilot, well sourced, loss of contact with the pilot, WP:Wikipedia is not paper, as well as the fact that a plane flying on autopilot until it flies past its destination, runs out of fuel, and crashes because the pilot fell unconscious is pretty unusual and quite interesting. Unfortunately decompression accidents are fairly common, but in this case we don't really know why the pilot became impaired and eventually incapacitated. I agree the pilot is not wikinotable, however he was an important person at Harley Davidson for over 30 years, and an Air Safety Institute safety warning was issued about hypoxia later on. Ferret25 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've nominated that crash for deletion too. "Interesting enough" (aka WP:ILIKEIT) is not a valid reason to retain an article. Uncontrolled decompression#Notable decompression accidents and incidents lists major incidents. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was the AfC reviewer who accepted this draft. I initially declined it on the basis of notability – my full analysis can be found on Talk:2014 Cirrus SR22 crash. I accepted the draft following a discussion with Ferret25, the creator, as they were willing to defend the article against deletion. Personally, I also think the topic of the article is interesting, but admittedly, there is little evidence of the kind of persistent/continued coverage expected of a topic in an encyclopedia. Merge to Cirrus SR22#Accidents and incidents is another option. Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge to Cirrus SR22#Accidents and incidents - WP:GNG - not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Friendly tip: You need to say why you think so, this is not a vote

Keep it achieved wide coverage in the media. ONEEVENT is not applicable as it is not about the person, or plane but the incident. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cirrus SR22 § Accidents and incidents. This would improve the merge target article, which presently has no content about this crash. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the article: "A similar event happened only weeks later to another small privately operated aircraft near Jamaica, which lead to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's Air Safety Institute to issue a safety warning" - now, the AOPA isn't the FAA, but this (in combination with the similar event, 2014 SOCATA TBM crash) still caused some changes within the aviation community (if nothing at all, awareness) as to the issues which seem to have caused it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Also, removing this article does not help improve Wikipedia, since it is a quality article about a type of incident, which, although rare, does happen and merits being covered (if nothing else, this should be merged with a suitable article). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:09, 12 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 withdrawn by nominator. No one supports deletion; merging or renaming doesn't require an Afd. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fissure of the nipple[edit]

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

There is no reliable and acceptable medical reference that I can find to support the content of the article. Fissure of the nipple is a medical condition and by consensus in Project Medicine, all sources for the article are supposed to be from medical textbooks, systematic reviews and meta-analysis from the past five years, official medical organizations, professional medical organizations, and governmental health websites. I looked and couldn't find any reference to this condition in the references I looked at. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an aggressive interpretation of WP:MEDRS, which applies to "content" instead of "articles", does not ban all other kinds of sources, and also does not belong to WikiProject Medicine. MEDRS belongs to the whole community, just like plain old WP:RS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, and MEDRS applied to the content of this article is aggressive, then I don't understand the purpose of the MEDRS guidelines or the nomination process. I'm not proposing that the whole article must meet medrs guidelines because I realize that non-medrs sources are not banned - I've created search templates for the purpose of finding sources. Medical and health related articles contain content on history and culture-a good thing. I'm sorta confused about your comment. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename This article should be renamed to Jogger's nipple. I believe that someone probably thought that Fissure of the nipple was more officially medical sounding. While there may not be any medical articles on fissure of the nipple, a Google Scholar search under jogger's nipple or jogger's nipples retrieves a bunch from medical journals.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22jogger%27s+nipple%22+OR+%22jogger%27s+nipples%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C44

I have seen no coverage of jogger's nipple in Cracked nipple. I have first-hand experience with the condition, unfortunately. There are products sold in running stores to try & shield against it, such as Body Glide.

Peaceray (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ozzie10aaaa: Do you oppose renaming to Jogger's nipple solely on the the nominator's rational was that she could not find sources for Fissure of the nipple? Have you checked out what's available for Jogger's nipple? There appears to be a number of articles in medical journals about Jogger's nipple that seem to meet some WP:MEDRS criteria, including articles in JAMA & the New England Journal of Medicine. Peaceray (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ozzie, I think you should explain why you believe that something can both be in the ICD-10 and not be verifiable. IMO if we haven't found sources, yet, it's just because we haven't looked in the right places. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in that case, rename, thus keep(ive struck my prior comment)thank you....(BTW this [8]ICD isn't from who.int)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep and perhaps consider a merge to Cracked nipple. This is a category of problems in the ICD-10. The current situation seems to be separating irritant dermatitis of the nipple caused by breastfeeding from irritant dermatitis of the nipple caused by anything else. There is absolutely no chance that we can't find sources to support it. However, we're probably more likely to find sources among books instead of recent research papers. A dermatology textbook might be a good starting point for the non-breastfeeding causes (e.g., ISBN 9781416052210 at page 281–282). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an ICD9 code[9] and the code is for this name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That code only applies to the postpartum source of a fissure, or cracked nipples. No mention of jogging is contained in the code. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If appropriate references have been found they probably should be inserted into the article. At this time the article has no refs. If it gets merged all its content has the potential of being deleted because it is unsourced. No ref that I found states that a fissure of the nipple is the same as jogger's nipple.

If editors have found content and refs to use, then at this point in time, that content and references can be put into the article. Create joggers nipple and use sources that use that term. It is a synth to say that fissure of the nipple = jogger's nipple. Jogger's nipple (if I understand it correctly) doesn't necessarily involve a fissure. I've not looked for refs for joggers nipple but I imagine that simple friction can cause irritation and not necessarily a fissure. Common sense = joggers nipple is an uncomfortable result of friction.

I've been tidying up many proj med articles and deleting unsourced, poorly sourced content and content that doesn't meet MEDRS guidelines. I thought this discussion might be about that. Shall we then retain articles on medical topics that are unsourced? ..or just suggest possible sources. Does it make sense to retain the article in its present form? When articles that I create are nominated for deletion, which happens more often than I like, I simply continue to work on the article until it is well sourced. The article in its present form should not exist in the encyclopedia. In the spirit of congeniality and to foster consensus I will remove the nomination. To me, its barely worth the time to discuss. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing administrator - It looks like the consensus is to retain the article and so, for the purposes of not wasting the time of other editors, I would like to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:34, 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.

The result was no consensus. So Why 17:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Perks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Even the relatives cited (although this does NOT confer notability in any event, I am just illustrating here) -- "He is the Great nephew of former rider Dave Perks and son of former referee Robbie Perks" -- don't have articles. Quis separabit? 11:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG, WP:RS, e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], plus multiple articles in Speedway Star. The relatives cited don't have articles because nobody has created them, not necessarily because they're not notable - either way that has no bearing on this subject's notability. Perks rides in the SGB Premiership - the highest league of professional speedway in the UK. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They're just passing mentions, no article really that discusses subject matter Zazzysa (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Michig, which are more than just passing mentions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:51, 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.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Shah[edit]

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

No mention in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is mentioned in plenty of RS which I've added to the article. She was a prominent figure in the disability movement in Pakistan, starting some of the first organizations for the blind in that country. Passes GNG easily. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adequate indicia of notability, significant work in her native country, enough sources. Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 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.

The result was delete. So Why 17:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcellus Long III[edit]

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

Singer who doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines. Most of the sources cited are either not independent, not reliable, or only provide mentions, not significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a vocalist and not a singer. There is a difference. 199.189.26.28 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC) — 199.189.26.28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When you are most notable for singing the national anthem before a professional sporting event (possibly on only one occasion for a pro-competition) you are just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if it could be better sourced. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely the argument that a topic is notable if more sources could be found applies to all articles on non-notable topics, Bearian? The question is whether such sources exist, and my argument here is that they don't. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero evidence of any possible significance. Singing the anthem at a sports game is not enough to make a notable performer. Had I seen this on new page patrol, I would have listed it for speedy deletion DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 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.

The result was redirect to Céline Bara. Don't see any reason to delete first. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC) overturning to delete and redirect. The nac is a blantly incorrect assessment of the consensus undoubtedly reflecting the closers lack of a delete button. Hint, leave these to the admiins Ansh666 Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrille Bara[edit]

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

The article about this person has just been deleted on the French Wikipedia, so we may consider deleting this entry also. As a porn director/producer/occasional performer, Cyrille Bara completely fails WP:PORNBIO, even by the modest standards of France's porn industry. He never won any awards, or made notable films, or started notable trends. His only claim to notability is that he is the husband/director/producer/manager/cousin of Céline Bara, who herself probably wouldn't meet WP:PORNBIO with her career alone, but does barely meet WP:GNG for two reasons. First, in 2001, Mr and Ms Bara assaulted with a gun their colleague HPG (who is a notable porn personality in France and would deserve his own entry here, but that's another matter) and were jailed for that reason. Obviously, this caused their careers in porn - and they were far from being major players in French porn anyway - to come pretty much to an end. Second and most importantly, in 2012 Céline Bara ran for parliament, which caused a short-lived (and limited) media circus around her. But the newspapers articles were centered around her, and her husband - who was her running mate - was only mentioned in passing (and sometimes not at all). Cyrille Bara does not seem to have any individual claim to fame, as his own notability relies entirely on his wife's already limited notoriety. His work as a pornographer/photographer/militant atheist/politician/whatever has never attracted any attention in notable sources, apart from what his wife said or did during the 2012 elections. And even Céline Bara has not attracted much attention in the French mainstream media since 2012. There seems to have been a cross-wiki effort to promote both spouses : while Céline Bara does deserve a small entry - more as a curiosity than as a porn performer or politician - it appears that Cyrille Bara does not have the required notability to justify an individual article about him. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete and Redirect to Celine Bara as it seems like all sources on Google News talk about him in the context of his wife. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Morbidthoughts: yes, the only time he was mentioned on an equal basis with her seems to have been in 2002 when they were sentenced for having attacked a competitor with a gun. See here if you can read French. The article also makes it clear that, unlike their victim, they were not important figures in France's porn industry. As for the 2012 elections, the media coverage was centered on her, for pretty obvious reasons (apart from the fact that she, and not him, was the titular candidate). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Celine Bara. Does not meet WP:GNG, due to lack of significant independent and reliable secondary sources, as evidenced here, and heavy reliance upon his wife's website, celinebara.com. No specific notability distinct from that of his wife, "porn star" Celine Bara. Moreover, a meaningful part of the article looks like some kind of advertisement, with undue emphasis given to irrelevant information such as his political activities and his being "radically anti-religious", without any proper independent and reliable sources. --Azurfrog (talk) 17:13, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Muller[edit]

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

fails WP:PROF. all the sources provided are primary and no articles link to this. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show he passes WP:GNG and he certainly does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. There is another academic with this same name, but it appears he is in a different field, and based in the U.S. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hudson-Pierce[edit]

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

Concerned about notability here. The article was PRODed and then REFUNDed years ago but it seems obvious to me that both the creator - the WP:SPA WisconsinCheese - and a major contributor - RitzPublishers - are the same person and, indeed, the article subject. The latter account was blocked for promo. I've just had to clean up a lot of that at various articles, obviously inserted by another promo account.

I do not have access to most US newspapers but this lady runs a small self-publishing/print on demand service and has written what appear to be a few non-notable books. She's also dabbled in journalism at relatively minor newspapers, allegedly with one piece of writing of note. Perhaps her TV show makes her notable but the entire thing stinks of publicity-seeking, by design or misunderstanding. Sitush (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I ripped a lot out of this article today prior to nominating here. Before commenting, people might like to check the history. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a columnist for The Times of Shreveport in Louisiana (she shows up on Newspapers.com), and has written for Guidepost, etc. However, I don't see any reviews of her work in the databases I have access to, so the only review we have is from Guideposts on one work, and I'd need to see more to believe she passes CREATIVE. There are no bios that are independent of her either. If anyone finds sources I haven't, feel free to ping me to re-evaluate. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Megalibrarygirl. Montanabw^(talk) 05:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In 2015 I PROD this article because it was clearly self-published, and at that time the subject was not notable. Very little of the article has really changed since then, except for a brief dusting off by the sock-puppets that were finally banned. I still firmly believe that this page should be deleted. Zeugzeug (talk) 01:10, 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.

The result was delete. So Why 17:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nation[edit]

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

Contested PROD. While the article is marginally less promotional than it was when I initially encountered it, I'm not convinced that the subject is in fact notable. Such references as are provided and extant tend to be either directly connected with the subject or simply confirming the existence of his books etc. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorially toned BLP with nothing to redeem it, complete with an overly produced infobox photo. Has all appearances of being a paid entry, so "delete" per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark is a Harvard graduate, with an influential company and brand, and he has a book now published with a major publisher, set to release on October 17, 2017. He is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danlidwin (talk • contribs) 15:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is written promotionally, complete with what amounts to back cover blurb for the subject's forthcoming book. Graduation from any particular university is not inherently notable, nor are jobs at the listed companies. I am seeing nothing to indicate the subject has attained encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill speaker and business person, one of thousands. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. The promotional tone helps not one whit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 12 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 Delete. RHaworth has already deleted this article; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Win Na Win Sa 2018 The KAPUSO NEW YEAR COUNTDOWN[edit]

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

A somewhat blatant hoax as no sources could be found as to what the special's theme would be. Not to mention that this is WP:ROUTINE since countdown events of meager notability have been done annually, and the author has had a prior history of writing bizarre or made-up nonsense usually pertaining to GMA Network programmes. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to create it in the future. For now, it's too soon. Slightlymad (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON and WP:ROUTINE; GMA will have a countdown show but we don't need an article for every year, and we don't need it in August. G3 speedy should have gone through in my opinion. Nate • (chatter) 06:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined the G3 on the basis that I could find sources for "Kapuso new year countdown" for previous years, so I concluded that a similar countdown for 2018 isn't far-fetched, therefore it's likely not a hoax, but definitely WP:TOOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes there is obviously an annual countdown, but I gave it a G3 on the basis that while it will take place, the fluff in the article is bunkum as the author has had a history of making stuff up. Apparently this clip is also the author's handiwork, as the video description seems to line up with the hoax article, not to mention that the uploader's other videos seem to have a similar pattern of bizarre hoaxery typical of someone with, uh, a rather vivid imagination. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not per nom, as a previous CSD tag had already been declined from this article, and a basic WP:BEFORE would have indicated that the subject is something that has a perfectly reasonable liklihood of occuring again and clearly not an outright hoax- which it has to be for a speedy to apply. Any slightest lingering hint of a doubt- such as in this case- merely requires ((hoax)) to be added to the page. — fortunavelut luna 11:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unlikely is notable special event show just before. Oripaypaykim (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of many hundreds of Filipino New Years' celebrations. You can say Malagayang Pasko from September to December 30th, followed by a month of "Happy New Year!" as I did December 2016-January 2017, and I still can't order a meal in pure Tagalog. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5 by Dakotaparty-Kazaro sockfarm 209.249.5.130 (talk) 04:51, 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 result was delete. So Why 17:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Stone[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable musician; the charts mentioned in the article are from iTunes, which is listed at WP:BADCHARTS. The only coverage I could find that came close to being significant was this, which is just a brief shout-out from a site that has unclear editorial standards (some articles on the site appear to be user-submitted). The only other hits for the artist I could find are lyrics pages, artist profiles, or sites selling his music. Not enough significant reliable coverage could be found. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hey, glad you guys got to it so quickly! Although you can argue for the deletion, smaller artists have been accepted - artists that have spoken to Justin Stone - and gotten accepted. Personally, please look into this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleb_Mitchell - not trying to slander his name, but he has much less traction than Justin and his content was accepted. Thanks! Reach out to me on anything kylejames0408 !

Based on your guidelines above, as well, Kaleb Mitchell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleb_Mitchell - should not have one in that instance either. I'm not saying to take his page away, but to give Kaleb a page when he is less well known than Justin, just doesn't make sense. Twitter - Justin has more than 2x the followers Instagram - Justin has more than 2x the followers SoundCloud - Justin has almost 3x the followers Genius - Kaleb's most viewed song, not Kaleb being featured (1.9K) Justin's most viewed song (11.5k), almost 6 times the views! In the end, Justin has toured around the US with Hi-Rez and Emilio Rojas on the Missing Pieces Tour, released several albums/eps, has more followers than another page, and more interest as a whole, yet can not be published because of those guidelines that would flunk Kaleb? Apologies for the post again, but that can't happen. Kylejames0408 (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BAND, largely per Kudpung. The article's creator is directed to WP:OTHERSTUFF and advised that the notability of any other given performer isn't being debated here, but that that article is welcome to be proposed for deletion if there is genuinely an issue with notability. It is important to note, however, that social media followers and the like don't tend to confer notability or otherwise. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've also continued to write WP:BAND, which talks about articles on the artist and other notability. A notable source from Columbus called the Dispatch had done an interview with the upcoming star in 2015 in their "Local Limelight" section - http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/life_and_entertainment/2015/12/24/1-local.html - A sold out show (not related) on June 9th, 2017 can also be viewed here, where the venue was rather large for the Ohio native - https://www.facebook.com/events/141793256345525/ - And another article - https://cincymusic.com/bands/justin-stone - You now have multiple articles, which fits your WP:BAND description. Finally, the native is becoming a face of the city as people from around the area recognize him at baseball games and other events. Kylejames0408 (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side-note: I've struck through the duplicate "Keep" !vote. Everyone gets one of these, and you've made your opinion known above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here is another extensive article, additionally to the ones that Kylejames0408 already posted. Now we have three articles about the artist. Therefore, point #1 of WP:BAND is fulfilled in my opinion. Also, if there is a problem with the article not having enough reliable sources, you can reach out to the artist himself. Kylejames0408 posted his social media sites above, and his E-Mail is thenoiseunheard@yahoo.com. I'm sure he will be happy to help out. Sischog (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Sischog — Sischog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete for want of reliable sources. It's not our job to reach out to people to find sources that are buried on the Internet. We are not a free webhost that caters to musicians. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 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.

The result was delete and redirect to Rupert Sheldrake. There does not seem any point in prolonging this further. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morphogenetic resonance[edit]

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

This article in its current form has no reliable secondary sources discussing the concept of morphogenetic resonance either skeptically or positively. As such, a separate article is not warranted, and this should be merged into Rupert Sheldrake, with a possible mention at Quantum mysticism. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topic already has better coverage at the Sheldrake article. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change name to Morphic Resonance", by which term the theory is more commonly known.Vorbee (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the Rupert Sheldrake page already has a more encyclopedic treatment, and this article doesn't really have anything worth merging into it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no opinion I am not having any problem with the article and feel unable to take any stand in this issue. If someone is having a problem, I think they should try to solve it, instead of making it other peoples problem.

I have two corrections and two comments to the statements above though. The two corrections disqualifies the two "delete" votes above and part of the initial reason for this debate. Here goes:

1. Morphogenetic resonance and fields are not a subset of any quantum phenomenon. Read up on it. Rupert has used quantum phenomena (especially entanglement) to describe that non-locality is not that controversial a subject after all. The stub-article already contain rudimentary information about other theories and concepts that groups with MR and MF. Read the article. I didn't see any contextual information about MR and MF in the Rupert Sheldrake article (or anywhere on Wikipedia) and it was one of the reasons I created the article.

2. The article on Rupert Sheldrake does not contain any useful information about MR or MF. That was a major reason I created this article in the first place. I am not against merging the article with the Rupert Sheldrake article, but to say that the same information is provided already is plain wrong.

3 (comment) If we should change the name of the article, I think we should change it to "Morphogenetic field" (perhaps "Morphic field"). Because it is the field that is the basis of the concept. Morphogenetic resonance is just a characteristic of, or a process involving, that field.

4 (comment) mostly directed at initial editor McClenon. A major reason I created the article was that I failed to see MR (and MF) put into any context. You also appear to miss more context? I have gathered some rudimentary context in the article already, but certainly think it could be improved. I am no way near an expert on the subject, so it would be great of other editors would help in this effort. RhinoMind (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-scientific nonsense, and non-notable one. Even Daily Mail source [16] does not support the claim. Yes, there are smart birds [17]. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the subject is non-scientific or not is irrelevant. The notability is documented by the many books and collabarative works on the subject. If the page is deleted, information about what MF and MR is should be explained and incorporated in the Rupert Sheldrake article. There is no information to be found at the moment.

About the Daily Mail article. If you have cared about this issue, you would have discovered that there are three references in the article. And that one of them is a ref to the scientific paper treating the blue tit subject. The Daily Mail article serves as a casual easy-read on what it is all about.

Your delete vote argument is disqualified. RhinoMind (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this thing seem to be frequently cited [18], however it is already sufficiently described on page Rupert Sheldrake. No need for content fork. This is a pseudoscientific explanation of facts that can be scientifically explained. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the morphogenetic or morphic field exists, then it is so a quantum phenomenon. If it isn't a quantum phenomenon, then it is pseudo-scientific junk. It definitely isn't classical physics, which is well known. Since quantum physics really is weird, and isn't understood, you can't say it isn't quantum unless you are saying that it is nonsense. Either it is quantum, or it is nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are making wild extrapolations and assumptions here. And they are undocumented, which makes them irrelevant. MR and MF might very well be pseudo-science. In fact I think you can clearly state that it is to some degree, as their existence hasn't been proved at all. That is why it is called a hypothesis. However, the article is not supposed to prove or disprove the existence of anything. It just summarizes what MR is supposed to be, according to the literature using the term. You don't have to believe in it. We also have an article on unicorns. Because the subject of MR and MF is used and referred to in many publications, it is notable and it is important to explain what it is supposed to be. Whether it exists or not.

Your comment reveals that you haven't read the article, nor have you cared to study even superficially what MR and MF is supposed to be. I think you should be ashamed of yourself, wasting other peoples time because you are lazy. RhinoMind (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please mind WP:NPA Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You haven't disqualified anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because...?

This is ridiculous. Can you tell me what is 2+2? I need to check your reading skills and intelligence. On the other hand, you could be joking of course. RhinoMind (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind WP:NPA, please. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Geogene (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which was a merge proposal. RhinoMind (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Although I'm familiar with other similar metaphysical beliefs they were under other names. It seems that this particular one is already covered in the Rupert Sheldrake article but is not a notable enough topic to have a separate article (outside of that notable author's article). —Paleo Neonate – 21:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated three times in this thread, the Rupert Sheldrake article does not contain any explanation of what Morphogentic fields or Morphogenetic resonance is. It just uses the term without any explanation, which is rather confusing. I take it that you haven't read the Rupert Sheldrake article before casting your vote. RhinoMind (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from this singular debate, I would really like to know about the similar concepts you loosely refers to. I believe they could make a proper context for MR and MFs. Please post on the MR articles TalkPage. RhinoMind (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any relevant sections into Rupert Sheldrake. This theory is not sufficiently notable on it's own, nor is it in any way separable from Rupert Sheldrake. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Erm, I think that Rupert Sheldrake as an article should be able to handle all of this. If and when he gets other people to notably advocate for his idea (beyond simply giving him a stage) then I can see our way to maybe creating such an article. I am interested in the claim (unsourced as of now) that Sheldrake limits his non-locality to time rather than space. I suppose that means that Rupert doesn't believe in remote viewing, then? Ah, the things I wish I could know. jps (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need for this article, and there aren't enough reliable, independent sources covering it to even justify keeping it. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 02:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any valid reason given for giving separate coverage of a pseudoscientific concept that is already explained in the second paragraph of Rupert Sheldrake's article and then mentioned again 42 more times in the same article. The only difference I see between the two articles is that the attribution of "fields" is reserved for the section about his books in the Rupert Sheldrake article, instead of put in the main explanation. Otherwise, both articles explain the theory as an invocation of fields for information transfer. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fringe science written so badly that it borders on bollocks, and really needs to be blown up. I've taught math, science, and criminal justice; I understand quantum physics. This is pseudoscience. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearian above me. If anything's not already covered in Rupert Sheldrake, merge it in first. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to Rupert Sheldrake article at best. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I heard about MF from David Icke here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-7DaehK_J4&list=PLw7v05z_xctpJ97iMFIb5m9txU8dumMQr&index=2 at 6 minutes at 23 seconds. Learned of Rupert Sheldrake only after running into this article. [User:Nickdzoni|Nickdzoni]] (talk) 8:03 AM, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that Wikipedia should be basing articles on Confessions Of A Satanist no matter how amusingly eye-roll-worthy the work appears. jps (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rupert Sheldrake. If, at some point in the future, this blows up as the latest pseudo-science fad, the article can be recreated, right now there's nothing there that wouldn't fit just as well in the Rupert Sheldrake article. ApLundell (talk) 17:56, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lil turnup[edit]

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

I'm nominating AfD to be cautious (*almost* nommed for CSD). Doesn't appear to pass WP:NMUSIC. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MUSICBIO. Comatmebro (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence that this musician meets any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO (or WP:ANYBIO). The supposed references are nothing but social media and free streaming. I found no independent reliable sources. Meters (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article establishes notability and nothing could be found in a Google search to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 20:39, 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 delete. Will also move Akimbo (disambiguation) here as an editorial action Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akimbo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a dictionary definition of the phrase Akimbo. It already exists on wikitionary. Unlike other positions, such as sitting and kneeling, which have some cultural significance to them (or health risks), this article is only an etymology of the term. Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. menaechmi (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Then move Akimbo (disambiguation) over; it has a wiktionary link. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging previous commenters to determine broader consensus @Bearian, Artene50, TenPoundHammer, Peripitus, Hobit, and Yobmod:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a dictionary definition with etymology, as stated. The topic may or may not be notable in an encyclopedic way, but right now there's no evidence of notability and no suitable content to keep. That said, if someone can find sources and produce an encyclopedic article on the cultural or other significance of standing akimbo, I will change my vote. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a Akimbo (disambiguation) page that can be moved here and can give the dictionary definition / link to Wiktionary. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:30, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Turtle[edit]

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

BLP fails GNG: 0 indi RS, 1 primary non-indi, n x IMDBs (non-RS per WP:RS/IMDB), other dead primary sources failed verification. The company appears to exist and there's passing mentions in at least one book. (the current promo and WP:NOTINHERITED namedrops lead me to believe it's a WP:TNT) Widefox; talk 13:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable producer. The article had me at "He has achieved great success in the genres of action, comedy, horror, science fiction and drama!" Such content is explicitly excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLP. Majority of cited content comes from iMDB, and additional reliable sources could not be located. Comatmebro (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 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.

The result was no consensus WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Player[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This product lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:PRODUCT and GNG. Coverage only in primary sources by KDE (the parent company) and a self-published source. Recommend redirect to KDE or deletion of this page. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the first AfD resulted in merge/redirect to KDE page in 2008. Maybe this needs to be deleted and salted so editors don't have to waste their time with this kind of stuff. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue, as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. AfD is not for a content dispute. This discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion appears to cover legitimate arguments for deletion / past afd's, not a content dispute. Could you clarify what you see as a content dispute?Dialectric (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to clarify? There is no hint of a deletion argument here. What is the DEL-REASON that includes consideration of WP:ATD? Do you see WP:BEFORE used here? Where is the discussion of WP:MAD given the merge result from the first AfD? The OP uses the word "maybe" to identify his/her own opinion. This is not a deletion discussion and there are no arguments for deletion.

The "delete" contention is that editors should not make decisions about article content, so because they have been doing so, we should delete the article and salt it to put a stop to the content contributions. Since the OP avoids taking a position, what is left is trolling to editors who want to exact such punishment on content contributions, with a fallback position to use the AfD as an improper content dispute (redirect) discussion without any explanation as to why there are problems with the content edits subsequent to the previous AfD beyond the imprecise complaint that these contributions are "time wasting" "stuff". Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 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.

The result was delete. So Why 17:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insticator[edit]

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

Deprodded article. I'll let my prod text speak for itself: Apparently non-notable company. The references are a mix of name checks, non-independent content, unreliable sources, press releases, and regurgitation of press releases. Searches at Google Books and Google News did not reveal any substantive coverage I could see in published, reliable, secondary, independent sources on which a demonstration of notability for the topic could be bolstered. Note the redirect at Insticator Inc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at several of our competitor's pages and all of them have similar sources. We are a growing and verified company. We will continue to add more sources as we gain more press. For the time being, these sources are diverse, and offer different information regarding our company, therefore should not be subject to deletion. WDorceus (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article with a clear WP:COI given the comment above. Text and references describing start-up funding for a proposition do not demonstrate attained notability, nor does inclusion in the Red Herring North America: Top 100 for 2017. Nor are my searches finding anything to indicate that this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naeem Taj[edit]

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

Unprodded without rationale dealing with the reason for the prod. 2 more cites were added however, which actually dealt with the single issue this doctor is known for, which reinforces the rationale for deletion, which is as per WP:BIO1E. Other than removing the one large organ, no in-depth coverage of this individual. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like 1-part resume/CV, 1-part "only known for one event". TheValeyard (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as suggested. It will be better we have a list on these kind of records and mention there. Greenbörg (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete while he may be notable for only one event but i am curios if landing in Guinness Book of World Record makes one pass the basic WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 09:53, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Mitchell (Louisiana judge)[edit]

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

Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indicia of particular notability, per WP:USCJN. bd2412 T 18:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references look fine to me. We have articles on mayors and other local politicians so long as the references are there and you can write a full article. Usually you can only write a stub and I can see merging all the stubs into one article on the position held, but this is a full biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): This article consists of the usual Billy Hathorn (the article creator) padding, the first paragraph bio is almost all based on an obituary and therefore can be deleted. His family section isn't about him at all. So we have 3.5 paragraphs to establish notability. 1 of which is entirely about his getting elected to local office. The other two are about trials he presided over. Just run of the mill work done by a local judge. There are thousands upon thousands of local judges across the United States like Mitchell and overwhelmingly they fail WP:USCJN in almost all instances....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You wrote: "the first paragraph bio is almost all based on an obituary and therefore can be deleted" can you show me that obituary rule. I think you are confusing rules for notability versus reliability. A family written obituary is entirely reliable, but would not count toward notability. There is no rule demanding that it be deleted, that is why a bot reversed a previous deletion of an obituary, thinking it was vandalism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of the sources about his service as a judge -- including regarding his court decisions -- combined with other coverage unequivocally about him all establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unlessthere can be references found for the more general impact of the cases mentioned. This is OR based on primary sources, not an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary here that would suggest this belongs in Wikipedia. The closest thing to notability is the court cases, which were randomly assigned to him, and were certainly nothing like the trial that brought Judge Lance Ito to fame. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the sources suggest that this local judge did anything that tens of thousands of other local judges across the US do. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. agtx 21:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a local judge (despite the fancy title "circuit", he was a trial judge) who fails my standards for jurists. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does not indicate that Mr. Mitchell was a circuit judge. Meets notability under "Local Politician" with sufficient notations.2602:304:B23B:54B0:C069:7500:B4A7:352C (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, local guy doing local things, sources are routine reports. Sandstein 15:43, 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.

The result was merge to J. D. Jones. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.950 JDJ[edit]

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

Contested PROD https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.950_JDJ&diff=447411542&oldid=445633136 . Questionable notability. The "topic is essentially a one off custom cartridge. The citations point to forums, questionable 'articles' and the manufacturer website, which doesn't even mention the cartridge by name. A cursory Google search turns up nothing but forum results on the rounds mythical performance, and no rounds or guns are for sale anywhere." — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable topic. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, just as the nom describes. The coverage seems to be gun enthusiast's sites, non-independent and routine coverage in some articles, and the manufacturer website. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has two reputable book sources, one of which, Cartridges of the World, is the "gold standard" of authorotative sources about cartridges. Of the four currently cited sources, none is a forum, nor is the manufacturer cited. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to challenge the idea that the catalog mentioned above is the "gold standard". It lists 1500 cartridges and appears to have small paragraphs for each cartridge. The first paragraph for this cartridge is an enthusiastic description by the inventor, which is not independent coverage. The second paragraph is the opinion of the author(s), with brief historical information. It is easy to see this cartridge did not have widespread usage - probably a novelty item. This is not significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.

Also the second "book" (see here) briefly mentions this cartridge in a small paragraph. Again, not significant coverage, and it is clear this cartridge did not have widespread usage. And that is it for any kind of real coverage - which is meager. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The other coverage is as I said above - including very routine coverage in two brief paragraphs in a catalog and a book. And I have to question the merits of using this book as a source. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to J. D. Jones, the inventor, or elsewhere. Questionable notability, not a lot of substantial coverage. Sandstein 15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can agree with "Merge" as another option. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:54, 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.

The result was delete. So Why 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Waggoner (effects artist)[edit]

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

Not notable. Part of a large team who won a notable award - pretty much all the others have been nominated for deletion, and all successfully. Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article subject meets at the very least the section 4c for having won significant critical attention. (see creative professional under notability) He won a notable award for a notable film with four members of his team. Please give me the notaion where it says an award shared by a five person team does not count toward showing notability. He does not meet WP:ENT since he is not considered an entertainer but a creative professional instead. I do not consider a 5 person team large. I would have contested the others the nom mentoned but did not see them. I read over them and the participation looked very thin. No matter at this time here though. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He shared a Gemini Award (the Canadian equivalent of the Oscar) for an episode of The Tudors, but that was with eight others, which kind of dilutes it too much IMO. If it was just him, it might have tipped the scales for me. Also, it's not in a major category. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - okay, I began to write "keep", but wanted to get exact wording. For the life of me, I thought that WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER stated that if someone had won a major award, like an Oscar or the Gemini, they were automatically notable. Didn't realize that was only for WP:NMUSIC. Seems a bit disparate to me, but the rules is the rules. With that in mind, if the rules ever change, it could be revived. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:40, 12 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 merge to Willie Tyler. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Tyler[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that fails WP:NACTOR. BangJan1999 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Willie Tyler as not obviously notable relative of a more notable person, per WP:INVALIDBIO. Cory had a major role in A Different World but I can't see enough other roles to meet WP:NACTOR; there may be sources in pre-internet media, but NACTOR is supposed to be a guide as to whether sources are likely to exist, and suggests not. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Willie Tyler - not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:51, 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 Speedy deleted. done by User:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traxo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no WP:RS cited, since all are press releases and other advert-like pieces etc. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising, with a full list of "Features" and "Awards and Recognition". I'll request a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 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.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lackey field[edit]

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

No indication of general notability. Not an inhabited place that is notable as per WP:GEOLAND and no indication of being a historic place. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current Division I college baseball stadiums are generally considered notable, and, although this is not a current stadium, notability is not temporary. That being said, the page should be moved to the proper capitalization Lackey Field. Smartyllama (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since it should be uncontroversial, I have moved the page to the proper capitalization. It is now at Lackey Field. Smartyllama (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smartyllama. Thank you for making the appropriate move already. --do ncr am 20:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RKS Design[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The references are primarily press releases. There aren o actual awards--the Business Week listings are one on many on a list. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- for a long-operating business, one would expect some book mentions, but I'm seeing director listings only: link. GNews brings up mostly quotes from executives and PR-driven materials. Just a company going about its business; not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that for a business operating since 1980, there is very little coverage. While there are references, I don't see anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The products are more notable that the design company - not unusual at all. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up anything which shows that this passes either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am surprised that a business operating since 1980 does not have more coverage. That aside, not enough at this time to warrant an article. CORPDEPTH. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:47, 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.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) zzz (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traci Hunter Abramson[edit]

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

Promotional article created by paid editor, fails WP:AUTHOR. zzz (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator zzz (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Whitney awards prove that she is regarded as an important author by her peers. She has received significant coverage not only in the Deseret News, but also had an interview with Fredericksberg's newspaper, The Free Lance-Star.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "awards" do not prove she is an "important author". See Whitney Awards- "a semi-independent non-profit organization affiliated with the LDStorymakers, a guild for LDS authors." And "Due to the limited number of titles released by LDS authors, several of the genre awards have been combined (such as romance and women's fiction)." Two LDS publications is not WP:SIGCOV for a novelist. zzz (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the Free Lance-Star isn't an LDS publication. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a regional daily in Virginia, where Abramson lives. This makes it a local source covering a hometown gal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Comment – This was listed at the 2017 July 27 AfD log page (diff), hence the relisting to the 2017 August 3 log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs to be swept clean of unreliable sources, which I STRONGLY urge article creator @Rachel Helps (BYU): to return and do pronto. (just take out the non-notable web sites used as sources, Rachel) Nevertheless, 1.) this novelist sells large numbers of books. 2.) her novels get reviewed in a major big-city daily, Deseret News, presumably because she writes stories that appeal to Mormons and lots of Mormons live in Utah, 3.) Deseret is connected with the Mormon Church, but we don't dismiss book reviews of Catholic books that run in Catholic periodicals, 4.) Deseret ran a profile, that's 2 profiles in real newspapers. and 5.) it may not be the Booker Prize, but the Whitney Awards are real and count for something.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Deseret is a major big city daily, and a WP:RS that covers LDS Saints news the way media in other markets cover evangelical preachers or struggles within the Catholic Church, i.e., their readers find it interesting. The fact that it does have some sort of connection with - not control by - LDS can in make coverage of Church policy or leadership a little too close to establish notability. I do see it as conferring notability in stuff like actors, writers, singers, books, or athletes. Just as a feature story in The Catholic Telegraph or the Canadian Jewish News would.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, E.M.Gregory. I have one remaining question: Should the lead section describe her as a "Latter Day Saints author", a "writer of LDS fiction", or simply an " American mystery and suspense novelist" as it does presently? zzz (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

zzz, I added that to the lede, and also added a sourced sentence to text, about her Mormon characters and fans. Pleasure working with you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the blog references, but according to WP:SELFSOURCE, sources from the subject themselves are allowed for claims that are not exceptional. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:49, 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 redirect to Protest. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public outcry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Belongs in Wiktionary. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even written in the proper style for Wiktionary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Protest. I looked at Wiktionary but they do not have a page for "public outcry" either. TheValeyard (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Protest per WP:NOTDICT Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 07:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect "Public outcry" should not be included in the encyclopedia as it is a human emotion, it's meaning can be finded in the online dictionaries. Redirect to Protest would be appropriate. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 08:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Protest per WP:DICDEF. – Joe (talk) 15:09, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allison O'Neill[edit]

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

Seems an unexceptional doctor. Likely fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd say less by way of "likely fails" than "absolutely" fails. Unexceptional doctor, falls far below the NACADEMIC bar. Ravenswing 09:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing showing how she is distinguished as a notable doctor. This generally is done through being a notable academic, and nothing shows that is met here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon in her career to see what her impact will be. She appears to be an assistant professor (no one central page for these interlocking hospitals and Harvard and some are out of date), is doing research and publishing as first author. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - seems like an exceptional, albeit non-notable, doctor. We generally don't include attending physicians and non-tenured medical school instructors in our encyclopedia. WP:TOOSOON surely applies here. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't think this is "far below" passing WP:NSCHOLAR, her top 5 articles have over 100 cites each. Unfortunately, all were written by multiple authors, so that isn't as strong as if she were the sole author. Clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass GNG and is possibly/probably TOO SOON in her career. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:44, 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.