< 1 December	3 December >

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE case, this is a few hours early by usual metrics, but given the clarity of the case I'm applying SNOW/IAR. joe decker ^talk 19:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adnan Gabeljić[edit]

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

I am the subject of the article and I am requesting it to be considered for deletion as my notability was only temporary and no longer relevant. It has been an impediment to my personal and professional life. Please understand. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolejaran (talk • contribs) 23:23, December 2, 2017 (UTC)

Delete Nothing about him makes him so notable we should have an article in contradiction of his wishes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage about him also that can establish notability. NFOOTY also not met. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete All the elements of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE are met and there is no evidence of a need to retain. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G7: one author, requested deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Santa María de Mingre Airport[edit]

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

Due to misspelling of airport article name San Javier Santa María de Migre Airport, I inadvertently created this second article for the airport. I will update the original to preserve the edit history. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of disasters by number of fatalities[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of disasters by number of fatalities (2nd nomination)

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

Multiple other articles already contain nearly identical content, i.e. List of accidents and disasters by death toll and List of natural disasters by death toll. This list is very much incomplete with about sixty percent of disasters listed being avalanches. There is also a very large range in the death tolls of the incidents listed, ranging from 4,000,000 to 11. Undescribed (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as a poor fork (dare I say a pro-avalanche POVFORK?) of List of accidents and disasters by death toll and List of natural disasters by death toll - which cover the same topic and are much more comprehensive and better maintained. I do not see anything worth merging (it seems everything here is there).Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this list is far from complete and has no organisation to the data that makes it useful. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- The two articles of which this is alleged to be a fork have separate lists by type. This one seeks to bring them all together, which could be useful, if done properly. The problem with a couple of the biggest items is that the scale of the tragedy is unclear, so that it is not clear which is the worst. I would like to see the high casualty numbers from both the other articles brought together, with a cut off of (say) 100 or 50, so that the list is of manageable size. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Discontinuity of article does not meet guidelines of integrity for WP. WP:SIGCOV. Ventric (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minister Mauricelm X[edit]

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

This person doesn't seem to actually exist; I can't find any reliable sources that actually mention them. In addition, some of the information is incorrect, such as him organizing the Black Coffee Party (which he didn't organize). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to African American Defense League, the barely notable organization he founded. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom; lack of sources indicates failing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to African American Defense League per Malik Shabazz. Individual doesn't seem notable and seems to fail WP:GNG, but it's a reasonable search term, so redirecting to the organization is fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage and sources. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. There's a potential notability claim here as founder of an activist group, but that's not an inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to be reliably sourced to media coverage. But there's exactly none here, and I can't locate any on Google either — literally all I can find is blogs and social networking posts and fake-news sites. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The article on his violence agitating group goes into enough detail on his calls to kill police officers, which is somehow neglected in this article. On the other hand the reference to Malik Shabazz in this article is a bit odd considering Shabazz was killed by agents of the Nation of Islam because of his renouncing of their breed of hatred and embracing a more inclusivist view of humanity. The article as is lacks sources. I have to admit that I am less than convinced that Mauricelm's group is notable, but he is certainly not notable enough for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that I added a search bar under the name in use by press and NGOs: "Mauricelm-Lei Millere" Editors who commented above can easily find sources using this name, albeit not a great many.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to the very small (vanishingly small - it may amount to little more than just him) African American Defense League which he founded and where his limited notability is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - I'd normally say redirect, but I'm not sure the organization itself would survive an AfD, so why bother. Not even close to meeting WP:GNG, as per the arguments noted above regarding sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - per nom. This article does not meet the threshold of WP:GNG. -Ventric (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus here is that not much has changed since the previous AfD, 7 months ago. Some new sources were presented, but other commenters didn't think they were sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stephanie Braganza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a musician, which is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content but is still not making any stronger claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC or citing acceptable reliable sources to support it under WP:GNG. Creator clearly made an effort on the sourcing piece, but they entirely missed the boat -- virtually all of the references here are to sources that cannot support notability, such as her own self-published profiles on music streaming or sales platforms, press releases, blogs or WP:ROUTINE concert listings on the websites of the venues themselves (whereas NMUSIC #4 requires music journalists to pay attention to the tour by writing editorial content about the tour, not just the ability to point to the venues' own booking calendars as cursory verification that the performances happened.) Out of 27 footnotes, the only ones that are actually acceptable WP:GNG-assisting media outlets at all are the Kingston Whig-Standard, which is one of the press releases rather than a KWS journalist writing about her, and CBC Music, which just gives her a brief blurb in a listicle. There's still not nearly enough here, either in the sourcing or the substance, to deem her notable. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. There has been substantial additional press coverage which can be used to expand the article.--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I disagree with the above "keep" vote's assertion that there is "substantial additional press coverage which can be used to expand the article." The new references continue in the vein of the nominator's analysis: press releases and run-of-mill promotional announcements. The content added to the article that purportedly supports this (https://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=15488) is not third party, independent coverage: it is, in fact, from a press release distribution service. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. More coverage found, but it all looks quite local: [1], [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. St0n3 BG (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I would have thought that for CBC to list her as one of the [ten top Canadian South-Asian artists] is more than just local news.--Ipigott (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being blurbed in a listicle is not a notability criterion, no. It doesn't matter if it's "more than just local news" or not, because it's a listicle and not substantive coverage about her. If she were the primary subject of a CBC Music post specifically devoted to her, that would count for more (but still not enough all by itself if it was the only viable source) — but simply appearing in a listicle doesn't assist notability at all if the listicle itself is the best source that's actually on offer. For the record, only one other person named in that listicle actually has a Wikipedia article, and that one person has a much stronger notability claim than just existing and much better sourcing for it than just a listicle. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete the coverage has still not risen to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep Local coverage counts for GNG. She's covered in the local Kingston paper, Toronto news and yes, mentioned by CBC, whic shows she's being noticed by "mainstream media." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "notice" in the local Kingston paper is a straight reprint of her own press release, not an article written by a journalist for Kingston's local paper, and being mentioned in a listicle doesn't assist notability. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY an independent artist who receives a sustained amount of coverage albeit primarily local sources. Has collaborated with some notable artists- note, however, that notability is not inheritable. I added a few sources. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I've looked over the sources, and there just isn't enough independent and non-local coverage to justify a keep at this time. It looks like the page was hastily recreated after deletion following the first AfD. Maybe she'll become notable in the future, but this is just promotion as it is now. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - I concur with Tryptofish. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Not enough indepth coverage now to support notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete--Not enough indep. covg.Not now.Winged Blades^Godric 13:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atopia Projects[edit]

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

Article about an organization, referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. As always, something like this is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists -- it needs to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on the strength of media coverage, but there's none being shown here at all and the article has existed for an entire decade without ever having any substance or sourcing added to it -- the wording remains substantively identical to the initial creation in 2007, with only minor formatting and maintenance edits ever having taken place since. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Per nom, there is no evidence that this subject is supported by RSes. Dino monster (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Looks like the organisation stopped updating their website 10 years ago. No refs that support gng. An advert. Szzuk (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- I agree with those above. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rashtriya Hindi Mail[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper. The article appears to have been created by the founder of the paper as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234:: The article is created by a neutral person who want to be a Wikipedian for Media and Olympian. MyeraMishra (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The book source is dead and the rest are good as external links. Notability is not established.--Biografer (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biografer: Can I know the book source you are referring to? link: Google Books - this seems to be working. MyeraMishra (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I wonder why this page nominated for deletions even after so many citations. MyeraMishra (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Rashtriya Hindi Mail has the citations from Registrar of Newspapers, Director of Advertising and Publicity, Madhya Pradesh Public Relations, sebi.gov.in, which are government bodies, are considered to be reliable sources for any media/newspaper.

As per the "Compiled & Edited by Research, Reference and Training Division - National Documentation Centre on Mass Communication - 2016" is latest document published from National Documentation Centre on Mass Communication on Mass communications; and this is in the mass communications from the year 1997 as per books MyeraMishra (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Author clearly has ties to the subject, and the refs should speak for themselves...TJH2018 talk 18:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I don't know which of you deleted my post here and for what reason, just an fyi.--Biografer (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now to the @TJH2018: comment; While I do agree that its a definite WP:COI, nominating article for deletion, is not right basing solely on that. On the other hand, because it only contains promotional sources (and there are no official independent sources), this article should be deleted.

I'm sorry @MyeraMishra:, but even a book cite wont save this article from being deleted. One source is not enough. We need not only official sources, we also need them to be independent of the subject. For example, if there is an article in Times of India or The Hindu that describes this newspaper, we can use that.--Biografer (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, for some unknown to me reason (and thank god I looked into AfD template), @Sportsfan 1234: the result was already printed as keep as of December 2, 2017, although no verdict was reached. With that in mind, I removed the result and left it blank. Feel free to make any changes to it if you find that I did it wrong.--Biografer (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: As when I accepted this draft was not aware that the person writing it have any ties with subject (I should do more investigation), but now it is clear that the person have ties and isn't disclosing his conflict of interest also, so it should be example for paid editors. References also are not that reliable as they should be. So my opinion is delete. Thanks! ·•·1997 kB 09:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I would like to re-iterate that I do not have any direct relations with the subject. I am here to learn, contribute and provide reliable references to support the article I publish as @Biografer: mentioned. I have updated the article further by providing the references from The_Tribune_(Chandigarh) dated back on 7 December 1998 ^[1] MyeraMishra (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I leave it to the WikiAdmins to decide if the article is worthy enough to keep or not. MyeraMishra (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will point out that MyeraMishra originally authored this article under a sockpuppet name associated with the subject (that username has been changed). Both usernames are now indef-blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not an admin, but my 2 cents here is this: It doesn't matter how many sources you provide, what matters is what's in them. Also, @MyeraMishra:, Wikipedia can't be used as a ref. ;)--Biografer (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Sportsfan1234 HindWiki^Connect 00:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ http://www.tribuneindia.com/1998/98dec07/nation.htm

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Totara College of Accelerated Learning[edit]

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

Fails notability, has no citations, nothing appears in search. Mramoeba (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Clearly non-notable educational facility.. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete a total lack of sources other than the school website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) HINDWIKI • CHAT 19:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ayla Kalkandelen[edit]

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

A little-known academic with just 85 (!) hits on Google (which normally indexes academic databases!). Briefly was an editor-in-chief of an obscure Turkish journal. Otherwise fails WP:NACADEMIC in every aspect. No incoming wikilinks from mainspace (other than a disambig page). BTW, having species named after oneself is fairly common and not synonymous with the person's notability. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article says she "described ten taxa, and five taxa are named after her." If that's accurate it would seem to make her notable. Not least because people might want to know what those species are named after. Also editor in chief of a periodical. If she had workwd in the U.S. and not Turkey we would probably find more on her. But limited access to Turkish documents and records shouldn't preclude us from including her. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. I removed a Who's Who scam listing from the article. It did not contribute to notability. On the other hand the Turkish Plant Protection Bulletin has been published since 1959 [4] so it may well be significant enough for WP:PROF#C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: taxa named after her confer notability - and anyone looking into those taxa is likely to want to find out about her, classic use for an encyclopedia. PamD 11:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. It's not at all surprising that an entomologist who wrote in Turkish and retired in 1997 doesn't have a high profile on Google or other internet sources. Assessing whether she meets WP:PROF is going to be difficult without access to offline sources in Turkish, but I agree that the multiple taxa named after he is suggestive of a significant impact on research (#C1). The obituary in a scholarly journal [5] also goes a long way to establishing notability under the WP:GNG. So I'd say she's marginally notable based on what's in the article, and there's a high probability that there are more sources out there. – Joe (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I think the comments above regarding NPROF #8 and the taxa are right, but more refs would be helpful, particularly given the non-English-speaking nationality component. South Nashua (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - taxa are named after her, therefore she is notable. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defendguin[edit]

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

This game does not meet the criteria of WP:NGAME. There are a couple of short reviews noted on the game's website but nothing significant. Proposed deletion tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 20:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A review in Linux Journal helps, but nothing gets dragged up in the WP:VG/S search engine. My inclination is to delete. --Izno (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fred Reed[edit]

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

This article has, as far as I can tell, never had any independent sources to establish significance per WP:GNG. It has always been either self-sourced to his own sites or of the form "he writes in X, source, a link to an article by him published in X". There is a notable Fred Reed (dabbed at the top) but this one is not, I think. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP: NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete just a run of the mill journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and I am moving as suggested DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serbia at major beauty pageants[edit]

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

Synthesis and an unnecessary cross-categorisation. Significant RS coverage not found. For a comparative AfD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germany at major beauty pageants. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) 21:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (pitch) 21:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - per nom and provided precedent. Operator873^CONNECT 04:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After consideration of NewYorkActuary's presented arguments, I wish to strike my vote from this AfD. The inclusion of the article does more for the encyclopedia than it's absence. Operator873^CONNECT 08:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Operator873, so is this a keep? gidonb (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it is a Keep. Operator873^CONNECT 18:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. These types of articles are quite common. If this article were to be deleted, then why not France at major beauty pageants? And after that, do we delete France at the Olympics, followed by France at the Paralympics and France at the Deaflympics? And don't forget France at the FIFA World Cup and France at the Rugby World Cup. And then France at the Mediterranean Games, France at the European Road Championships, France at the UEFA European Championship and France at the European Athletics Championships. Of course, Serbia doesn't have this same full panoply of articles, but I trust the point is clear -- COUNTRY-at-EVENT articles are quite common and there is no reason why this one should be deleted.
What really needs to happen here is to use the article as it currently exists and expand it into a fuller discussion of pageantry in Serbia. This would create a nation-specific top-level article similar to the very many such articles that exist in other activities (e.g., the articles listed at Category:Baseball by country or Category:Association football in Europe by country).
One last point -- why are we using the Germany article as the precedent here? Philippines at major beauty pageants was nominated for deletion twice in the past year-and-a-half, and was "kept" both times. That seems to me to be the better precedent. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and move to Serbia at international beauty pageants. As NewYorkActuary correctly points out, we have a long range of such articles. For very valid reasons. There is no reason to discriminate against beauty pageants versus, for example, Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Replacing "major" with international will allow the listing also for representation at the minor contests. Current write-up and table can stay and hopefully will be expanded with another chapter and background on the participation in the major events. gidonb (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep – I still stand that it meets WP:LISTPURP. In previous discussions, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ in his comment when the article Philippines at major beauty pageants was under AfD. He stated that it’s a “functional information source and navigational aid. Deletion would force readers to click through many various articles to find the information that is summarized in the article.”--Richie Campbell (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drawn and Quartered (metal band)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a band, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no significant reliable source coverage. The references here are a Blogspot blog, a Q&A interview in a webzine, a routine directory entry and a (currently but possibly not permanently) dead link whose URL directly indicates that it's also a Q&A interview. These are not sources that can support notability under our reliable sourcing requirements: Q&A interviews can be used for supplementary verification of facts in an article that's already passed GNG on better sources, but cannot bring the GNG in their own right because they represent the subject talking about themselves, and blogs and directories count for nothing at all. In truth this is technically speediable or proddable, but this is a followup recreation after the first attempt was prodded. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Very little coverage found ([6], [7]). Unless more can be found, it's difficult to see how an article can be justified. --Michig (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) 21:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) 21:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hit FM (Beijing)[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Cannot find anything on Google English (I'm unable to search for their chinese name as when I translate their about page it still says their English name), Fails NRADIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Hoping someone with familiarity with Chinese can comment on any Chinese language sources. Jujutacular (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom, while this might be a case of WP:BIAS, can't find any sourcing to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ozzmanic[edit]

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

WP:BLP, with some advertorial undertones, of a musician who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and not enough adequate reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. Of the 10 footnotes here, six are primary sources that cannot support notability (i.e. his own self-published profiles on social networking and/or music PR platforms), two are blogs and one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a WP:ROUTINE concert listing. There's one source here that's potentially acceptable (guardian.ng, #9), but even it reads in part like a mildly rewritten press release rather than a true newspaper article, and it's just bylined "editor" rather than having a journalist's name attached to it. And even if we do accept it as a reliable source, it isn't enough coverage all by itself to get Ozzmanic over GNG if it's the only reliable source in the article. This is also a probable conflict of interest, based on the creator's username Omo007 — but as always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which emerging musicians get to create articles about themselves to help them try to make it big — it's an encyclopedia on which making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: not verifiably notable per WP:MUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete another non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CALA Homes[edit]

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

Non-notable company. @Northamerica1000: de-prodded because they claimed to have found sources on Google News - but apparently chose not to add any - and anyway I couldn't find a single source on Google News Amisom (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - If the only search was in Google News, then WP:BEFORE was not conducted properly. You could also use Google Search and Google Books. Also, isolating the search for "CALA Homes" in Google News brings up sources. The company is covered - although sometimes negatively - in textbooks and others for both copyright and intellectual property law. There is also this and this. The last reference states that it is the largest private house builder in the UK. Add in this, this, and this I believe it meets WP:CORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per CNMall41. --Doncram (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Refs identified in this afd are sufficient to establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Despite the Keep !votes above, *none* of the references listed meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not only must references be published by independent third party reliable sources (which most contributors are aware of and like to quote at AfD pages), in order to count towards establishing notability, a reference must also be "intellectually independent" and contain in-depth information on the company. The references listed above are either based on announcements made by the company or information provided by the company - none are intellectually independent with independent opinion or analysis. The Telegraph articles rely on information and/or quotations provided by the company or their officers, thereby failing WP:ORGIND. The Scotsman article is a PR piece from the company, fails WP:ORGIND. The glasgowwestend article is from a small publication reporting on a small residents association meeting objecting to a building project - insufficient for establishing notability. I do not have access to the FT.com article so I cannot comment. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 17:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Minor company, coverage is PR and reprints a la 'business as usual', fails WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The sources provided by CNMall do establish notability as required by WP:GNG, The Telegraph's coverage [8] and [9] is directly about the subject, and it satisfy independent, reliable source. It is one of the oldest companies in the UK, in existence since 1875. (Almost 150 years). The Telegraph report also says it is the largest private house builder in the UK. Financial Times also covered it [10]. But "delete! vote" is dismissing all these as a PR by wave of hand. Being covered by two reputable UK papers indeed shows a company is recognized and no PR strategy is able to manipulate these two papers to compromise their hard-earned reputation by advertising firm under cover of news coverage. Also wonder how The Scotsman's report is vaguely termd as PR, perhaps because writing that is cheap. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of youth organizations[edit]

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

No sources nor precise definition of what the list is listing Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep. Sigh. We have Category:Youth organizations but no Youth organization. I guess the list may have some use (if it is sortable, presents stuff by country, etc.), but really, someone should stub the main topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 16:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTOUTCOMES pursuant to the guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates with emphasis on WP:NOTDUP. Sam Sailor 03:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did I said it was a duplicate of a category? WP:LISTOUTCOMES specifically mentions the content has to be verifiable. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Youth organizations. Also keep per WP:LISTPURP as a useful navigational aid, which is evidenced in part by the 6,239 page views it has received in the last thirty days (as of this post). I have also added content and sources in the lead to provide more context. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP as per above. I do agree that the main topic should have an entry and be defined. The list itself is navigational, and does not need sourcing or assertion of notability. As long as they point to an article in en.WP and the article is about the subject (Youth Org), then I have no issues. Any redlinks or no links do not belong (also links to non-youth org entries of course). -- Alexf^(talk) 22:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reset Robotics[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability, virtually unsourced. The few sources seem to fail primary. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep Issues have since been fixed. BenDSterling (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- NO they have not been, we need independent RS (with in depth coverage) establishing notability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - According to the Notability Guidelines, “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” This article meets that criteria (although it should be mentioned that most of this coverage is not listed in the article. I would recommend to the author to add more coverage examples to the article). It only took 5 seconds of googling to find dozens of 3rd part sources covering “Reset Robotics”. PrajPraj (talk)

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ Issues have since been fixed. BenDSterling (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Keep~~ Although article can use improvements, it does not meet the requirements for deletion. BenDSterling (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- - You are welcome to comment as many times as you wish, but please use the indicator "comment" or something else instead of "keep" as it appears to be a duplicate !vote. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 13:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Keep Article does not violate any copyrights, has verifiable sources, and is notable. PrajPraj (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: Vote from sock puppet struck. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BenDSterling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Are the sources independent, they all look primary or non notable to me?Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - FirstInspires.org is the official site for the competition. All information on there is official. It is a primary source. The Blue Alliance is a notable and well respected site for competition results, which can be verified by looking at the raw event data. The Blue Alliance is not a primary source, but has been verified. The only non-verifiable source (that I see) is the ResetRobotics.org website. PrajPraj (talk)

Note BenDSterling is a single purpose account that may well have a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- BenDSterling is the Author of the article. However besides that, I don’t see any other conflicts of interest. PrajPraj (talk)
- If by single use, you mean this is my first article, than yes. But I certainly did not create this account with the sole purpose of writing this. And if by COI, you are talking about how I wrote this article, then yes. But other than that there is no conflict. I am simply a member of the FIRST robotics community and wanted to write an article about a well-known team. I plan on writing articles about other well-known teams as well in the near future. BenDSterling (talk) 4:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Unmitigated trivia stuffed full of COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Delete - Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I previously AFD'd this article as a WP:NOT violation, "non-notable religious analysis essay full of unencyclopedic tone and cruft." It was closed as no consensus due to keep !votes noting the large amount of sources. However, on closer inspection, virtually all sources are published by boutique publishing houses owned by the denomination itself. (WP:IS) Further, the article has become even cruftier and reads as an obscure eschatological analysis. It is absolutely inappropriate as a general encyclopedia article. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As was pointed out in the talk page a year and a half ago, this article provides information in a wikipedia style that represents the view of the SDA church on prophecy, specifically the book of Daniel. I followed Wikipedia policy as noted below.

Undue weight: “Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” And, “Theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.... Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them… But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.”

The Book of Daniel presents a detailed discussion of several views about Daniel and the prophecies according to their due weight. But, this article is about a single minor viewpoint, so the concern of due or undue weight is a mute point. However, there is a hatnote that links to the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation where that is of concern. The article is a part in a series on the Seventh-day Adventist church and its beliefs.

Reliable Sources: “Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves”… “ “Questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field.”

Following this policy, this article uses SDA sources to provide information about an SDA belief. This article does not discuss other viewpoints. Those can be found at Book of Daniel or Book of Revelation. By its very nature, this article is religious no more detailed than the general Book of Daniel. The SDA church has about 20 million members and it maintains 78 publishing houses around the world, so this is hardly a boutique publishing concern. --MindyWaters (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep not seeing a valid rationale for deletion. Artw (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment See the previous comprehensive AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Note that independence is an issue for notability, not for reliability. What matters to Wikipedia is reliability. Not only that, notability cannot be challenged at this AfD, because this is a spinout article.
Nor is the analysis of independence correct, as the essay cited in the nomination, WP:IS, states that independence avoids "undue attention to the subject's own views." What are the views of the subject here? Does this subject have money in the bank being used to get the views from Daniel represented in front of the views from Revelation? Where is the evidence? Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Independence is absolutely an issue for notability -- it's in the GNG itself: "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added). Once you remove the non-independent sources, there's virtually no sourcing for this article. Further, summary style does not override the requirement for notability; every article must meet the GNG, regardless of whether it comes from a split or not. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I say, "...independence is an issue for notability" and you say, "Independence is...an issue for notability". Why does your tone make it sound like this is disagreement? Perhaps you are confused about the role of notability in the encyclopedia, as articles don't have to show notability, which is the same thing as saying that notability has no content requirements (see WP:ARTN, WP:NNC, WP:NEXIST). Topics need notability to be standalone topics (WP:N lede). I've heard it argued that spinouts must be on topics that show notability in their own right. But it can never be the case that a spinout can be deleted for notability, as the remedy, if there is such a thing as a non-notable spinout topic, is to merge the spinout back into the parent. This is a decision made on talk pages by content specialists, not in a deletion forum by deletion specialists. Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. James (^talk/_contribs) 05:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -- Eschatology is a significant aspect of Christian theology. SDA is a large denomination, differing from most other denominations in its theology. The SDA view on this subject is thus notable. This is an article about a point of view (which is legitimate), not expressing a point of view (which is not). The complaint about relying on books from SDA publishing houses is not a legitimate one: where else will one find a Reliable Source on SDA views; it would be a legitimate complaint if the article related to the views of Christians generally, but the article on that is noted in a "See also" capnote. The complaint that this is not covering other eschatological views is also wrong, as an early section covers Futurist and Praeterist views: we may need articles on SDA views on those theological positions. I am not a SDA member and normally refrain from commenting on those I regard as heretical sects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This was linked to on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard‎‎. I was not otherwise aware of the article or this discussion. When reading the nominator's reasons, I expected to see a short, poorly referenced topic with a great deal of opinion as to why the rest of Christianity is wrong. A quick glance shows me that's not the case. The article is well written, balanced, and extremely well referenced. That it's a niche topic is not a reason to delete. That the references are almost entirely all from the denomination isn't either. That would be like saying that we should delete Revolver (Beatles album) because almost all of the sources are from the music industry. Granted, there are more than 400 references on that article while only 169 for this article. Who else would be interested enough in the topic to write about it? It is now too large to be sufficiently merged into a general article on the topic. And I know several people who are not SDA but are quite interested in their interpretation of prophecy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Article is well-referenced, verifiable, and specific enough in scope for its own article. Brad v 15:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suzanitta[edit]

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

Not notable. For reference, nobody in the local (BG) Wikipedia made an article for her. After number of unsuccessful self-released singles in YouTube over the years, she released yet another one - "Lucifer and Buddha" , with supposedly stolen beat and it gained temporary popularity and media coverage, mainly because the music video was overly sexualized for her age (14 at that time) and it was shortly taken down for copyright infringement. After that she was featured in pop folk singer - Andrea's music video for "Strogo zabraneno" which flopped, and it wasn't heavily discussed in the local medias. St0n3 BG (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NMUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep oodles of very substantial coverage in Bulgarian media. She's Bulgaria's Miley Cyrus. Not really sure what the issue is with wanting to delete a yoing pop star of national interest and controversy. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Per Dom Kaos and nom. Nihlus 05:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, plentiful Bulgarian-language sources that make it easily pass WP:GNG: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], etc. – Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uanfala: Since when does having one song, barely in the news only for her age and its content, enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN? Nihlus 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of what she has initially become famous for, she has become famous and it's not just that song that the media is focussing on anymore, so that's past WP:ONEEVENT. I don't know anything about NMUSICIAN, but there's enough substantial coverage in a variety of news media for her to be comfortably above the threshold of GNG. – Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She's really only known for "Lucifer and Buddha". Nihlus 21:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified in the last post, passes WP:BASIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic306 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Uanfala. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mero (band)[edit]

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

While technically passing WP:NBAND by having one charting song, it is clear that this short-lived musical duo is not notable. A brief discussion of their failure in a bio about Simon Cowell is the best I could find; even then, it's not enough to pass WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete As much as I believe SNGs have the ability to supercede the GNG and vis versa, this one doesn't make my inclusion cut. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete they existed only for few months and now no new information can ever be found. I can't see any reliable sources mention about this short lived band and no evidence that they exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Croxley Green. Nominator did not provide a valid rationale and redirection here seems non-controversial. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

York House School, Redheath[edit]

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

Moved content to Croxley Green Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 13:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Khakassia. And merge from history as desired. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khakas Soviet Socialist Republic[edit]

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

The entity only existed for several months, after being renamed from Khakas Autonomous Oblast and before being renamed to Khakassia. Nothing drastically changed during this period, and nothing special happened. No other Wikipedia has this article; the Russian Wikipedia has a redirect to Khakassia. We usually do not write articles about these short-lived names. I converted this few-line creations to a redirect to Khakassia, my edit was reverted. Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: 1. There were many entities those existed less than months (even for days) are written as an independent article in Wikipedia.
2. Between the AO and the Republic, name itself is not the only difference. They represent the subdivision of Khakassia in the DIFFERENT Soviet and post-Soviet eras, one is an autonomy of Soviet Russia and one is a subject of the modern Russian Federation. The Khakas SSR had it's different type of government between both the AO and the Republic.
3. The establishment of the SSR a important step representing why and how Khakassia now is a republic — it's a important transitive station.
4. The article of SSR is useful being a link in the infoboxes of Khakas Autonomous Oblast and Khakassia — or when you click the small flags, you got a time shift across a year.
5. Specific things happened in Khakas SSR should be written or not under the subtitle History and shouldn't be straightly associated with the article itself.
6. Wikipedians do not acts uniformly like we are one person. We have rights do write articles those haven't been written in another language. Someone may will write other short-lived ones perhaps in another language and someone may will edit it in the future. 王相国 (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, I seems the name should be Khakas ASSR. --Soman (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is correct. Khakas ASSR never existed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and redirect to Khakassia. This was a short lived entity with no historical documents available. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and discuss redirection on the talk page. The title should pretty obviously be a blue link, and no reason has been given for deleting the history, so why go to the drama of asking for an admin to press the "delete" button (which is what WP:AFD is for) rather than simply use the talk page? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and redirect to Khakassia as an unneeded content fork. The subject of the article is essentially the same as the Republic of Khakassia which is already a redirect to the target article. Both entities are discussed there as follows:

"Until 1991, Khakas Autonomous Oblast was administratively subordinated to Krasnoyarsk Krai. In July 1991, it was elevated in status to that of a Soviet socialist republic, and in February 1992 it became the Republic of Khakassia."

This is sufficient and a separate article is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Khakassia. A polity that existed by that name for one year does not need a separate article. In fact, my guess is that the state was not disestablished, merely renamed. The article on the present republic does not seem to say much of its origins, so that a merge is more appropriate to a plain redirect. Standard merge procedure will leave a redirect anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

redirect as shortlived title for the polity — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaArmy (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Khakassia, which will both preserve the redirect and the content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dil Bhusan Pathak[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage found as either a filmmaker or a journalist. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khallad ibn Amr[edit]

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

Not finding any evidence of notability. As well as being virtually unreadable. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment this page appears to be part of a walled garden, along with Hind the wife of Amr, Muawwaz ibn Amr and Muaaz ibn Amr: I propose they can all be merged into Mus‘ab ibn 'Umair. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE for COPYVIO here [16] that predates the article (June 2003) Rhadow (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electoral history of Jon Tester[edit]

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

On what basis do we have a separate article here? All of this would fit in the main article, and it is unlikely that anyone would be interested in one but not the other. Attempting to get two articles when one would do is confusing and unhelpful. I am aware we have a 0onumner of other articles of the type--it's time we stopped the practice , because the electoral history is basic contents for the bio. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. I see no point in a redirect: anyone doing a search is going to use the subject's name and he has his own WP page. There's nothing special or unusual about his electoral history, compared to any other politician. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Speedily. --Mr.Exicornt (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Struck out vote by perma-blocked sockpuppet. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I'd say merge, but there's not much there. The electoral results are fine as information on the main article. South Nashua (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Pages like this have been permitted for a very rarefied tier of politicians at the top level of notability, such as presidents or prime ministers or other especially long-serving senior figures who have exceptionally long biographical articles that need special treatment for size control purposes. Most politicians below the top level, however, simply have their electoral histories addressed in their main biographical article rather than being spun off into a standalone article in its own right — and Tester's BLP is not exceptionally long. That said, Category:Electoral history of American politicians requires a review for whether every article in there is actually warranted or not, because on a random spotcheck I've found several other instances of these articles existing for politicians who do not need them, such as Bob Dettmer and Tom Emmer and Fred F. Steen II. (I've already merged Dettmer's and Steen's back into the BLPs, but not Emmer's.) And I agree that maybe we should end this practice entirely, and instead just keep all results tables in the main BLPs, precisely because people seem to misinterpret their permissibility in some isolated special cases as a standard consensus that every politician should always have one — if there's a size issue, we can just make the tables collapsible instead of spinning them off to separate pages. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete just plain not worth having a seperate article. I would support deletions for any and all articles on members of the US congress, even for exceptionally long served members like John Conyers, who has been in over 50 years and thus elected over 25 times. Also, I do not think the specific results of the State Senate races, and even more so the state senate primnaries, are worth noting at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete provided that the information is added to Tester's page in a collapsible box. Davey2116 (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2017 Delaware earthquake[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic, nothing particular with this quake Wykx (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Nowhere near as notable as the 2011 Virginia earthquake. Iffy★Chat -- 10:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete I don't think this event is particularly notable, but I'd like to see how it plays out over the next few days before we act on it. —bwDraco ^talk^/^contribs 19:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. NOTNEWS. 4.1 richter scale earthquakes have no hope of LASTING beyond a news cycle.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - It has been covered for its rarity but that alone does not always correspond to notability. Without major damage, casualties, or any notable impact, this just seems like a news story with little lasting ramifications.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete- Not notable enough for article. It got a lot of regional news coverage because of the rarity of earthquakes in the area, however it is a minor earthquake with virtually no damage reported.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – This would be better as a Wikinews story with the sources that are available. I am not seeing any potential encyclopedic content that could be added to the article. Dawnseeker2000 20:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I've been a major contributor to the article, but I agree that it may not be really notable enough for an article. It's an incredibly rare event in the region, but considering the fact that the 2002 Plattsburgh Earthquake, which was a 5.2 and did damage some roads, has no article on Wikipedia, I see no reason that this should have one. Jokullmusic 21:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Earthquake didn't turn out to be anything significant as it caused no damage or injuries, a passing mention in the Dover, Delaware and Kent County, Delaware articles is enough but a separate article for such a small event seems to be a little overkill. Dough4872 03:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there anywhere that this can be Redirected to? Gatemansgc (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I don't think there's anything to preserve with this anyway. It was a non-(encyclopedic) event. Dawnseeker2000 00:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted A7. No need to leave this open for a week when it doesn't even contain a properly sourced claim of notability in the first place. Also: spouse = himself? Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kashmiri Rapstar[edit]

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

Subject is claimed to be the first Punjabi rapper, but no reliable sources exist to support notability. Subject doesn't seem to qualify on WP:GNG, WP:MUSICIAN... If any regional sources can be documented, I can take a relook. Lourdes 08:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Penny De Villiers[edit]

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

Promotional and unclear why she is notable. Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Penny De Villiers is a notable entrepreneur who has been successfully running a content marketing company.117.192.80.119 (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)AnnakoppadReply[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Patent PROMO. No WP:SIGCOV found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Also agree that this is promo and further fails GNG. Dino monster (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Virtually nothing on this person turned up in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Buntine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. His achievements were being the headmaster of a private school, and coaching the high school rowing team, far below first-class standard of sport. He did not coach anyone at first-class or international level. Half the references are about his parents, and apart from one obit, the others are just school newsletters talking about school level rowing comps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we really have to go through this all again? Castlemate (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are we here again - does anyone know how to fix this AFD template ? Aoziwe (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I fixed the AfD template, but the prior AfD ended as "no consensus", so that would explain why we have to go through this again. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete secondary level sports coaches are very, very rarely notable, and nothing suggests he is an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep coach at secondary level of no less than seven future Olympians so he is notable. The fact that he was accorded a obituary in the SMH shows him to be an exceptional teacher. Castlemate (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- None of the sources say or name these seven future Olympians and he did not coach them when they were at first-class or international level. Second, the SMH source is not indept, as the obit was written by a school staff member David Roberts [17] and another two school colleague Jon Wickham and Michael Smee [18]. This is just a run of the mill school teacher and amateur sports coach, who happens to be remembered by some folks in a rich social circle at some private schools. It is typical for people at these places to think that their local sports competitions with other private schools are automatically of high quality, which they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs) 06:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Do I detect a certain inverted snobbery in the preceding unsigned comment? It is peculiar to see that this new editor has taken such an interest in deleting Robert Buntine immediately upon joining Wikipedia. Are we reading the opinions of a Sockpuppet? Unlike Wikipedia the Sydney Morning Herald makes known who is writing its articles. If you do a little reseach you will notice that the people who authored the obituary have wide spread backgrounds amongst different schools and so this is not school scruf or proganda for one school. David Roberts is a former Director of NSW State Archives (1998-2008) and any article authored by him will carry the weight of his considerable independent reputation. Jon Wickham and Michael Smee are notable retired headmasters of two notable schools. The "local sports competitions" referred to are regattas that have received enormous press coverage for over a century and are sufficiently notable to be covered by Wikipedia. The seven future internationals who were coached by Buntine at schoolboy level and have Wikipedia bios were: Stephen Stewart, James Stewart (rower), Geoffrey Stewart, Robert Jahrling, Matthew Long (rower), James Chapman (rower) and Richard Wearne. Castlemate (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete; I have to go this way this time, because there's just nothing here even vaguely within cooee of WP:GNG. Last time I was under the impression that SMH obits had different standards than they (clearly) do, and while that obit is by far the best source here, it cannot be considered independent. Frickeg (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NOTINHERITED. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. High school sporting coach is no claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete these reference none is sufficient enough to show meeting WP:GNG. The only non-mention coverage is obituary written by member of staff/friend, but such ref is not independent source and it even inches toward breaching WP:NOTMEMORIAL policy by using it as significant evidence of notability –Ammarpad (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - nothing really improved since last discussion, still cannot find the in-depth coverage necessary to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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~~ redirect to Catalan declaration of independence. There's reasonably good consensus here that this is a content fork of Catalan declaration of independence and should be merged back into that article. I don't think anybody is arguing that the topic shouldn't be discussed; the only question is whether a single article covers things adequately; most people feel that it does.

There is also a parallel discussion at Talk:Catalan Republic (2017)#Merge . I have not read that in detail, but my quick analysis makes it clear that the talk page discussion was also coming down firmly in favor of the merge.

I don't see any consensus on how much or which material to merge, so that will be something that's left to whoever executes the merge. Whatever happens on that front, leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: based on a conversation on my talk page, I'm amending my close. I'm going to implement the redirect now. The history is intact, so anybody can still mine the existing article text for material to merge into Catalan declaration of independence if they see fit. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catalan Republic (2017)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous two nominations were speedily closed because the article was then on the main page, so this is the first substantial deletion nomination.

This is a content fork of Catalan declaration of independence - that is, it needlessly duplicates content better covered there and in related articles such as Catalan independence referendum, 2017, 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis and Catalonia. There's no need to repeat the same, relatively limited facts concerning the recent political shenanigans in Catalonia in multiple (possibly contradictory) articles.

There is no content in this article that does not relate to the act of declaring independence. There's no coverage about the institutions, functioning, politics, etc., of this self-declared state - presumably because there's nothing to say: independence was declared, and then the whole thing was quashed by Spain. This is opposed to e.g. 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and Kosovo, where an actual state with actual institutions and control of its territory emerged from the declaration. Here, there's basically nothing to report except the declaration, which we have already covered. Sandstein 08:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or redirect. We jumped the gun on this one, so when a state did not in fact emerge we were left with a redundant content fork of Catalan declaration of independence. The case to redirect is to prevent link rot from other places on the web; unlike some deletion candidates this one is likely to have had some profile and hence some incoming links. Kahastok talk 09:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - The article claims to be about a free and sovereign state independent of Spain but really it is just a content fork of the articles Sandstein mentioned. Had there been worthwhile coverage of actions outside declaring independence or major powers actually recognized the existence of the "Catalan Republic", then there would be more use to this article other than repeating exactly what is conveyed already elsewhere.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Already we have so many source in the article. And I think, this article is similar to People's Republic of Korea (this is also short-lived government). Thanks. --Garam (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This doesn't address the content fork problem. The sources are not the issue, the fact that they are the same as in several existing articles is. People's Republic of Korea does not have that problem. Sandstein 21:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Garam: Catalan republic is not a short lived state. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandstein, Panam2014: People's Republic of Korea is also proposed country (not real contry) in Korea, like Catalan Republic. And already there are so many article about "proposed countries" in English Wikipedia. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - The majority at Talk:Catalan Republic (2017)#Merge seems to favor merging/redirecting the article to Catalan declaration of independence. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or redirect. As per Kahastok redundant content fork of Catalan declaration of independence. This should be a totally non-controversial clean up. I suggest editors who consider voting "keep" to give this some thought and fully read discussions on talk page before doing so. No need to block what should be a fast consensus.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to the declaration as a valid, reasonable search term. The content here is highly duplicative of the content there, with nearly nothing unique.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No form of effective government - not even during the 24 hours following the declaration, no international recognition, all parties agreeing to concur on new elections organized by Spain... Article on the declaration is the way to go.Baidelan (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No form of government, no international recognition are all not convincing reasons for deleting this article since it satisfy WP:V and WP:N. see Category:Proposed countries –Ammarpad (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment & Keep - As the merge discussion appears to be nearing its end, I have to say this is a rather poor time to open a deletion discussion. As for the policy implications of this article in relation to others, the nominator is absolutely correct that this cannot be compared to Kosovo. However, where they are wrong is the assertion that an article like this does not have its place on Wikipedia as a standalone self-proclaimed state article; just see Catalan State (1934) for a situation that near perfectly mirrors this. The overwhelming majority if not the entirety of the emphasis takes place on two things: 1) the declaration being passed 2) the aftermath/consequences in which Spain reasserts its control. This is a longstanding standard, and while I agree that all consensus based standards can be undone by new consensuses, for our self-proclaimed state articles to not be questioned until a self-proclaimed state is proposed in our lifetimes generating controversy does seem to lack adequate consistency as this article not only covers the same aspects as every other Catalan state article we have to offer but does that with greater detail and a higher quality rating. Just out of consistency I do not see any convincing arguments for deletion as the assertion of it being nothing more than a content fork has not been demonstrated thus far in any of these discussions. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply I'm afraid, having read your argument twice, it seems to be a rather convoluted way of saying WP:OSE (yes, perhaps Catalan State (1934) requires a name change and redirect, that is not relevant here). It does not address the fact that the material is effectively duplicated and that there never was at any moment of 2017 a Catalan State, which can be objectively sourced. Even the infobox is WP:OR, with its supposed national anthem, flag and seal, let alone proposed dates on when it may have theoretically started or ceased to exist. Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical oppose per WP:FORUMSHOP. Spliting a substantive discussion which has been long under way seems like a bad idea; if and when the merge discussion is closed, no prejudice against starting a deletion discussion. Just not now. --Jayron 32 14:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Jayron. If there's a consensus on the article talk page to merge, then this discussion is redundant. If the merge discussion is closed as no merge or no consensus, a new AfD can be opened at that point. Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am (or was not) aware of any merger discussion. if the decision here is to delete, the merger discussion is in any case superseded. But I'm fine with a redirect, which leaves the merge discussion open and still able to determine what if anything needs merging. Sandstein 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you were, than your reading skills are suspect to the point of WP:CIR-level bad. The merge discussion template was in the article since November 21. You literally had to add your AFD template to an article that clearly already had a merge discussion template. I'm sorry, but "I wasn't aware" is a piss-poor excuse for someone who has been here as long as you have. That's either gross incompetance or willful ignorance, and neither is particularly reassuring here. Please don't do that. --Jayron 32 16:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like my reading skills are bad, then. Though I didn't much more than glance at the article before script-nominating it, because the issues with it are the same as at the time of my previous nomination, when I assume the merger was not yet an issue. In any case, a merger discussion is independent and separate from the deletion process; and deletion (which I believe is warranted here) is not prevented by an ongoing merger discussion. Sandstein 20:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is, we have two discussions which are essentially asking the same thing "What do we do with this article here" and the likely outcome of both is the same. It's always a bad idea to hold two discussions with the same function in two different places. This discussion is likely to result in functionally the same thing as the other one. It's just bad form to do that, because people who have pertinent things to say in one place would say the same exact thing in the other. It's messy to decide what to do when one has to keep reading two discussions to keep up. When the merge discussion is closed with the result of "merge", this discussion becomes pointless, unless you really just want to delete the redirect too... --Jayron 32 13:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per BrendonTheWizard and oppose per Jayron32. Davey2116 (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as an obvious POV/content fork. One could argue that content should be merged, hence it can also be made a redirect to allow content merging. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete & redirect to Catalan declaration of independence as an unneeded content fork. The two articles are essentially about the same thing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per BrendonTheWizard. Numerous failed attempts at creating a state have their own pages on Wikipedia if they are noteworthy enough. The fact that part of the article is a fork does not justify deleting it completely, as more information can be added or redacted in the future to solve such a problem. Applodion (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that we already have an article about this attempt at creating a state. It's called Catalan declaration of independence. We don't need two articles about the same thing. Sandstein 13:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per all above.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 03:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The article begins "was a proposed". Well, yes, an independent Catalan republic has been proposed many times. This particular instance is not notable apart from the referendum. There was no Catalan Republic on 2017, just a proposal on a ballot that failed to take off. Srnec (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The declaration itself was not enacted or even proclaimed, as admitted by Puidgemont et al.; therefore there was no republic at all, de jure or de facto. Neodop (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. There was never a republic in reality nor even in pretence. The regional president made an ambiguous declaration but he never pretended that he created a new state, even if he had had authority to do so. He went so far as to declare his declaration suspended at once, and then accepted that it was a nullity when the Spanish Supreme Court decreed that. There was no state that took control even for a moment, and even its own government did not claim it did. The 'Catalan Republic' is pure fiction or aspiration. The article contains nothing which is not covered by the article on Puidgemont's declaration: it seems to have been written just to propagate a fiction. Wikipedia is not a propaganda soapbox. Hogweard (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Parsing out this event in history from the original source is not warranted. Had this event in history changed the government, it would have been reflected in that government's page. I agree with the above editor above citing that there never was an actual government established. WP:SOAP -Ventric (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment and Delete We already have a merge discussion going, what's the point in a delete discussion? But if there is going to be a delete discussion it's already pretty clear that this page is both original research (in that no source actually said that this state existed beyond the declaration of independence) and redundant (in that the page covering the declaration of independence already covers the declaration). FOARP (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and let the discussion on talkpage to decide its fate. Actually I have to agree with Jayron32 above. There's already discussion ongoing about it. Above all per content issue, this article is well sourced, nobody is doubting its verifiability and notability (to important reasons for deletion). And some delete vote here are rather unconvincing. Because the fact it doesn't become reality have nothing whatsoever to its notability, Wikipedia documents what receives "significant coverage" not what becomes reality. Also for "content fork" argument, deletion policy favor merging or redirecting in such issue (if it's truly fork) see WP:DEL-REASON. There's no substantive argument of why it's fork except overlapping sources. And for this, we should let the talkpage discussion to decide whether merge or redirect since it was started long before this AfD. In addition it is worth mention this article exists in 43 language versions apart from this one–Ammarpad (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hard to dig through this, but in the end I don't think there's any agreement over whether the subject is notable or not. Promotional concerns can be fixed through editing, at which point it may be AfD'd again if there's nothing left. ansh 666 09:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signal Alliance[edit]

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

promotional article on non notable company, with exceedingly minor claims, backed up by references which are either notices or PR. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Actually DGG I think you have high bar for organizations.These organizations from developing nations can not have similar coverage like any startup might get in the US or Europe. Moreover this company is two times winner of competitive Microsoft Certified Partner award, apart from the Cisco award and other recognitions which are well reported in notable and reputable Nigerian papers [19], [20] and [21] all these satisfy many points of WP:CORP. Second WP:CORP and WP:GNG require independent or reliable sources and this article met this criteria: for the 9 sources used only 2 didn't have Wikipedia article, the rest are reputable papers and their reportages cannot be dismissed as a PR by a wave of hand.. — Ammarpad (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are quite correct that I have a high bar for organizations. They're almost always a problem with promotionalism , most of the time with COI, and they have become the major contributor to our paid editor problem which focusses on those with borderline or nonexistent notability . That's not a specific reason for deleting this specific article unless it itself has these problems, but it is a reason for having a high bar generally. (I will probably be making specific proposal to formally increase the bar for at least recently formed commercial organizations as an explicit guideline.). DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Ammarpad Mahveotm (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete None of the references are intellectually independent and therefore do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. The "awards" are run-of-the mill vendor awards with no significance whatsoever towards notability. The references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Article fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please I don't know what's "intellectually independent reference" I only know independent reference. And 5 out of the 9 sources used are are from established, notable and independent media houses see them Bloomberg news, Daily Trust, Vanguard, The Punch, and Business Day and you can check how often they are used on WP via Special:LinkSearch. So please can you explain "intellectual independent"? And your second assertion is vague and empty . Everybody can say so. I can just say this "article is run of the mill non notable" but I didn't prove how and why?. Please can you explain that with details? Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Hi, the criteria for establishing notability is slightly different than the criteria for "good sources" which is what you have quoted above. For example, a company might issue a Press Release to announce a new product. That Press Release might be published, verbatim, by an establishing news publication - thereby meeting the definition of a reliable source. Information from this reliable source may also be included in the article. For example, the Press Release might announce that the volume of new product being manufactured broke a national record - this sort of information might be allowable in the article. But, for the purposes of establishing notability, this article is not acceptable since all of the information was provided/produced by the company (fails WP:ORGIND). In order to meet the criteria for notability, a topic must have two articles that are "intellectually independent". Articles that simply reproduce company-produced/provided information are not intellectually independent. All articles that rely extensively on information published/provided by the company or rely extensively on interviews and/or quotations from company sources *without providing additional independent analysis or commentary* fail the criteria for establishing notability. The references listed in the article fail as follows:

This Bloomberg reference is not for the company, but is for one of the executives. It contains no in-depth information on the company which is a mention-in-passing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This Vanguard article announing that Signal Alliance was awarded Enterprise Partner of the Year by Microsoft in 2009 is a Press Release issued by the company complete with quotations from a manager for the company and a quotation from the Partner Manager of Microsoft. It contains no independent analysis or opinion and fails WP:ORGIND.
This businessdayonline reference is based on this announcement on the website, same wording and phrasing. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This dailytrust.com article is based on a company announcement and also has no in-depth information about the company. Fails both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
This technologytimes.ng article has no author attributed and it not dated and therefore is questionable as a reliable source. The photograph is also available on the company website. The article reads like a company announcement complete with quotations from the CEO and has no independent analysis or opinion. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This tededia.com reference is significantly based on a Microsoft announcement, contains no independent commentary, analysis or opinion and fails WP:ORGIND. Similar articles on this award in 2011 can be found at Vanguard, or practically word-for-word at this blog post.
This Vanguard reference is a Press release. It is replicated on the company website and labelled there as a Press release. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This punchng article is a Press Release and practically a duplicate of the technologytimes.ng article. Fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons.
This businessdayonline is also a practical duplicate and fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons.

Hopefully you can now understand better that the criteria for establishing notability for companies and corporations requires intellectually independent and in-depth articles on the company. Just getting a company's press releases published is not sufficient. Take a read of WP:NCORP for further information. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First you now agree the sources are independent you now changed from questioning the sources to questioning the content by dissing it as press release. WP:CORP requires "secondary source" of which all these notable media houses are, (the website o the company) is not even used to support even one claim. Second, by publishing these material these independent sources means they found the news "newsworthy" and "notable" to be published in their medium after rigorous editorial consideration. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to be missing the point. I stated that the sources were not "intellectually independent". I have not changed from questioning the sources to questioning the content, my position is consistent at this AfD and at many others. You asked what was meant by "intellectually independent" and I provided a comprehensive response and an easy-to-understand example. WP:CORP contains both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH which also provides direction on interpretation. You are welcome to have a different interpretation but 1) you should note that your interpretation is not one that is shared by the majority of experienced editors that participate at Afd and 2) don't shoot the messenger.-- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Independent media houses published things after passing through editorial stages, and only newsworthy do passed. Newsworthy subsequently means it is of public interest and notable. Who are '"experienced editors"?! Where are they based? I am talking of what is defined as independent/secondary sources per guideline and you are quoting "experienced editors" view. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As has already been pointed out to you, the criteria for establishing notability is different to the criteria for verifying facts. Look back at the example I used first regarding the New York Times (a reliable third party secondary source that meets WP:GS) publishing a press release or company announcement. This example would fail the criteria for establishing notability since the published content is considered a PRIMARY source especially if the published article has no independent commentary, analysis or opinion. Read WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. I've tried to assist you in understanding the core issue. Its up to you whether you want to continue arguing and/or trying to re-interpret policies and guidelines that editors (who participate at AfD on a daily basis - i.e. experienced) understand. Also, feel free to disagree and push your own interpretation - just don't be surprised if other editors disagree. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I'm finding substantial coverage in media accounts of the company and its investment arm Sasware such as this FloridaArmy (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment Two points. The first - this article isn't about Sasware which a completely different company - its not even mentioned in this article! Second, that reference is a company announcement, therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND and cannot be used as a reference to establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a completely different company, it's part of this one. It's an investment arm. See here. If it isn't already covered here it should be. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't matter - even if it is a subsidiary, it is a completely separate company doing different things. Notability isn't inherited. And apologies for repeating, the references you have found are all inadmissible for the purposes of establishing notability since they are company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A subsidiary is not a separate company. That article absolutely establishes notability as it is a bylined news article. Please don't insist on making false statements and misrepresentations. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, you're wrong. From the subsidiary article: Subsidiaries are separate, distinct legal entities for the purposes of taxation, regulation, and liability. A tag of "subsidiary" establishes the legal owner, nothing more. I've already commented on the article, it is up to you to read the policies and guidelines I've linked to setting out the criteria for acceptable references to assist in establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I think we do treat subsidiaries (interpreted broadly, not in a legally restrictive manner), including associated organizations, as part of the main article in most cases, unless ithe subsidiary has its own specific notability in ints own right, and is sufficiently important that it can be best treated separately. (WP guidelines and interpretations are a world of their own and the terms used do not necessarily correspond with the meaning anywhere else; and the statements in WP articles are not Reliable Sources for anything, not even for the rules we use in distinguishing in our guidelines--their separate domains of thought. What we say in articles must have sources; our interpretation need only have consensus. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Additional sources; partnership with Oyo government [22], [23], another from Thisday newspaper, [24], another content [25], and again reporting their extensive research [26]. From different source; [27]. From Daily Trust newspaper [28]. From The Guardian newspaper [29]. In addition, [30], [31], [32]. All this while the article is already referenced and no claim is left unverifiable or tagged unsourced. Yes, indeed some sources are not indepth coverage (like any other article), but more are not, and they outnumbered the former. In addition, there is difference between having extensive coverage in obscure or less known sources (which is hard to determine their reliability) to having coverage in reputable and notable national papers. 90% of the sources in the article (and 9 out of 11, I give in this comment) are from well-known national newspaper with verifiable history of fact-checking and editorial independence. The remaining 4, are well established tech websites also, they are just not newspapers. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment *None* of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are either produced by the company, based on company announcements and Press Releases, or produced by affiliated companies or collaborators. None are intellectually independent and they all fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. While Ammarpad has disagreed with just about everything that has been said to him to date, his focus on WP:RS fails to take into account WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH and to date, has failed to address any concerns with reference to these guidelines and fails to understand why PR and company announcements - even if published in reliable secondary sources - can fail other criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - It's because what you are saying is empty and vague dismissal. You yet again agree I provided more reliable sources and even think (I focus much on it?!), but your canned, six words response came again: "none – of –those reference– meet – criteria". Writing these six words is among the easiest work on Earth, I know and everybody can move to any AfD and simply copy/paste them and say all the references don't meet criteria. So why should I focus on such? They don't bother me in the least. I already did the more important, the visible and substantive argument. Also since you asked why I bother more on WP:RS I think I should explain that now: I focus on RS because it's bedrock of Wikipedia quality and it supersedes both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Also WP:CORPDEPTH and like WP:N, they are very subjective. If I provided 100 sources you will still cannedly, by typing few words, say they "don't meet A, they don't meet B.". Likewise if I provided 50, even If I provide 500 (by your style here) It is clear you'll respond cannedly. And proof of this can be seen right in this AfD not somewhere far. But, by focusing on providing multiple sources (from established papers, with editorial independence, wiki article) does surely show they can't all be serially manipulated by the same company over a long period of time and subsequently reinforces meeting WP:CORP of the firm –Ammarpad (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Are the references intellectually independent? Do the references rely extensively on company-produced material or announcements or interviews/quotations? Do the references have any independent analysis or opinion? If you can't base your rebuttals on these points, then you're picking on the messenger and not focused on the guidelines. You're trying to have an argument about WP:RS and getting angry that everybody is agreeing that the sources are RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as corporate spamming, enough said. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment –At the time of posting this; this user has total 22 edits in all. 5 to userspace; 17 edits all delete !vote to various AfDs with canned comment –Ammarpad (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: An interesting AFD discussion by Ammarpad and High King, that have definitely improved my understanding on how WP covers notability of organizations. As someone who is familiar with the way local media houses cover significant companies, I am leaning towards the narrative of Ammarpad, from the references provided. But I have a question for HK, please will you be kind enough to give me an example of an article from a media press (A Nigerian one preferably) that you consider "intellectually independent reference"? This is just for me to observe the differences between it and what we have here. Darreg (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment I didn't write the policies and guidelines but they're very simple to interpret. If I could find a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, I would already have linked to it here but unfortunately, not one of the articles (Nigerian press or otherwise) I've read meets the criteria for establishing notability - they have all been based on Press Releases/announcements/interviews/alliances/partner announcements/etc. Notably, not one of the Keep !voters has disagreed with my analysis of any of the references. Can you point to a reference that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability and meets WP:ORGIND? You say that you are familiar with the way local media houses cover significant companies - but you cannot point to a reference that is intellectually independent??? We have policies and guidelines for a reason and the onus is on the editors here to understand those policies and guidelines and to interpret them without bias or favour. It is notable that you say you are leaning towards the responses of Ammarpad - yet Ammarpad did not understand that articles must be intellectually independent in order to be considered to meet the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I didn't mean for this article, I meant any Nigerian intellectual independent reference to better my understanding in future AFDs as it might come in handy in the future. I leaned towards Ammarpad because from my understanding the references he provided were sufficient enough to show coverage in reliable sources. Non notable Nigerian companies, don't usaully get this type of coverage.Darreg (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as the claims to notability are not good enough and I am concerned about the verifiability of the claims. The analysis by HighKing is convincing and the quality of the sources do not hold up. Personally for me, I am often willing to consider organisations from developing countries if there are any verifiable claims that it is a major player and it impacts a large number of people. However, this doesn't hold up in this case. I see several problems with the claims which makes me a bit sceptical

Failure of WP:V The claim of Microsoft Enterprise Partner of the Year 2009 in the article doesn't hold up. The actual source by Microsoft doesn't mention the company at all.
The partner of the year is an non-notable award given among the companies who have chosen to partner with Microsoft by paying for the service. It is not a significant industry awards but rather an award from a small pool. There are overall winners (world) and there are also winners from each country. The country winners should be taken with a pinch of salt as the companies are not competing with many others.
Failure of WP:V. There is no mention of claimed Cisco Global Winner Circle Corner 2016 in the cisco website. Despite the claim from secondary sources, there is absolutely nothing on the cisco official website. Neither does this seem to be a major award.
The company is an ordinary services company with 51-200 employees it seems. A major recruiter might still be notable, but I don't see much here
The company has no prominent product or notable for any other contribution either (that could offset the small employee)
Basically it is a run of the mill company which has partnered with Microsoft / Cisco (by paying for the certification programme). There are hundreds of such companies in India and other countries. There is no particular claim of significance about the company.

A blind look at the sources is not enough and I think HighKing did a good job of pointing out the problems with the sources. Many of these secondary sources making claims about Microsoft/Cisco cannot be backed up by an authoritative primary source (Misrosoft/Cisco website). I tried to see if there is any claim of significance which would potentially indicate notability based on company size and profile, but I don't see any either.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC) - Note: Updated slightly and added links for support.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment –Closing Admin should review this discussion and here They are directly related to this !vote. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have a problem, please raise it with an admin. I came here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies where I usually vote.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume good faith and had loved this to be true, but sorry it isn't. You missed one thing by using the phrase ""where I usually vote" without second thought. Consider you AfDs since October: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] and [53]. Out of these 19 (90%) are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India and only two in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. I will not judge, whether your claim is true now and if not why, but I think, some thing are called self evident. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to DreamLinker. Although, I intended not reply to this !vote because of its WP:DLC-like nature. I am replying him in good faith now. Point no 3. Cisco website: Their website is primary source and Wikipedia requires secondary. There are many independent sources that reported this fact, but I will be given only one here (because they are already on this page) link the source is The Punch, 40+ years old independent paper.

Point number 2. I agree it's not really big award but winning it two times says something, and winning other awards speaks volume. Plus guideline WP:GNG doesn't require any "award",, what it requires is multiple independent sources. And I believe any independent observer will agree I've already shown this firm has the guideline-based minimum sources. I cannot satisfy personal criteria of people; however.
Points number 4, 5 and 6– are all personal thought and subjective opinion. No policy/or guideline-based rationale. You've full right of personal opinion
Point number 1, shows you clearly didn't really read the article but eager to vote. If you did, you'll know the exact years of their two awards. I don't know where you got your 2009 from. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment ~~I fixed the indentation above~~ [ edit:somebody needs to read WP:INDENT ] and if we're going to go down the route of commenting on individual editors, it should be also pointed out that nearly all of the Keep !voters here have connections to Nigeria (this being a Nigerian company) and none have provided any argument *based on policy or guidelines* on why or how the references provided meet the criteria for establishing notability. Hopefully the closing admin will provide due consideration to any !voting, partisan or otherwise, that fails to provide reasoning for their !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the third time you're switching your argument. After I disprove the other. You now no longer have anything to say except you are concerned with the vote. I agree keep per is very weak and it should be discounted. But I have already shown the company received "significant coverage" from "multiple independent" sources as required by guideline WP:GNG. I have shown the sources are WP:RS (you even complained I focus much on RS!). I have shown that all content of the article meet WP:V. And your only repeadtly canned argument is subjective failed CORP, failed ORGIND and asterisked "none". You're already shown by The Bushranger in this AfD why such argument is very weak, very subjective and not policy-based. Since these multiple RS reports about them, it means they found something worthy to be covered about them. That's why I never try to satisfy you in that regard because I can't satisfy peronal subjectivity. Even if I provide 100 sources you'll still say they failed this and this. Thats is why I focused on WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS and believe I have established them, so as per as this discussion is not vote, I don't need " keep per", (your new fear) –Ammarpad (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2017 (UT)

Just to be clear, not once has my argument switched . Go get fed somewhere else. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this. Now I am vandal and and Troll (as your linked essay show) because I revealed facts you don't like. Thanks once again, but sorry, me I don't abuse people via linking them to essays explicitly meant for vandals and trolls. I have great respect for WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Analysis of WP:V and problems with claims I very pointedly showed above that claims by several of the sources involving Microsoft and Cisco cannot be verified. What matters is the quality of sources, not "x (reliable) sources are present". Many newspapers often print reports based on press releases by the company, without independently verifying. In this case, there are multiple problem with the sources which I see here

Unverifiable claim Claim about 2009 Microsoft Enterprise partner of the year cannot be verified. (Contrary to Ammarpad's bad faith accusation above that I "clearly didn't really read the article but eager to vote. If you did, you'll know the exact years of their two awards. I don't know where you got your 2009 from" this fact is mentioned in the article and reported in this Vanguard reference. Looks like Ammarpad didn't read the article properly, eh? ;) The Vanguard reference is based on a press release statement by Signal Alliance, not Microsoft. The information cannot be found in the official Microsoft website. Newspapers routinely report based on press releases and it is up to us to verify the quality of the source.
Unverifiable claim and sources suspiciously reprinting the same content I searched for "Cisco Global Winner Circle Corner" and found exactly 2 pages of google search results (all Nigerian media). What was more amazing was that if you actually compare the content in the various sources [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], the language is very similar (if not outright same). It is very surprising that a bunch of Nigerian sources reported it and yet there is absolutely no mention of the award on the CISCO website at all? (Or even any European/American media?) Based on the language and similar content this seems to be news recycled from a press release, possibly released by the company. This points to multiple problems of WP:ORGIND and WP:V. It is hard to even determine whether this award exists or not.
Reliable sources reprinting press releases or WP:SPIP What seems to be the problem here is that generally reliable newspapers/technology blogs seem to be reprinting press releases. As it says in WP:SPIP, Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. What we need to look out for is whether people independently of the company have decided to write about it and that too non-trivial works that focus on the company. That is precisely what is missing here. There are many technology companies and they usually receive coverage (beyond routine announcements of partnerships/certification) if they have created any notable IP or if they are a large company affecting the lives/employing many people. That is not the case here. It is a small company whose coverage is limited to routine certifications which are paid for or routine announcements by the company itself

Notability is not as straightforward as "we have x reliable sources and therefore it is notable". It is much more nuanced.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have responded to all your genuine concerns already, but the subjective once are beyond my ability. I can't satisfy that. And this place has already become wall of text. I can't be repeating one thing over and over again. If the article resulted in keep you can tag anything you've concern with. If it results otherwise, that's it. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional comment After this insulting remark of HighKing, linking me to essay meant for unrepentent Vandals and Trolls; they seems to have taken it to another height. They just AfDed six Nigerian companies [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], and [65] in rapid succession so as to take WP:REVENGE and make point. (Or perhaps to annoy me). I actually don't know. I don't worry in the least whether they all got deleted, I created none, but such sweeping decision after you lose your temper in one discussion is not good wiki behavior.Ammarpad (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David Duke#1988 presidential campaign. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trenton Stokes[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a minor fringe party candidate for vice-president of the United States. This is not an automatic notability freebie per WP:NPOL just because the person exists, but there's nowhere near enough reliable source coverage here to get him over WP:GNG in lieu as the only reference here at all is a raw table of the election results. As well, the article has been tagged for notability since 2010 without improvement -- literally the only edits that have taken place at all since then have been the addition and removal of the deprecated persondata template, and a category change. There's literally nothing here to make him encyclopedically notable for this. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge and redirect to David Duke#1988 presidential campaign. Apparently those who have contributed to this article have not been able to find much information about the subject, nor have I been able to do so in preparing this response. If reliable sources with more information about the subject are discovered later, the redirect can be turned back into a full article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete did not garner any significant coverage as a VP candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect per lack of substantial coverage in sources and above discussion. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to David Duke#1988 presidential campaign for lack of independent notability. A plausible search term, and the subject is already mentioned there. There's nothing to merge, so a straight redirect would be preferable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yardi Systems[edit]

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

This is a borderline-G11 puff piece not based on reliable secondary sources. None of the secondary sources given in the article cover Yardi in any detail. When I prodded the article, Toddst1 de-prodded it without improvement but said that this Google Books search establishes notability. I disagree. Many of those hits are Yardi ads in old magazines that Google has faithfully digitized. The three "for dummies" books were written by the same author who mostly engages in vague praise and advertises his use of Yardi on his professional website. None of that is particularly helpful for writing a neutral, well-referenced article. Huon (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. It's a major software company, but focused on real estate management, not some popular consumer game or whatever, so you haven't heard of it. The article mentions 5,000 employees, one indicator of size. I don't know what that corresponds to in financial terms, say 100k each => a 5 billion dollar company? --do ncr am 05:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: The company is clearly notable ranking high in the Forbes Cloud 100 list. Yardi Matrix is widely cited as a major source of industry activity[66]. Google Scholar shows dozens of results too, mostly in the Journal of Property Management from the Institute of Real Estate Management, which is what you would expect. Toddst1 (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Wide citations are irrelevant. Going through the first page of those search results, I see three press releases and seven passing mentions a la "according to Yardi Matrix". How would that indicate notability? You haven't added any of those sources to the article in your cleanup efforts, likely because none of them provide useful information about Yardi. We need coverage of Yardi, not Yardi being cited in an article about something else. Regarding the estimate of revenues, firstly, 100,000 times 5,000 is 500 million, not 5 billion. Secondly, 606 of those employees are in Santa Barbara with the majority overseas, for example in India. Does your 100k estimate hold for all equally? Thirdly, we'll need independent sources for claims of grandeur, not our own conclusions based on rehashed press releases. If the company is all that big, someone other than the local business paper will have reported on it in some detail. That would indicate notability. Huon (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for math error, but a $500 million per year company is huge and is going to be notable, and even a $60 million per year company is big (suppose it is 600 employees x 100k each; you go ahead and start one if it is so easy :) ). Surely the article could exist as a list of Yardi products alone; the multiple sources available refer to their various systems and the Yardi Matrix etc. What is meant by "wide citations"? If you intended to say that being widely cited is not relevant, then I do not agree. --do ncr am 22:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please point me to the parts of WP:CORP or WP:GNG where a company is deemed notable if it's widely cited, or if it has revenues of $X million. Those citations by their very nature only mention Yardi in passing and thus do not constitute the significant coverage we need to establish that Yardi meets the notability criteria. Huon (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waiting- Good point Huon, sources using a company is not the same thing as those sources covering the company. However, if it's use as widespread as the citations suggest, I imagine there should be sources discussing the Yardi directly. These are what is needed. (With-holding judgement to see if better sources can be found) Dbsseven (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I too held off to see if any of the Keep !voters produced more references. They haven't. This article fails GNG and WP:NCORP as per the arguments put forward by Huon. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a substitute for a company paying for advertising which is what this article looks like. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Huon's comments. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete besides name checking with Forbes, there's no significant coverage of this company to pass WP:CORP. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rivendell Bicycle Works[edit]

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

A Google search doesn't show anything to demonstrate verifiable, reliable notability for this company. Looking at the edit history, a few attempts have been made to make it less advert-like, but this doesn't rectify the issue ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per TNT. Bloomberg picked it up in relation to taxes, which considering all the thousands of tiny custom bike shops around the world is something. Bloomberg L3X1 (distænt write) 21:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Agree with ~dom Kaos~, that the article is nothing but Company advertising. It is still poorly referenced. Vicedomino (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep It might need some work with sourcing, but for those in the cycling world, it is of note. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Journal (episode)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

I don't believe that this one episode is notable for inclusion. It is a lightly sourced stub that fails WP:NTV and WP:TVEP. Yes we have individual entries for individual episodes of other TV shows but, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, that does not mean that this article needs to exist, especially since ‘’Hey Arnold’’ was not exactly huge even when it was relevant. Note that WP:TVEP states to create articles on individual episodes Only if there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes. This article only has one source. This project does not need an article about every TV series finale. Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I respectfully disagree that Hey Arnold! was not huge during its original run. It was one of Nickelodeon's top television programs at the time, was one of only three series to receive a theatrical film, and is the first of any of their classic shows to have a television revival. It is no way a minor entry in Nickelodeon's canon. Of all the episodes of this television program, one might say that this is one of the most notable. In addition to being the show's series finale, the episode famously ended on a cliffhanger that is, quite unprecedentedly, finally being resolved after fifteen years. Many other television programs that have pages on Wikipedia also have numerous episodes with their own pages. A relevant example would be the show Rugrats. It currently has seven separate episode pages active on Wikipedia. If the main issue with the article as it currently stands is that it needs more sources, then that is an issue that can be rectified. However the notability of the episode is in, my opinion, not an issue. BoogerD (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: BoogerD (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Reply[reply]

It is completely and utterly irrelevant whether Rugrats has seven episode articles or SpongeBob SquarePants has 26 episode articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFF, which states that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. Besides, the popularity of Hey Arnold was never much compared to the Nickelodeon juggernauts SpongeBob SquarePants and Rugrats, so it's an unfair comparison. Also that the The Jungle Movie being released 15 years after this episode is somehow unique or "unprecedented" is false. Many projects get stuck in development hell and take a long time to release; for examples see, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, Duke Nukem Forever and Smile (The Beach Boys album). Notability is still an issue. "The Journal" is also not the series finale; "Phoebe's Little Problem/Grandpa's Packard" is the final episode in actuality. Although there is now more than one reference for this article all references are still WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources reporting on the upcoming television movie. There are no secondary sources and the adding of these new primary sources seems to just be a way to WP:MASK the article's lack of notability; this is why it is unfortunate that there is no policy to discourage editors from radically altering a page before consensus can be reached through AfD. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is just an essay, so it can also be argued that it is kind of irrelevant citing an essay. WP:PG states, "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community...". Thinker78 (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes OTHERSTUFF is part of WP:ATA, which is an essay, but note that WP:ESSAY says, Some [essays] are widely accepted as part of the Wikipedia gestalt, and have a significant degree of influence during discussions ("almost a guideline" examples are WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). So it is misleading and frankly ridiculous to say that a section of WP:ATA cannot be cited in AfD when someone uses one of the fallacious arguments listed in WP:ATA because it is an essay, although I do suppose that inclusionists would love it if WP:OTHERSTUFF could no longer be cited in AfDs. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why you put words in my mouth that I never said. I wrote, and I quote, "it can also be argued that it is kind of irrelevant citing an essay". WP:ESSAY is just an explanatory supplement. But I agreee that any given essay can either be or not be widely accepted. So they have to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't know either what you meant with, " that a section of WP:ATA cannot be cited ". And "ridiculous" is really subjective. Thinker78 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:GNG states that “[i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources…”, then it will likely meet notability requirements. The guideline thus limits the acceptable sources to those about an article’s topic, and makes no provision for sources about a related or comparable topic. WP:OTHERSTUFF is simply an explicit statement of this requirement. I agree with your general statements about essays. However, otherstuff has more force than a regular essay since it is so widely accepted and in-line with notability guidelines. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I continue to disagree about the notability of the show and the episode, I will defer to your judgement and the argument you are making. This isn't the "hill I'm willing to die on", to use an old expression. I won't argue further. Best regards. BoogerD (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with article on Hey Arnold! Vorbee (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you are of the opinion that information regarding a single episode should be included on an article that acts as an overview of the entire series? I would direct you to look at my response above. I would also continue to point out the fact that other animated series such as Dexter's Laboratory, Rugrats, The Fairly OddParents, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Ed, Edd, and Eddy, etc. You can look towards Spongebob Squarepants which has somehow managed to have separate pages for 26 episodes! My point being that if one episode of Hey Arnold! had a separate episode page it would be The Journal. This is not only due to the content of the episode and the important role it plays in the overall story of the show, not only because it acted as the series finale of the show's original run, but because it had a highly unusual production history that is concluded/resolved some 15 years later. BoogerD (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We get it, you WP:LIKE Hey Arnold, but, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I don't see a case this is notable, and definitely don't see a case this is the only episode of the show that is notable. The merge target should be List of Hey Arnold! episodes and not the main topic page, if the result is merge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Hey Arnold! episodes. There were a lot of sources on this episode, but almost all of the coverage consisted of the fact that the episode ended the series on a cliffhanger. From these sources, you can derive only a few sentences of content. Per WP:WHYN, this is not enough to show notability. Now its true that a lot of cartoon episodes have articles, but this is because those articles have a ton of sources talking about them in-depth, something that is absent here. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I changed my vote from merge to the general Hey Arnold article to redirect to the list article. As there are a bunch of news articles referring the journal article, I believe that redirecting is better than outright deletion. I originally wanted to save the language on the production of the episode, but all of this is already covered by the Jungle Movie article (which "The Journal" description links to). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I concur that if a merge occurs that the target should be List of Hey Arnold! episodes and not Hey Arnold! I still maintain that a deletion is better though as there is not enough notable content to justify a merger. Wikipedia has enough WP:FANCRUFT already.-- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Keep Sources include SyFy, LA Times, Comicsbeat, Cinemablend, and Geek.com, among many others that appear to cover the same content: the cliffhanger episode is mentioned over the years as an impetus for a movie, which was delayed for a decade and a half or so. Still, GNG is met for this episode, for its impact if not its contents. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are plenty of sources that mention this article, but they say nothing beyond the fact that it was a cliffhanger for The Jungle Movie. There should be a few sentences about this episode in the Jungle Movie episode, but there just isn't enough content for a stand-alone article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's plenty of content: In addition to the RS'es I noted, the rest can be filled out with other materials that don't necessarily need to be online or reliable, but the cliffhanger aspect for 15 years makes it notable. It's clear that on a 'delete/not delete' spectrum, the article should not be deleted, and you agree in that you argue for it to be redirected. But this isn't a redirect discussion it's a delete discussion, even though WP:ATD-M makes it plenty clear that merging a not-individually-notable episode (which is all the nom argues in the first place) into a parent article is strongly preferred to deletion. If/when the article is kept, I have no objection to a merge discussion, nor belief that it needs to be kept independently, but this is a boolean outcome, so keep remains my assessment of the notability of this episode as an article topic. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources on television episodes tend to be located nearly exclusively online. You will occasionally find uber famouse television episodes that get book coverage (such as A House Divided (Dallas)) but The Journal is quite clearly not one of those episodes. Its perfectly conceivable that there is a book or other offline secondary source somewhere out there covering this episode, but we need a stronger indication that these sources exist than a mere metaphysical possibility. As the article currently stands, the amount of encyclopedic information barely exceeds what can be fit into a DYK hook. This scant information exists solely because of interest in the Jungle Movie. Altogether, I just don’t think this is enough to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spirit of Eagle: The topic may be notable because it is a cliffhanger for a subsequent movie, but the fact nonetheless seems to be that it is notable. If millions of people know it because it was a cliffhanger, that would make it fit for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. Thinker78 (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My position is that the present article contains all that can be written about this episode. The minimal coverage present exists because of and is almost solely about the episode's relation to the Jungle Movie. I agree that there is a grey zone and that this is a tough call, but I think that merging or redirecting is preferable to keeping. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the ultimate solution is to redirect then the responsible course of action is to delete the page history first and then redirect to List of Hey Arnold! episodes. If this is not done the article will be preserved in the page history and this would be problematic. An article such as this may be appropriate for a frivolous project such as Fandom powered by Wikia but is damaging to the credibility of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a serious project. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would not support a delete and redirect. There is language present on the relationship of this episode to the Jungle Movie which can be used in other articles such as the list of episodes article. Per WP:R#KEEP, this is a valid reason not to delete redirects (or the page history thereof). Additionally, the delete and redirect seems a bit overkill here. The relevant guideline states that it is used for "problematic", and in practice the option is not the norm for redirects. I would personally need a good reason such as copyright infringement, attack pages, thinly veiled hate speech, the constant recreation of a redirected article, etc to vote redirect and delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I spent a couple hours dwelling on the merits of keeping or deleting this article, so I will say it is a gray and complicated area, and my position is far from perfect. Per WP:GNG, I think that the topic has received somewhat significant coverage in, arguably, reliable sources^[1]^[2]^[3] that seem to be independent of the subject; for this reason, the topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. The topic in those sources is addressed directly and somewhat in detail. In addition, I think that the coverage doesn't seem to be a trivial mention. WP:PAGEDECIDE has several criteria, which seems to be too long to be listed here, but I think that a standalone article helps understand more the topic than a constrained table entry, as "List of Hey Arnold! episodes" is. WP:SPINOFF states, "Sometimes, when an article gets too long..., an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle... This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure." I think adding more information to this topic's entry in "List of Hey Arnold! episodes" would be making the entry too long compared to the other entries and so, inappropriate. Therefore this would support a standalone article of the topic at hand. Thinker78 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shude International Department[edit]

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

Promotional, no independent reference. Since when are departments of a high school notable? For those confused by the title, the correct name for the subject, as mentioned in the first sentence, is actually "International Department of Chengdu Shude High School (Shude High School in the city of Chengdu)". "International Department" doesn't mean that there are any international students; it just means the teaching focus is on prepping for college entrance exams in Europe/N. America/Australia, as opposed to the more rigorous Chinese national college entrance exam. Timmyshin (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete the article lacks indepdent sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I too at first thought it was adepartment of a high school, but then I read the material more carefull, includingthe articles for the other associated entitities. . It appears to be a separately organized and independently run school, though following a common principle. There was a go od deal of promotionalism in it; I removed it--check the earlier versions. As a high school, it is ordinarily presumed to be notable here, and could probably be proven so if one had the ability to use ḩinese sources. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can it be a separate school when the name is "International Department of Shude High School"? Timmyshin (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Chengdu Shude High School, of which it is a division. -Zanhe (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep a school with several international student and searches show many sources. As I said somewhere until community consensus determine that all schools should be subjected strictly to WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH there is no way we should be handpicking schools to delete while some worse than them (notability-wise) exist. — Ammarpad (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where are the "many sources" you speak of and who are the "several international student"? There are no international students. Timmyshin (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even the article has sources presently. And per existing community consensus high school are presume notable, excessive nominating them for deletion is even frowned upon. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) You said "searches show many sources", now you are referring to the article. The article's only source is the official site. (2) This is not a high school, only a department/division. (3) This AFD is not "excessive nomination". (4) No replies on "several international student". Timmyshin (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not mere department/division, this shows clearly you only read the title and rush to vote, see DGG's vote. Even me I thought it is a certain department or even company when I first saw the title. Nomination whether excessive or not, schools like this are not deleted. It doesn't matter whether you do it excessively or one-off so as to cause deletion of many after period of time but evade people's eye, who'll otherwise object excessive one. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're not deleted, except when they are. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Ammarpad. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cordless Larry: the fact that; that one was deleted is not reason for this to be deleted too. Is this reverse-case of WP:OTHERSTUFF?! –Ammarpad (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope - I'm just pointing out that schools are not always kept like you suggested. There are other examples, and have been quite a few no consensus closes recently, Ammarpad. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as it's a venture of a school that we already have an article about. Merging would be a possibility if there was any properly sourced content in the article, but it doesn't cite any third-party sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobius network[edit]

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

I was going to nominate this for CSD but realized it was a much closer call. That said, there is nothing on the internet about the company other than a recent 500K investment from a venture capital firm -- I think it fails the GNG for lacking significant coverage. —cnzx (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability or corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Well, I argue that blockchain technology is in its infancy right now and the company has credible founders. Every sentence has news media attribution (sometimes two) and the founder has ties to the Obama Administration White House. I don't know why this company would get deleted, but not a company like Lisk who uses their own blog for attribution and has several media sources that are not even comparably credible to the ones listed for Mobius. Anyhow, just my thoughts. Thanks. kleubay (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If you believe they're not notable too (like this infant company) feel free to nominate the article for deletion. Everything is judged on its own merit. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. An announcement about an investment is not in-depth coverage. Note also that this cryptocurrency was founded in 2017, and so WP:TOOSOON may apply as adequate sources have not had time to be produced.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Keep~~ - There's numerous news sources listed that do not have to deal with an investment. Please click on all of them. Lisk was released in May 2016 and their Wikipedia page was created in June 2016. I just want to figure out what is consistent for a blockchain company. Trying to find a good example. Thanks. kleubay (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Struck second vote.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete since the company is "in infancy" that means it is WP:TOOSOON and non notable. Notability is based on what exists for sometime and noted by society and literature. I can't find reliable sources that are in independent sources and enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The author's trying to inherit notability by saying it has notable founders or it is tied to Obama is another strong reason to delete it, because it becomes more clear it is not notable. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Very little coverage outside of WP:ROUTINE or press releases. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Supercar.Additionaly, Smith's entire proposal is executed:) (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hyper Car[edit]

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

The article in this situation defeats the following: WP:Point of view, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:D, WP:SCAM, WP:NWFCTM. An article like this is hard to create, due to limited resources, but this does not mean the use of opinionated resources are permitted, and that copy and pasting is permitted. As mentioned before with the opinion-filled resources, the author tends to use websites like Quora (which isn't reliable for primary information in the first place) to fill in the gap of missing references, and also tends to copy-and-paste the information from other websites to make sure "the article is true" (WP:Point of view and WP:COPYPASTE involved here). Another issue is the use of false info, due to the inclusion of the 1950s, although the hypercars came in at the 1990s. The article is also not disambiguated, since there is another page with the same name, called Hypercar. The avoidance here isn't supposed to happen among Wikipedia pages, but are supported with added info, such as something like "Chevrolet Corvette" and "Chevrolet Corvette (C7)" (WP:D and WP:SCAM involved here). Last issue is the WP:NWFCTM policy being defeated, because, although some of the cars in the particular page are well above others, does not mean they are hypercars, proving the point that some of these cars may have been "some that came to mind as a hypercar". Ecks Dey (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 November 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- WP:FANCRUFT. This article is original research, opinion mostly. Super car selection is a matter of opinion, not a defined category. Rhadow (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is your point to delete supercar, or do you have a view on this article? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Andy Dingley -- My point is Hyper Car substantially duplicates the intent of Supercar. We don't need a series of articles on any subject qualified by infra < sub < hypo < ultra < super < hyper. Rhadow (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Supercar- I agree the article is poorly written. However, supercar is a real term and deserves to be covered. [67] Since it is related to supercar, I'd suggest merging the info into that article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Clearly an unpopular term amongst some WP editors (and yes, supercar is regularly claimed here to not be a valid descriptive term and is bulk-removed from infoboxes). Yet, sources such as Top Gear do regularly use both terms [68] and they are RS, editors here are not.

I would be happy to see this merged to a named section within supercar though. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I do not see anything in the nomination that provides a reason for deletion. Cleanup , yes, deletion, no.198.58.171.47 (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge and redirect to supercar, which this is a subset of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 05:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or merge to Supercar, per The Bushranger and because the article contains severe problems, such as unreliable sources, copy and pasting and false information. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 16:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"false information"? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge. This is a bit of a mess. I suggest we:
1. Merge Hyper Car into Supercar.
2. Rename Hypercar to be Hypercar (concept car)
3. Turn Hypercar into a WP:DAB page pointing to Supercar#hypercar and Hypercar (concept car)
4. Make Hyper Car redirect to Hypercar. RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Akiko Hasegawa[edit]

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

Might be WP:TOOSOON to keep around. She does voice a major character in The Idolmaster, but her other roles in Fantasista Doll and Ro-Kyu-Bu! are supporting. Same with Phantom Breaker video game. JA Wiki is more developed but would still need sourcing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria. I still think we need to make sure we do not interpret voice actor notability on the same level as live actor notability. Voicing is only part of a character, so there is probably a higher threshold for notability than for other actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why wouldn't it be the same level as live actor notability? They have levels of star billing and supporting/recurring/guest on those shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Article is just a directory of credits, only three of which have articles, and does not establish subject notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They do have articles, they're just not linked to. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep - Although not much, I found some Japanese coverage specifically about her, including this, this Oricon article, another Oricon article, and this. Most of these articles tend to be more about her than the character of Miki Hoshii. Although she appears to have too few roles to unambiguously pass WP:ENT (Miki Hoshii appears to be her only main role so far), the coverage that exists for her in Japanese does appear to be enough to pass at the very least WP:GNG. If the consensus of this deletion nomination does not result in a Keep outcome, as an alternative, considering how popular the character of Miki Hoshii is (which I can attest to, even as someone who does not follow The Idolmaster very much), I would suggest a redirect to List of The Idolmaster characters#Miki Hoshii as an alternative to deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Why has the specious argument "no major roles" morphed into "only one major role"? Stop moving the goalposts. Besides there are at least three major roles here. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are those three roles? She has to be starring / main cast, not someone who is way low on the recurring list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does she? You're just arbitrarily deciding whether a given role is "main" or not. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I'm going by WP:ENT. Significant roles in significant productions. if she's not starring or main list in cast/staff, how is that a significant role? If she's one of 30 or 100 ensembled characters, how is that a significant role? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see her in the Fantasista Doll cast [69] but not in Ryo-Ku-Bu [70] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for goalposts, those are:WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The WP:ENT should be considered Additional criteria for notability. Perhaps with those Oricon news articles, then she will meet WP:GNG but if she's going by cast lists and credits only then she should need to pass WP:ENT and would still be questionable for WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Xezbeth, there's more than one significant role. Sro23 (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the second significant role? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 05:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete no reason to relist. A redirect can be created at editorial discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Material information[edit]

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

Dictionary definition that appears to be have been created as spam for Ansarada's software product. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. As the nom suggests, this is a WP:COATRACK article for a software product. It's not a term of art that has any real meaning separate from materiality (law). I guess a redirect could be appropriate, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I should add that I deleted the spammy part of the article, but it's still available here if anyone wants to see it. agtx 05:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - although technically a valid legal definition, this is a WP:DICTDEF and therefore fails WP:NOT. Dysklyver 09:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Materiality (law). Same thing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss TimTempleton's ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 05:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abdul Daim[edit]

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

appears to be notable for a single event. Saqib (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as a WP:BLP1E. No evidence enduring coverage or indication that the subject meets any of the notability guidelines. – Joe (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete winning one pre-college competition does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete such awards themselves can never make person notable on Wikipedia. Every day around the world scholarship offers and academic awards are given to students and such events received press coverage but insufficient and not lasting enough to assert real notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jerry Lembo[edit]

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

WP:AUTO- article was created by Jerry Lembo to promote Jerry Lembo, he fails WP:PERSON and therefore this should be deleted. Rusf10 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, self-promotion/advertising lacking reliable sources. The awards might indicate notability, but if they do then someone other than the subject will write an article at some point. —Kusma (t·c) 15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The awards aren't really notable, most of them seem to be the equivalent of employee of the year awards.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article supports a claim of notability and nothing found in a Google search to add to the claim. Alansohn (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete one of the worst cases of promotionalism I have seen. I would say "Wikipedia is not Linkedin", however this is base promotionalism at a level that would even shock people on linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gate operator[edit]

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

A confusing topic filled with an overdose of original research. If anyone can fix these problems the article could be worth keeping. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Appears to be promotional content for the two sources given in the article, which are both websites of automatic gate vendors. I'm also not convinced that "gate operator" is a widely accepted term for automatic gate mechanisms, nor a good title for an article about automatic gates. Note we also have Electric gates but that is basically unreferenced. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Delete as per above and WP:TNT. Garage door opener exists, and a similar-quality page on this topic probably could exist, but it would need new content and a new title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Both Electric gates and Garage door opener already covered this which is wholly sourced to sites of commercial providers rather than academic text or media sources as rightly observed above. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zee Entertainment Enterprises. Sandstein 08:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zee Cinema International[edit]

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

No sources, no notability, too many tags. The Egg of Reason | (Talk) 02:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Per above and also it already exists Zee Entertainment Enterprises — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingobro (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete the same thing as said above. It is just stub duplication of this and had not this AfD started, it is eligible for CSD A10 –Ammarpad (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Zee Enterprises International as not independently notable division. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete per Ammarpad. I'd say it qualifies under A1 as well. South Nashua (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises - as it is the parent org. - Mar11 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Team PCB[edit]

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

This was a shortlived alliance between singles wrestlers, and they didn't accomplish anything of note as a team. Like "Team Bella" or "Cryme Tyme Cenation", these types of shortlived alliances shouldn't have their own articles as it's mostly content forking the singles accomplishments and feud information. Y2AJ is an on point example of a shortlived alliance that led to a feud which doesn't deserve its own article. The three months these wrestlers were together did not include anything notable for a separate entity in the encyclopedia. Feedback 00:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Feedback. HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - only WP:ROUTINE results. Team B.A.D. could probably go for the same reason. Nikki♥311 23:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete They have done nothing of note, therefore fails WP:ENT which is our guideline per WP:NSPORT. - Galatz ^Talk 01:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - The only thing that could be deemed notable is the teams' forced name change from Submission Society, and the connotations. I understand there are no hard and fast rules around teams and if they deserve their own spot; but ones that last less than a year, need to really do something specific to be notible. Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - The three members are obviously notable but that's WP:NOTINHERITED. This fails WP:GNG, everything useful is already in the three separate articles.LM2000 (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Nikki311's comment. Cocohead781 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Applied mathematics in industry[edit]

This user has been creating a walled garden of articles consisting of extremely detailed derivations/formulae of various applied mathematics and physics topics, written as a textbook or course solution manual would. Wikipedia is not the place for such detailed content. Contested PRODS – Train2104 (t • c) 00:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all. Borderline nonsense as written. bd2412 T 03:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all This is definitely an attempt to write something like a course solution manual. This first article above is the introduction for these other articles in the manner of a textbook. The topics already have generalized treatment in encyclopedic articles in an encyclopedia known as (wait for it...) Wikipedia. Then there are notable examples of the various theories already on Wikipedia such as the Eiffel Tower and the Ferris wheel (see Euler–Bernoulli beam theory). Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate trivial collections of information (WP:IINFO) and is not a textbook. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - having had a look at this article, I see it is a single badly written paragraph, written in such poor English that I am inclined to deletion of this article. Vorbee (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all variously as unsourced, stretching a single source into multiple articles, poor English, WP:OR (especially the doodled diagram File:KirchhoffPlate.jpg used in Pure bending of plates), an attempt at creating a book in mainspace, or being beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Cabayi (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all as WP:FORKs of existing articles on the subject. In addition as others have noted, they are uncited, poorly written, and not illustrated. We already have much better coverage than this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all. The first one appears to be a recreation of the deleted Applied mathematics and physics for industry. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all. as per nom. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Possibly there could be encyclopedic articles on these topics. What we have here is not helpful as a start towards that goal. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of these topics may be encyclopedic, and content and examples may be usefully transwikied to wikiversity. But I don't think these are useful here as they stand. "walled garden" does not matter though! Others can link as they wish. I have added Finite element analysis of pressure vessel to the proposal to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note The author has copied much of the material in question to User:Luděk Sosnovec/sandbox. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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