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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip Lanka Hot News[edit]

Gossip Lanka Hot News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWEB. Dan arndt (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as website clearly fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- very obviously non-notable. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Per nom and everybody else. WP:NWEB. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Extra Sources were provided. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet and Low (1914 film)[edit]

Sweet and Low (1914 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Found no sources on Google books. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources cited in the article are adequate. Google isn't the be all and end all of finding sources. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article is properly sourced already, I don't see what the problem with it is. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Comment In fairness, I worked on it last night-that's when the sources, etc. arrived. We hope (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the excellent expansion work that has been done, and WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All the sources cited were well-established film journals and trade papers (except Variety which is still functioning). The content in the article is quite well laid out. Most of the sources are from Internet Archive, which helps to store information that can't be found on Google in case. Websites like Open Library use it.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks to the superb work of We hope.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:GNG; I added a cite book, and there are more to be added. Would nom care to search again and perhaps withdraw the nomination? Sam Sailor 02:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet and Low (1947 film)[edit]

Sweet and Low (1947 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Found no sources on Google books. The article was prodded by HindWIKI without providing a reason. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded the article because they have not passed Wikipedia policies per without references or unimproved but must be in future when they fulfilled sources per Wikipedia policies. -- HindWiki^Connect 03:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article could use some work, but the film is listed in the Library of Congress. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shelby. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (naturally; I wrote it). My sources were IMDb, and also the WP articles on Sammy Davis Sr & Jr and Will Mastin and his Trio (4 articles). I thought it's worth having because this is one of two films where those people, who seem culturally significant, appeared together, and where Sr appeared at all (apparently). I meant it to be a stub to be improved by those with better knowledge of sources. (Added LoC link; thanks, Shelby.) Zaslav (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable topic. Not sure why the nominator could not find any results in Google Books? I found multiple results here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shelbystripes. Can't add more. South Nashua (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Concur with other keep comments. Never should have been nominated for deletion. Google books is enough sourcing. Film is listed in the Library of Congress.desmay (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mahmudul Islam[edit]

Mohammad Mahmudul Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Young academic without significant achievements (yet) in his field. Geschichte (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, Sadads (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:Prof not passed yet. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose this article is in improvement. so consider it until completed.-Abu Sayeed (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. H-index < 10 not surprising for entry-level PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Assistant professor with no notable accomplishments. Natureium (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He improved the low cost and climate tolerant aquaphonics in Bangladesh. And in this field, he is the leading. See the references in Bengali and Translate it into English.--Abu Sayeed (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep - The article has good sources and The scientist is awarded internationally multiple times. মাখামাখি (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is so little sourcing that we have statements he was born in 1952 and in 1979 in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the reference no. 2 in the article. but the date 25 December is given according to his passport and Bangladesh National ID.--Abu Sayeed (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and failing WP:ACADEMIC. Good sources for notability is when it's about the subject, not written by the subject. Ifnord (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parkway Drive. Just a quickie: per WP:ATD, deletion was never on the cards, whilst there is insufficient support to keep it in its current form (indeed, the only !keep also suggested merging). So the only consideration is whether to merge or redirect. As Michig pointed out, even the nom (somewhat naughtily) advised a merge, which not only gave merging the head on numbers, but allows for sourced material to be retained. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winston McCall[edit]

Winston McCall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Bandleader who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The subject's band is notable, but the one piece of info in the article about the subject (straight edge) could easily be merged into the band article. Contacting anyone who was in the last AfD to discuss again: @Crisco 1492: @David Gerard: @Duffbeerforme: @Gene93k: @Grahamec: @Loriendrew: @Shaidar cuebiyar: @The Anome: Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or merge. Result of first nomination was against delete, and merge/redirect discussion can take place elsewhere. Kb.au (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Parkway Drive. I was very tempted to speedy close this as the nomination proposes a merge. AfD wasn't needed here. --Michig (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect Still see no notability independent of the band. Bio-blerb within band article would be sufficient.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to his band. There is no notability independent of that band. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Parkway Drive per Michig & duffbeerforme.–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Dump Fire 2012[edit]

Utah Dump Fire 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article contains content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this event does not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. The article is also too short, but many not be able to be expanded due to lack of information. FormalDude talk 22:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete minor fire with no lasting notability. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is just another violation of WP:NOTNEWS. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It may have damaged a lot of land, and have mentions in news articles. But that does not make it Notable, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jim Mahon Memorial Trophy. Content remains in the history to be merged. No prejudice against recreating this article as an article IF the "multiple books" claimed to be written about him (or other equally strong sources) ever surface. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Mahon[edit]

Jim Mahon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Junior hockey player does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. History should be deleted and redirected to Jim Mahon Memorial Trophy since there's a trophy. Flibirigit (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple books have been written about him, the Petes routinely commemorate his legacy. It is a bit weak, but I think there is enough for GNG, particularly "Called Home" and he is mentioned in many other books as being inspirational for young players. Dying in 1971 makes it unlikely to find a lot of online hits.18abruce (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are the multiple books? Please check the references. There's only one book written by the guy's friend? Flibirigit (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The multiple feature articles 40+ years later make me lean keep regarding GNG. We have multiple sources with the articles, but the minimum required and the local nature of the coverage raises some WP:ROUTINE concerns. I am not familiar with how the book being cited was published. If its self-published, then I don't think we can count it as independent (e.g., its in the same category as a blog with no editorial review), so I am not considering the book towards meeting GNG. If someone can explain that it holds up to review for the GNG requirements, then I would go from weak keep to keep. RonSigPi (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for similar reasons to RonSigPi, but also because the fact that the OHL named an award after him indicates that he must have received some attention at the time which may be difficult to find online. If not kept my 2nd choice would certainly not be to delete but rather redirect to the trophy; not seeing any need to delete the history in that case especially since it may be useful if further sources are found in the future. Rlendog (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The league did not name a trophy after the player. His team named the trophy and donated the trophy in his memory. Flibirigit (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who named what after whom, a very well covered and notable league has a major trophy named after this player. Even under the facts you give, the league accepted the trophy and started awarding it. That is a relevant fact. RonSigPi (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As may be, but notability more being inherited, of course that doesn't mean in of itself that the player himself is notable. Ravenswing 23:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the first non-example paragraph from what you cited at WP:NOTINHERITED "Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject." That is not the case here. There are sources with this case. I think this also may be a case of considering WP:RAP and Letter and spirit of the law. Awarding the Stanley Cup is relevant to if Lord Stanley of Preston merits an article, same with the Ed Chynoweth Cup and Ed Chynoweth or the Hobey Baker Award and Hobey Baker. Drowning in policies can obscure the fact that a Major Junior league does award a notable trophy named after the subject of this article. I don't think that should be ignored no matter what policy is cited to the contrary, especially since there are some sources cited and common sense tells us we are talking about a 40+ year past topic. RonSigPi (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RonSigPi, you're forgetting to notice that your examples did other things that made them notable, besides the trophy. Stanley was a politician. Chynoweth was a builder and league president. Baker is a HHOF player. Jim Mahon did nothing else notable. His death in a horrific accident is tragic, but amounts to nothing more than 15 minutes of fame. Wikipedia is not a memorial for a local hero. The only coverage on this boy is from his home team and the team he played for. Flibirigit (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You think I am forgetting that Lord Stanley of Preston was Governor General of Canada? Of course I understand that he would be notable without the trophy. My point was that usually notable people have trophies named after them and that fact usually increases their notability. If I gave the NHL a trophy to present to the top right winger of the year, would they start awarding it along with the Hart Memorial Trophy? I think not - because I am not notable. But they might in honor of someone notable in their time that died. I don't think it is appropriate to discount the trophy being named after the subject and still presented to this day. I think everyone is forgetting that even without the trophy I said weak keep and Rlendog's comments didn't change my position - I am still at weak keep. I simply think the community needs to consider the fact that since the year of his death the OHL has continued to award the Jim Mahon Memorial Trophy. RonSigPi (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "forgetting" that you are advocating "weak keep," given that those words haven't been stricken from your response, so I'm unsure what point you're trying to make with that. I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing members of the Hockey Hall of Fame to a teenage amateur with a couple good junior seasons under his belt (if not an utterly absurd one), or by comparing the highly notable trophies named in their honor with one awarded to the highest scoring right winger in the OHL. (Let's say that I'm nowhere near sold as to the notability of that trophy, amidst the 28 other trophies the league awards with articles, many of which call out for redirects.) If there are sources from independent, reliable, third-party sources that both meet the GNG and don't run afoul of ROUTINE, produce them. Ravenswing 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: to the trophy. Sorry, folks, but the strictly local nature of the articles run afoul of GEOSCOPE, ROUTINE and NOTMEMORIAL altogether. Like Flibirigit, I'd be interested in 18abruce telling us about these "multiple" books, and whether they're all indeed about the subject, or to what degree the subject's mentioned; a dozen fleeting mentions still come out to 0+0+0+0=0. Finally, as we all know, WP:V and the GNG require not that we speculate that sources might be available (or might be difficult to find), but that such sources are demonstrated to exist as a prerequisite for saving the article. Ravenswing 12:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now unless these other book sources are produced. I don't see the multiple sources that don't run afoul of geoscope and routine. While it is an otherstuff argument, since naming of trophies is mentioned above I must note that it is fairly common for us to redirect non-notable juniors to trophies named after them such as Six Broncos players and Renault. Just because you have a trophy named or dedicated to you doesn't make you notable. Often in the cases of death it would be a WP:ONEEVENT situation. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect I don't see the coverage or achievements to show an individual article is deserved. An untimely death doesn't make you notable. The trophy is the only reason he's known.Sandals1 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then redirect to Jim Mahon Memorial Trophy. Ifnord (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Storey[edit]

Tim Storey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is the article's second nomination for deletion. The first nomination in 2007 was successful and the article was deleted. It has since returned. It meets the following criteria:

• WP:N The subject is not known outside of his life coaching classes.
  
• WP:V The claims in the article are not verifiable, and the article itself contains maintenance tags over 2 years old for lack of verification.
  
• WP:RS The references given are to his own website, to Random House (for a list of his products) and a write up on CBN
  
• WP:NOT Wikipedia is not for self promotion.
  • WP:PROMO The article appears to promote the individuals books, as they are prominently listed in the article. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Meets the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:G4. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- nn as either "life coach, self-help author, motivational speaker, or entrepreneur" -- just promo cruft. Possibly salt as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not sure I have ever seen an article that violated so many Wikipedia policies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Klass[edit]

Wil Klass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This author has not received a level of independent attention required for him to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for authors for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article relies on adds instead of reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Millner[edit]

Jim Millner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable businessman. Was on the board of a few companies ADS54 talk 11:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- can't find anything to support notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another in the series of non-notable Newington College alumni.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think there is just sufficient WP:NEXIST to get over the WP:GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has held very prominent business roles and sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I was already to go all-in on this one, but a lot of the apparent indicators are a bit less impressive than they first seem. The SMH obit is good, but written by his sons; the article said he was president of the NRMA (a very notable position), but he was actually chairman (a much less public role); etc. Ultimately, though, they are significant roles; this NLA interview is also good. Frickeg (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems a prominent enough businessman. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As head of the NRMA he was part of the demutualisation of the organisation which was controversial and split insurance and road services. The chairman was the public face and I don't believe there was a seperate president. The obit was written by his nephews not sons as he had none. One of those sons is now head of the family company and is currently facing an AfD. This isn't a question of inherited notability in the Wikipedia sense but a story of generations of a notable business, community, sporting and philanthropic family. It would be helpful if those commenting had some knowledge of what they are commenting on. Castlemate (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a nn businessperson; neither the business nor the philanthropic activities rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. Sourcing is insufficient for standalone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New and Lingwood[edit]

New and Lingwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. My search could not find proper sources; one source in the article merely reports on the sale of the business, which WP:ORGDEPTH specifically names as trivial coverage. They do supply a notable school and sell things to Prince Charles, but notability is not inherited. There are also some COI/promotional concerns. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company page has proper references and all spam information has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando8039 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Until some established editors removed all the spam and puffery, this article was oozing and dripping with some of the most blatant adspeak I have ever seen on Wikipedia - not a copy of, but extremely similar to the tone of the language on their website that had also been written by a hired copy writer. Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sorry, Fernando8039, nice try. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While nothing merits blatant adulatory promow*nk, as a British-based fashion and dress historian I'm certainly well aware of New and Lingwood, what they do, and I would have expected them to be provably notable. Unfortunately all my reference books are currently in storage, including a couple I'm pretty sure would be very helpful for this. So I am not voting keep or delete, because I believe the company is notable, but I cannot prove that, or disprove my belief, due to not having my books to hand to confirm. Mabalu (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabalu: This being deleted now doesn't prevent it from being recreated later if books are found that establish notability. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, weakest ever? I did a search expecting to find dozens of sources going on about the legend and brand etc. I was really dissapointed. The coverage wasn't really in-depth and there wasn't a significant amount. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, this article is a WP:PEACOCK in all its splendor. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Currently there seem to be unsupported details in the infobox that don't appear in the text. These should at least be sourced (if that's possible), in the text, before a final decision is taken? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notabilty, just reads like spam and/or an advert. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Priceline Group#Acquisitions. J04n(talk page) 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agoda.com[edit]

Agoda.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The sources for this company are problematic - there are some mentions in passing, and lots of press release/marketing material, but no serious, independent, in-depth coverage. The article was created for promotion (the creator declared in the edit summary "I am an Agoda employee based in Kuala Lumpur handling the communications of Agoda International...") and even after one AfD and 3 years it still smacks of promotion, because there is nothing else to say about the company - they haven't won any awards, the got acquired, and they were involved in a minor tax issue. At best, this could be soft deleted by redirecting to The Priceline Group. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The_Priceline_Group#Acquisitions; not independently notable. "Delete & redirect" would also be okay with me; the content is mostly promotional and is not needed for retention. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Priceline Group for now. Disregarding the current state of the article, this topic is borderline. feminist (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a close call and I'm happy to review on request.

I'm giving little weight to JPL's usual white noise delete !vote. On the other side, I'm disregarding the contributions from the SPAs. Unscintillating's contribution of a Bloomberg listing adds no value, as k.e. is correct in that it is not editorial content and there are such listings for countless non-notable companies and individuals. Even if it were a reliable source, it would be a reliable source for the company, not necessarily for the article subject.

But the nominator and k.e. are fundamentally correct that this isn't a well-sourced article: the vast majority of references are to non-byline pieces in redlinked publications. It is definitely not well-sourced enough for a BLP, but even if the subject were not still among us, the vast majority of the sources in the article discuss the subject's company, and not the subject. This article cannot stand as a BLP without reliable sources, which trumps any keep argument put forward in the discussion. A Train^talk 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. Appel[edit]

Peter A. Appel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable businessperson. Article reads like a resume. Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Did some further research and there is not much press regarding the subject, but there has been some throughout the years. While not very well known, his business accomplishments are undeniably notable and rare. Among other things, he has been a founder of at least two multi-billion dollar enterprises, one of which is noted by Forbes to be one of the largest public companies in the world, and the other noted by Baron's as one of the most profitable. Comes down to what it means to be "notable". If it's limited to those with a lot of press, then those far less accomplished than the subject but who actively court attention will fill Wikipedia's pages and those who are clearly not self-promotional, like the subject, won't make the cut. I vote to keep. User:Bernice McCullers. 16:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Arch Capital is on the Forbes list...at #970. Regardless, of whether 970 is notable or not, that would be about the company, not the individual. What does it mean to be "notable"? We have an article on that, see WP:PEOPLE "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject." So yes, he does need to have press coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you cite in the article does not mean that a person must have significant coverage to be notable. Rather, it means that if a person has significant coverage then he or she is presumed to be notable, and that notability would then need to be disproven in order to delete. Having significant coverage does not mean that a person is automatically notable; it is merely a presumption which can be disproven (because a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent, it doesn't mean he is innocent. It means that he or she must be proven guilty). Moreover, a person is not precluded from meeting the notability standard solely because he or she does not have significant coverage. Lacking significant coverage means that this person is not afforded the benefit of the presumption of notability and must meet the standard of notability by being worthy of notice. The very same article you cite, WP: PEOPLE, describes this standard and is set forth in Johnny Smith's comment below. It is clear from the article that significant press coverage is not a prerequisite for inclusion; lacking it just makes it more difficult to demonstrate notability. While I agree that the subject does not have sufficient coverage to warrant a presumption of notability, I do believe that his accomplishments, which are fully sourced and presented without any aggrandizement or embellishment whatsoever, make him worthy of notice and that the article meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. User:Bernice McCullers. 00:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In response to Rusf10's comment, the subject does have press coverage, even if not extensive, and it's clear he could have a lot more if he sought publicity, which he obviously does not. More importantly, though, while press coverage is relevant, it is not dispositive. The media is not the ultimate arbiter of who is included in Wikipedia. If it were, then accomplished people who do no seek publicity or who the media fail to find, which happens frequently in industries that don't generally attract media attention, will be excluded even if worthy of notice. If a Wikipedia editor comes across a person who he or she deems notable and posts an article, then at that point the debate for deletion should focus first and foremost on whether the person is in fact notable (i.e., worthy of notice), not whether they have a lot of press coverage. There are countless people included in Wikipedia that have done far less than this guy but who have more press attention. Wikipedia editors who legitimately find people that either the media misses or who are not self-promotional should be rewarded for their effort, and deleting their articles will not encourage this useful work. People who are relatively unaccomplished but seek media attention should not be included in Wikipedia solely because they are effective at self-promotion. User:Bernice McCullers. 23:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like the criteria of notability wikipedia has, but that is the criteria. By our standards, he's not notable. I think you are confusing success with notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you think I am confusing success with notability but I believe you are confusing media coverage with notability. As you can see from the comment below regarding Wikipedia's definition of "notability", the critical question is whether the person is worthy of note. Fame and press coverage are secondary; i.e., not irrelevant but less important. So, yes a person who has had great success, even if unaccompanied by substantial press coverage, could very well be deemed worthy of notice, and therefore notable by Wikipedia's standards. User:Bernice McCullers. 11:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Based on Wikipedia's definition of notability for people, the article should remain. According to applicable Wikipedia guidelines, "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." Based on these guidelines, the subject is clearly notable. His business achievements are significant and worthy of notice. The fact that he is not famous, while not irrelevant, is secondary. User:Johnny Smith 1776. 17:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC) — Johnny Smith 1776 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

 Note: I have struck the bolded "keep" here to clarify to the closing administrator that this account is confirmed to be related to Bernice McCullers (see SPI), who has already used a bolded "keep" above. Mz7 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Bernice McCullers and Johnny Smith 1776 are both single-purpose accounts WP:SPA that have contributed to this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing comments not directly related to the deletion discussion. Mz7 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - Rusf10, I don't see the logic behind attacking me because I contributed to the article. Given that I did much of the research for the article, I'm better positioned than most to comment on the subject's notability. Also, it's worth noting that Rusf10 (who doesn't even have a User page) and Johnpacklambert are either one and the same person, or have demonstrated an uncanny pattern of frequently arguing for the same deletions. User:Bernice McCullers. 22:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] That was not an attack, it was a statement of fact. Your comments are an attack. Your account is exactly the type of account that is defined as SPA. The problem with SPAs is that they usually (but not always) have a Conflict of Interest WP:COI. As for your accusations, they are so absurd that I will not comment any further.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] My comment was not an attack. Like yours, it was a statement of fact. And here are some more facts: In the last three weeks alone, you have either nominated for deletion or participated in discussions for deletion of over 50 people (I have a full list of their names if you would like me to provide it). In nearly every one of these, Johnpacklambert was right there with you, and every single time he voted to delete with you. Let's repeat that -- in the millions of pages of Wikipedia, he not only appeared with you on these relatively obscure pages over 50 times in just the past three weeks alone, he agreed with you every single time. He often shows up when there is no real debate taking place and you need that second delete to support your nomination. And here's perhaps the most telling part -- the one time you voted to keep when you both appeared in the same deletion debate, Johnpacklambert voted to keep as well (see Mindi Messmer). Your attack on small town mayors is particularly instructive. While I find your obsession with these mayors to be comical (and your case for deletion to be generally correct), the fact that Johnpacklambert is there with you every step of the way makes it highly likely that you are either one and the same (a sockpuppet) or acting in concert (a meatpuppet). It is nearly impossible, statistically, to draw any other conclusion. And since your are wont to cite Wikipedia rules, let me cite WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. So, are my comments really absurd, as you say? User:Bernice McCullers. 11:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Again, you are making unfounded allegations. John Pack Lambert and I just have similar philosophies when it comes to deletion. If you are so convinced I'm a sockpuppet, I dare you to request an investigation. If not, then stop attacking me.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] If it was just a matter of you and John Pack Lambert having "similar philosophies when it comes to deletion," your voting records would not be identical, and there would not be such an extraordinarily high level of correlation in your participation together in deletion debates. Even if you are not the same person, the identical voting record and the extremely high correlation of participation smack of meatpuppetry. As far as your dare goes, I'll give it some thought. What I initially tried to do was debate the merits of the subject's inclusion by focusing on the crux of the issue -- what does "notability" mean under the rules and standards of Wikipedia? Rather than genuinely debate me on its meaning, you made one attempt to counter my argument about notability (which I've responded to above), and then moved away from the debate on notability to imply that I don't have any credibility because I'm a so-called SPA. Your digression from the merits forced me to focus on your and John Pack Lambert's credibility and relationship. I did not come to this debate to attack you. You called out my credibility, and I responded appropriately. User:Bernice McCullers. 00:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] As for your inference that I have a conflict of interest, it is completely unfounded. I am neither the subject nor related to him, nor do I have anything to gain by supporting his inclusion in Wikipedia. I do know of him and simply find his career to be rare and noteworthy and one which warrants a Wikipedia article. He belongs in the group of people who have had outlier success but have not engaged in self-promotion, have not been discovered by the media or have declined media attention when approached, and who do not otherwise seek attention. This is a person worthy of note, and is therefore notable under Wikipedia standards, regardless of whether or not his media coverage has risen to a level that satisfies you. As a result, I believe you should withdraw your nomination to delete. If you choose not to do so, an uninvolved admin should decide WP: AFD/AI. Spending so much of your time editing Wikipedia does not make you the judge and jury as to who should be included in its pages. And while I appreciate your prodigious efforts to raise the bar at Wikipedia (I happen to agree with many of your deletion nominations), you need to play by the rules as well and avoid hypocritical attacks on others. User:Bernice McCullers. 11:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] "Judge and jury", right? If so, then why have a discussion? There certainly is not enough input into this yet to build a consensus. It seems like you're saying you support deleting non-notable people except when you write the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] I have never said nor implied that I support deleting non-notable people except when I write the article. That's a nonsensical insult and an ad hominem attack, without any basis for support. Regardless, I agree that there is not enough input to build a consensus. My guess is that if neither you nor I solicit input (which would be inappropriate) or resort to sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (a clear breach of protocol), then there won't be much in the way of additional input that would lead to a legitimate consensus, one way or the other. I also feel that leaving the deletion banner on the article for any significant period of time after the seven day period would be unfair to the subject. Given that we are in disagreement as to what constitutes notability, and that there is insufficient input for a consensus to form, my suggestion is for you to withdraw your recommendation for deletion and revisit the article down the road and determine then if you think renomination for deletion is appropriate. User:Bernice McCullers 00:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] — Bernice McCullers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable CEO with no indications of significance or notability. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. The attack by SPAs is suspicious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by K.e.coffman (talk • contribs) 19:12, December 27, 2017 (UTC)

• This delete comment is from an anonymous editor and should thus be ignored for purposes of forming a consensus. However, I will not ignore it for purposes of setting the record straight. First, it is absurd and ignorant, as well as snide and disrespectful, to say that the topic is “unremarkable.” In addition to the sources that are referenced in the article, I have found others that contain information that I have not yet fully verified (so I did not include) which, among other things, note that after graduating Harvard Law School and embarking on a very successful career as a lawyer, during which he became one of the youngest partners in the history of a major international law firm, he then transitioned to a business career where he went on to become (i) a successful CEO of a publicly-traded company while in his 30s; (ii) a founder of a number of successful start-ups, including at least three multi-billion dollar enterprises employing thousands of people (an insurance and reinsurance company (Arch Capital), a reinsurance company (Aeolus Re) and an asset management company (Aeolus Capital Management)); (iii) a lead investor in some extraordinarily successful transactions; (iv) an owner in a major league franchise that went on to win a World Series (Houston Astros); and (v) a philanthropist who has donated millions of dollars to charity. The subject is, by any standard, "remarkable."

Second, while short on real details about the topic’s life (perhaps because he appears to avoid publicity), the article does not read like a CV. If it did, it would have included some of the other information found online that is difficult to verify, like the fact that after it was founded Arch Capital became both the fastest growing insurance and reinsurance company in the history of each industry, or that Aeolus Re was one of the reinsurance industry’s most profitable start-ups ever, or that the subject was one of the youngest partners in the history of a major international law firm. If this was a resume, information like that would certainly be included. It was not included, at least not by me, because I could not find independent verification. But I have no reason to doubt its validity. And while Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service, implying that the article is designed to serve that purpose for the subject is beyond idiotic. The subject is obviously someone of great wealth, perhaps even a billionaire – do you really think he needs to get his resume out there?

Third, it's not clear what you mean by "suspicious." I have already acknowledged that I am a SPA, but I have no conflict of interest whatsoever. Again, I'm not the subject nor do I have anything to gain from contributing to the article. I know of the subject and strongly believe he is worthy of note and warrants an article. Period. Being a SPA does not mean that my arguments for notability are without merit and both the article and my contributions to it are well sourced. What's far more suspicious is that your comment was made anonymously. Why not reveal yourself? Maybe my response to Unscitillating's comment below explains why you didn't. User:Bernice McCullers 11:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing comments not directly related to the deletion discussion. Mz7 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Something else interesting is that the topic's parents are from New Jersey and [redact reference to a wedding officiant] ref.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Why is it interesting that the topic's parents are from NJ and that he was married by a rabbi? Who cares where his parents are from or who he was married by? I don't believe this was an anti-Semitic dog whistle, but why would you make a comment about a rabbi? Why is that relevant? In order to avoid having anyone misinterpret your seemingly random reference to NJ and a rabbi, let me take a shot at trying to figure it out. Is it because you are aware of the dispute between Rusf10 and Alansohn (which I came across as I was researching the remarkable correlation of deletion commentary between Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert) and you think (or know) that the anonymous editor is Rusf10/John Pack Lambert and are implying that Alansohn may have some connection to my SPA? And is your reference to NJ and a rabbi your way of referring to Alansohn because he has a heavy editorial focus on NJ and a Jewish surname? Without explicitly referencing Alansohn in your comment, one can only conclude that you believed the anonymous commenter above would know who you are referring to and also be aware of, or perhaps part of, the Rusf10/Alansohn dispute. Otherwise, how would the anonymous commentator know what you are talking about? Perhaps I am way off the mark here, and the comment has nothing to do with Alansohn. If that's the case, in order to avoid any misinterpretation, you might want to consider explaining your vague and completely out of context reference to NJ and a rabbi. However, if I'm correct that you are trying to imply that Alansohn might have some relationship to me or my SPA, that is absolutely false. I only know of Alansohn as a result of this deletion debate. I looked him up after his Keep vote and read his user page and some of his contributions. In addition to observing his dispute with Rusf10, I also noted that he is a very seasoned and well regarded editor, who ranks near the top of Wikipedia's list of most active editors (out of approximately 134,000 active editors, he ranks 32nd). Why in the world would this guy bother to utilize or otherwise get involved with a SPA? He's made nearly half a million edits to Wikipedia. Rather than trying to undermine Alansohn's Keep vote with a vague and totally misguided insinuation, shouldn't the only Delete vote other than the nominator's (Rusf10) be questioned? This Delete vote comes from John Park Lambert, who has appeared together with Rusf10 in over 50 deletion requests in the last few weeks alone. In every single one of these they voted the same way (including the one Keep!). This is, of course, a statistical impossibility, unless they are the same person or working in concert. Rusf10 responded in the initial debate that they just have similar deletion philosophies (how does he know?) but, even if that's true, no two people just randomly agree with each other 50 out of 50 times, particularly when many of those deletion requests were close calls. Is it possible that the anonymous editor is, in fact, Rusf10 or John Pack Lambert and he tried to get another Delete in the mix and did so anonymously to avoid being accused of sock or meat puppetry or canvassing? Regardless, there is no denying that Alansohn's Keep is credible, while it is certainly questionable whether this article ever received a legitimate second delete necessary to support Rusf10's deletion request. User:Bernice McCullers 11:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] I've redacted the reference to the wedding officiant.  As for the New Jersey coupling, User:rusf10 has announced that New Jersey has an "excessive" numbers of articles.  This has been brought to the attention of WP:ANI, [1].  Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] The "anonymous editor" is @K.e.coffman:. He just forgot to sign it, but since you're so good at looking up editing history, you probably could have figured that out yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that was me. Sorry, I forgot to sign. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] No need to apologize, it happens. And its not your fault that Bernice McCullers wants to throw all sorts of allegations at me. But I'm getting her (or him) taken care of now.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Rusf10, I will be responding to your investigation shortly. User:Bernice McCullers 14:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] I feel not need to defend myself here, you have made it blatantly obvious that you have a Conflict of Interest with this article and are resorting to dominating this discussion with personal attacks to try to get your way.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  The non-primary sourcing in the article satisfies WP:BASIC.  I added a bloomberg cite to the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Unscintillating’s comment that the non-primary sourcing satisfies Wikipedia’s standards. In fact, if you go to the user page of !dave, the editor who relisted the article for the second time, you are redirected to a page, [2], that suggests an approach for evaluating sources when determining notability. Using this criteria, the sourcing of the article is clearly sufficient to satisfy notability requirements. User:Bernice McCullers 11:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on Bloomberg link -- the link added by editor Unscintillating is to material provided by S&P Market Intelligence service: link. It is not editorial content by Bloomberg and not an independent source suitable for establishing notability. This topic of Bloomberg Business News vs S&P Market Intelligence has been discussed multiple times on other AfDs. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The copyright and branding is by Bloomberg LP, who depend on the reliability of their information as part of their business model.  As per our article their 2008 value was $22.5 billion.
  The creator of the data in the profile (author), S&P Global Market Intelligence, is a division of S&P Global, who had assets of $8.6 billion in 2016.
  The predecessor investing.businessweek.com was vetted in two discussions both in the same archive of WP:RSN, [3].  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The copyright & branding has nothing to do with it. This material is often user-submitted; there's no editorial oversight or fact-checking, as would be required of reliable secondary sources. I had a discussion like this elswhere; I'm surprised you still put forth such links. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INC Research[edit]

INC Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tiny stub with poor sourcing, recreated. User:Kashmiri made some comments on talk about how this type of company receives little media attention, but as things stand, I don't see how this entry meets WP:GNGWP:NORG and how is it not against WP:YELLOWPAGES. They may be a big player in their mostly invisible pond, but that does not mean they are an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps a merger to Contract research organization where such organizations could be described in subsections would be a compromise? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accepting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I nevertheless need to draw a parallel between this company and other companies listed under Contract research organisation: here we have the same sector and comparable company size, revenue, trading status and media coverage as, say, IQVIA, PRA Health Sciences and PAREXEL, none of which has been AfD. The difference is, here we are dealing with a fairly new stub, by a single editor, which needs expansion and better sourcing. It is about a WP:LISTED corporation whose performance has attracted plenty of independent coverage as evidenced in a quick Google search. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete any coverage found seems to be announcements or business transactions. In my opinion fails WP:CORPDEPTH Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Adding a few sources: coverage in Bloomberg [4], Wake County press [5] ("an internationally recognized contract research organization... which operates in 40 countries around the globe"), also [6], [7] (far from trivial), [8]. Additionally there is a plethora of investment and stock analyses. In my experience as an editor, the above are absolutely sufficient to establish notability of this currently listed corporation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:AUD. Bloomberg is a routine coverage of potential business transaction; Raleigh's Wake County press is local, and ciscrp.org is a republished press release. I don't see coverage here that would allow for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is not a fairly new article, seven months have passed and it still contains but two sentences. Ifnord (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Livia De Paolis[edit]

Livia De Paolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability. Lack of. TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't know who this person is, and frankly, I don't really care, but just for my own education I was curious. If we can confirm that she did indeed direct and star in a movie which happened to be nominated for a known film industry award, well, that sort of sounds enough to me. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 08:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete the article, and cogent arguments have been presented for keeping it. However, it has been noted that it is very much in need of clean-up, and also that there is probably a necessity for a change of title. All those things being equal, I feel it is unnecessary to keep this open any longer as their has been no further discussion for five days and the thing had been open eleven before that. What remains are content and style issues, and those, of course, are for the talk page and / or WP:RM. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting method[edit]

Accounting method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

How is it different than Potential method except that the other article is more formal (“payment” = change of potential)? Cormen et al. states the difference as “associating the potential with the data structure as a whole rather than with specific objects within the data structure”^[1], yet what is being done in, for example, the proof for splay trees is representing the whole structure’s potential as sum of potentials for individual objects! Thus, i consider these both as names for the same proof method. � (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The textbooks treat this as a different and important method. We should follow them. As for "how is it different": the potential method always has the same potential value when the data structure is in the same state. For the accounting method, the amount saved may vary depending on the history of how you reached that state, as long as it is enough to cover the cost of each operation. This could plausibly be a speedy keep, as the nomination statement amounts to original research and an admission that the textbooks indeed state that they are different. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Amortized analysis. Wikipedia is not a textbook; and apart from the definition there's almost no content that is encyclopedic in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTTEXTBOOK has some value (in discouraging long worked examples and a too-discursive writing style, for instance), but its most frequent use appears to be as an excuse to keep out subjects of any technical depth from Wikipedia, leaving it to be the encyclopedia of celebrities, soccer players, and pokemons. This opinion appears to be a case in point. Google books finds many hits for this topic [9]; the fact that many of them are textbooks should be an argument for its notability, not against. If material is standardly covered in textbooks, we should cover it here as well, merely with a different focus. Which is all to say that I think NOTTEXTBOOK should only ever be used as a style guide, not as a notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficiently different from the things to which it is most closely related to stand alone as an article. Could perhaps be renamed to "Accounting method (computer science)". XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree that the title is misleading and could use disambiguation. Accounting methods redirects to basis of accounting, which I think is a better choice of primary topic for this title. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flowering Foam[edit]

Flowering Foam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

TheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline spam article on seemingly unremarkable product.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is remarkable product you can see google (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). The title Flowering Foam wrongly selected for this article and this product is more famous with Flower making Foam.Regards --Javad|Talk (21 Azar 1396) 16:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Add one line, "EVA is used for artificial flowers" to Ethylene-vinyl acetate#Applications. When the advertising and fluff beautiful flowers are removed from this article, there is nothing left. Rhadow (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Sources listed in the article (i.e. Wikihow) are not suitable, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haruki Mizuno[edit]

Haruki Mizuno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. "Her popularity was such that in February, 2007, Amazon still listed over 50 video items to her credit" is not a claim of significance. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no independent reliable source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Spotted Pig[edit]

The Spotted Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable restaurant. Speedy tag was declined. TM 20:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD, and was formerly a Michelin-starred restaurant. See source examples below; more are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with NA above, this restuarant has adequate references that meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the Michelin star makes it notabke, but remove all the advertising. The section of reviews, is adverting, which fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and such advertising is against WP Terms of Use. scope_creep (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Zydenbos[edit]

Robert J. Zydenbos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:PROF. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a couple of book reviews here and here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as WP:AUTHOR; the reviews linked above are sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added eight reliably-published reviews of three books (including the two reviews linked above) to the article. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The additional sources found by David Eppstein make notability clear. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Verma[edit]

Anil Verma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:PROF. Was nominated for speedy deletion which correctly failed, but was never put up for AfD. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete that such a minor article with nothing coming close to passing the notability for academics has survived since 2004 and since 2011 with a notice of lacking good sourcing shows that we need to better patrol for articles not meeting notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability-tagged for 4 years and still only 1 mediocre source is conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 22:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Arbour[edit]

Victoria Arbour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable academic who does not meet WP:PROF. References provided are entirely to her own articles or to articles in alumni magazines etc. Perhaps some day, but for now, WP:TOOSOON. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Arbour's work has been noted in secondary sources, such as:

• The Atlantic: "Arbour has been studying ankylosaurs for a decade, and in one of her first studies, she showed that they could indeed destroy shins. By using medical scanners to create three-dimensional computer models of the tail clubs, and putting these through digital crash-tests, she showed that they are formidable weapons. The tails were sturdy enough to swing the clubs, and the largest knobs would have hit with enough force to break bone."
• Smithsonian Magazine", etc.

This is indicative of notability, so it's a keep for me on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And my own work has been featured in New Scientist, and I've been interviewed for newspaper articles, etc. That's not evidence of my being any more notable than an average prof; an *average* academic will get some media coverage. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What category of notability do you claim is passed by two brief mentions in popular science magazines? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • The mentions of Arbour in those articles are just name dropping of the interviewee who is the source of information on the topic being reports. The articles contain zero commentary on Arbour. Thus, they are just "brief mentions". Arbours publications are worthy reliable sources, but that's it. Arbour has not become the topic of interest of any paragraph of any article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Off to a good start with citations but not there yet. WP:Too soon, wait a few years. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment -- As someone with a deep interest in dinosaur palaeontology, I definitely feel she *should* be considered important enough - she's a leading researcher in modern work on ankylosaurs - but I regretfully say I'm not at the moment sure she passes our textbook criteria. I'll have to look further into things before coming to a conclusion on that point. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A news search found sufficient examples of Arbour being quoted as an expert commentator that I'm satisfied WP:PROF#C7 is met. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with K.e.coffman. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Edits since 26 Dec by XOR'easter and Queen-washington have improved the case for WP:GNG. The list of reliable secondary sources now includes BBC, Atlantic (x2), Reuters, CBS News, Smithsonian, Science News, and National Geographic. Additionally, her colleague Philip Currie credits her with involving the discipline in the local women in STEM initiative, and the University touts her MOOC that reaches 35,000 students. Even though her academic rank is still that of a post-doc, she is clearly a rising star. Even though she does not meet WP:PROF, she does meet WP:GNG, IMHO. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Subject is just a postdoc, not a proper academic anyway. None of the statements in the lede are claims of significance. The article is little more than a postdoc CV. All five mainspace incoming links are just gratuitous reference-author-naming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that she does not meet WP:PROF, as I noted in my !vote above. Please note, however, there are 10 reliable sources that refer to her variously as "armoured dinosaur expert" (BBC); "an akylosaur specialist with the Royal Ontario Museum" (Atlantic); "paleontologist Victoria Arbour of North Carolina State University and the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences" (Reuters); "study lead author Victoria Arbour" (CBS News); "Ankylosaur expert and North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences paleontologist" (Smithsonian); "paleobiologist at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto" (Science News); "armoured-dinosaur palaeontologist at the Royal Ontario Museum" (National Geographic).

Further, there are three pieces that are biographical: Dalhousie University's Alumni Spotlight, the Brian Alary feature piece published on the Folio website of the University of Alberta, and the profile by Ishani Nath in the Canadian "lifestyle" magazine, Flare. These combined sources add up to WP:GNG. — Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those who dug up the extra sources. Unfortunately they are non-in-depth self-generated publicity about the same topic. At best WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Having re-read WP:PROF I now agree with XOR'easter that WP:PROF#C7 has been met by multiple non-local sources:"Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." — Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you quote falls short of this mark. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Where does "a small number" cut off though? He just quoted ten. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An important question. On the basis of precedent , citations in GS might be around 1000. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Nice try, but a False equivalence.

Here are the unique considerations in WP:PROF#C7:

1. "That the subject is frequently quoted..."

• The article now cites 13 reliable sources quoting Victoria Arbour

2. "...in conventional media..."

• Conventional media quoted account for nine of the 13 sources (BBC, twice in the Atlantic, Science News, National Geographic, Reuters, Flare, CBS News, CBC News). The remaining 4 sources may not be considered "conventional media," but if you want to know who is an expert in ankylosaurs, the Smithsonian might be a good place to ask. (The Royal Ontario Museum, University of Alberta and Dalhousie University are also not conventional media sources.)

3. "...as an academic expert in a particular area"

• References to her in those conventional media include "armoured dinosaur expert", "an akylosaur specialist", "paleontologist" "study lead author", "Ankylosaur expert", "paleobiologist ", "armoured-dinosaur palaeontologist".

AND the following conditions "fall short of the mark"

4. A small number of quotations

• Nine is not a small number of conventional sources, and these conventional media represent high-quality, respected journalism, known for fact-checking. As I've pointed out above, your comparison with the "precedent" number of GS citations at 1000 is clearly not a valid comparison. If it were, the only subjects who might qualify would no doubt meet other PROF criteria, such as Nobel Prize winners--and the WP:PROF#C7 criterion would be redundant/useless.

5. especially in local news media

• All nine conventional media sources are either national or international, not local.

Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentions of the same matter so WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The Ziapelta and tail-bone-fusion coverage is from 2015, and the Zuul coverage from 2017. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, her naming of the ankylosaur Zuul crurivastator is the subject of only 3 of the sources: one of the Atlantic sources, the CBC source, and the Science News piece. Zuul is also mentioned at the very end of the National Geographic source, but the subject is a new book on Borealopelta written by Caleb Brown, and Arbour is quoted as a reviewer of his draft book.

The topics of the remaining sources are related to multiple topics: her study of the ankylosaur's tail (CBS), and (Science News); her ankylosaur studies on the lack of "direct evidence of predator-prey combat" (Smithsonian); her opinion on the possibility evolution of "a ‘woolly’ tyrannosaurus or dromaeosaur relatives of Velociraptor "in a scenario suggested in a e BBC documentary; and whether an ankylosaur fossil with fish in its belly indicated it was an aquatic, carnivorous species (the second Atlantic source). Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • User:Grand'mere Eugene, the article has been WP:Reference bombed making it very hard to find possible quality sources among the many sources that are just mentions. Same with your reply to me, it is hard work to find the source you are referring to, and the result is disappointing every time. The number of them doesn't outweigh their collective problem that they are mere mentions of the postdoc, and promotion. Mere mentions, because the postdoc is not the subject, she is just there showcasing the dinosaurs, and the biographies are non-independent promotion of the organisation's people. These sources, the popular articles, are what happens with the organisations PR people get hold of someone with an entertaining story, are female, and fit the organised promotion of science. The lede makes no notability claims. Early life and Education neither (not that a claim is to be expected there). In career, the content of what she's studied, published, and helped name is nowhere near a GNG claim of significant coverage. A claim is made the last paragraph, but it is non-independent promotion that must be excluded. An affiliated writer has written a promotional story (promotional of the science, associated with Arbour), and the strong statement of significance in the last sentence is from her Doctoral Advisory. It is all promotion, non-independent, and a great many mentions without any depth of coverage of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur that there were some redundant citations, and I have removed most of the primary references to her publications. I know when I am writing a bio, I try to avoid using primary sources, but I don't believe there has been intentional "reference bombing" in this piece. At any rate, the net effect on the reader is the same, whether or not the addition of more than one source, especially a primary source, is intentional or just an attempt to be thorough in providing the sources of information. So thanks for that criticism. I would just add that extended biographic coverage required for GNG is not required for WP:PROF#C7, just multiple references showing she is considered an expert in conventional media. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete passing references are not enough to show notability. People who are low level operatives in large research teams, as postdoc fellows are, are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being "low level operatives in large research teams" is hardly true of all postdocs. (Not everybody is LIGO or CERN, after all.) In the group where Arbour works, she is the only postdoc; there are seven PhD students and one faculty member. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the Zuul, Zaarapelta, Crichtonpelta, Ziapelta and Dyoplosaurus papers, she is the corresponding author. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If this BLP is deleted I would not like it to be thought that any detriment attaches to its subject. I see her as the victim of exploitation by an over-zealous PR department of her institution. She is not the first, nor will be the last, to learn that fame can be a two-edged sword. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • There is no victim. Victoria Arbour is doing a great job, science, communication. Wikipedia doesn’t decide based on merit, but on whether independent others have written about her. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What she is doing is excellent. The problem is over-egging of minor activities by others. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm. If you type "arbour, V.M." inot WP's search engine, you will find 46 WP articles referring to her work. Over-egging by all those editors, too? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double counting. Those are just citations to her papers, already covered by GS, which have been argued above to be (to date) insufficient to pass WP:Prof. Also, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The GS citation count may not be sufficient, but I will agree to disagree with you on not meeting WP:PROF, because she does satisfy WP:PROF#C7. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Depot[edit]

Heritage Depot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article on a museum alleged to exist in Tamil Nadu, and supposedly founded this year, fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can’t find any evidence that this exists (though there is an arts and handcraft place called Heritage Depot in Chennai). Might be a hoax. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  www.heritagedepot.in/.

Dakshina Bhoomi Heritage Depot, No. 38 Annai Illam,

Meenakshi Amman Street, Janaki Raman Colony, Nerkundram

Chennai

Tamil Nādu

India

I only saw one store, with a bookstore where this history group met.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  Fails GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Indelicates[edit]

The Indelicates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable? Nothing on notable labels and all sources seem to come from the band's own site and press releases Guardiancats (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All sources indeed from band's own site, can't find any notable mentions outside the band's own blogs and record label. JetBlind (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persistor.NET[edit]

Persistor.NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable, outdated, only 1'000 downloads. D-Woźniak (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Worth noting that this article and AfD are not about the current persistor.net website (a blog about games) but about a previous .NET software framework of that name. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While noting the different opinion in the 2006 AfD, I don't see a "Best Visual Studio 2005 PowerToy utilizing SQL Server Express" award as demonstrating inherent notability. Subsequent to that AfD, I can also see mention in a 2007 Salzburg business award (p2) but again that does not seem to carry encyclopaedic notability. These aside, there seem to be only a few sporadic online forum mentions around a decade ago. I don't see the sources required for WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parameshwar Gundkal[edit]

Parameshwar Gundkal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced BLP. No related coverage on google. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article has absolutely no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Scottsdale, Arizona#Golf. Result seems clear, especially given PMC's comment at 22:47 on the 19th. A Train^talk 22:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale National Golf Club[edit]

Scottsdale National Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:N in two ways. First, the topic lacks widespread coverage - there are a couple of news articles from Arizona from 2013, right when the course was purchased by Parsons, but nothing from outside the area. Since the purchase, there has been no apparent in-depth coverage of the course, even in golf-oriented publications like Golf Digest or ScoreGolf, meaning that this fails the portion of WP:N that looks for coverage over a period of time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Scottsdale, Arizona#Golf, where it is a logical mention and a plausible redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even with new sources, I don't see sufficient in-depth coverage to make this golf course noteable. No need to merge/redirect - the Scottsdale article itself says there are over 200 golf courses in Scottsdale - we would certainly not mention in that article and create redirects for all 200 just because they exist. MB 14:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Scottsdale, Arizona#Golf, per The Bushranger. Although there are over 200 golf courses, it is doubtful that many are referenced in national media. Several other golf courses are singled out in that section, this one can also be treated that way. bd2412 T 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about merge&redirect to Bob Parsons, since pretty much all the coverage I've seen has been in the context of him buying and refitting the course? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see a geographic location merged to the larger geographic location of which it is part. Personal ownership can change much more easily than location. bd2412 T 18:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah fair enough it was just a thought. For the record I'm on board with an M&R. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this mentioned in any significant way in national media? Per the list below by PMC it's mostly local coverage and what is truly national is mostly trivial. NYT is a tangential mention. Golf.com is trivial. I don't see anything else under "national media", so I stand by delete with no redirect. MB 03:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It opened more holes than any other course in the United States in 2016. The member model is notable in the world of golf. It's the homebase of Parsons Xtreme Golf, which is a significant new player in the industry. The course is extensively covered in national, business, culinary, golf, industry, and general media. Very much seems like a case of WP:BEFORE as there are substantial assertions of notability easily accessed and Google is a minefield of reliable sources asserting notability. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact see those references in my BEFORE check. They are unhelpful in establishing notability per WP:N, for the following reasons:

1. Forbes: actually a Contributor post, which means it's equivalent to a blog and meaningless in terms of notability.
2. Phoenix Business Journal: reliable, but as I noted in my nom, local coverage is not enough to clear the WP:N hurdle.
3. Second Forbes article: another Contributor article (same author, in fact); even if it weren't, notability is not inherited from a business to the location of its headquarters.
4. NY Times: A scant paragraph mentioning that two athletes like to relax there does not in-depth coverage make.
5. Phoenix Business Journal: local coverage again.
6. AZ Central: local coverage of a chef getting a new job. Even if it wasn't local, the golf course gets mentioned halfway down the page in a single sentence, basically the definition of a trivial mention.
7. Golf.com: this is an in-depth profile of Parsons and PXG. The gold course is mentioned once, at the beginning of the article, as the temporary location of Mr. Parsons's desk for the purpose of the photoshoot. No other detail about the course is provided in the article.
8. Arizona Builder's Exchange: local coverage.
9. AZ Central again: local coverage, again.

Long story short, none of this is enough to clear WP:N which looks for sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes contributor is Erik Matuszewski; the format of the article doesn't really matter.

Some local coverage may not be sufficient but this is substantial local coverage from reliable sources and the "local" in this context is the media, sporting, and business community of the 5th largest city and 12th largest metroplex in the United States. The BizJournal is a national media entity who publishes content by region. Same with AZ Central vis-a-vis USA Today. It's not exactly a PDF of the weekly county paper mentioning a new coffee stand opening next to Bob's Diner. Media mentions do not have to be from national entities to establish notability and what I've linked was just cursory results. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of mentions of the facility from reliable sources who make assertions that it is notable for some reason or another. Just another quick look shows NBC's Golf Channel discussing the new member format. The sources are there, someone just needs to put in the work. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Additional coverage in reliable sources asserting notability [10][11][12][13], GolfDigest ranking the course in the top ten in the State[14] and Golfweek rating it in the top ten new courses in the United States for 2005[15]. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Scottsdale, Arizona#Golf as a functional WP:ATD-M. The suggested merge target presently lacks a mention of this golf club. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus here that the subject is notable, even if the existing article has many problems and needs extensive editing, possibly a complete rewrite, to bring into conformance with our standards. In lieu of this work happening expeditiously, if somebody wants to stubify this for now, that would be OK. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan S. Tobin[edit]

Jonathan S. Tobin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is hopelessly promotional and very likely autobiographical. I came very close to nominating for CSD per G11. All of the listed awards lack citations and most are not notable. The notability of the subject is not clear, though it is possible he may pass GNG. Many of the sources do no more than establish that he is an author and columnist. But even if he does pass GNG the article is far too promotional and would need a complete rewrite to be kept. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough indepdent sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There is no question in my mind whether Tobin is notable (he is), but the present article is so awful that it may be irredeemable. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources in the article and available in the media establish his claim of notability. I agree in many ways with the nominator that the article needs rework and restructuring, but AfD is not cleanup. Alansohn (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is more than a cleanup. The article is almost purely promotional and as I noted in my nominating statement, would require something close to a complete rewrite to be kept. We don't keep advertisements masquerading as encyclopedic articles. See WP:NOTADVERT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Subject is clearly notable per WP:JOURNALIST and just plain old WP:GNG. Recent apparant COI editing diff by Jstobinpa on 26.12.2017 could be rolled back or the article could be stubbed down to his notable positions (JNS, Commentary, The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia, Connecticut Jewish Ledger. Maybe also mention he is a contributing writer elsewhere) and notable books.Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good sources which address the subject. I understand sometimes AfD may be an outlet for deletion per WP:TNT but I don't see this here. I will take a stab at pruning it. Ifnord (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deletion is not cleanup and strong sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 22:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flint toolkit[edit]

Flint toolkit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article of non notable software. No coverage from secondary sources Ammarpad (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to satisfy notability requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Peterson (entrepreneur)[edit]

Derek Peterson (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The coverage is only routine coverage and interviews. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete getting on the 100 most influential people in Orange County for a given year is absolutely not a sign of notability, but the closest to notability he comes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above, article created by someone at his company, then other paid edits, being one of 100 most influential people in Orange County in no way confers any notability whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep CEO of a major corporation. First cannabis company to be listed on Wall Street and major player in the cannabis trade Wikilover2604 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and you have been paid by Derek Peterson to write it! Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been paid. I disclosed the edit complying with the disclosure policy and put it in the draft space first. Did I miss out on something? He has got features on cnn, telegraph etc. Is that coverage not sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilover2604 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Article was started by User:Terratechcorp and was edited by paid editor Wikilover2604. It's not he kind of love Wikipedia needs. Sam Sailor 01:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Quickfingers (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no depth of coverage and Wikipedia is not for promotion. Bishonen | talk 01:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goli Rezai Rashti[edit]

Goli Rezai Rashti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:PROF. References for the article are entirely from press releases and her CV at the university. Her name gets 106 Google hits. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete totally and completely fails the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To add, no RS is a dealbreaker. Agricola44 (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hunt (professor)[edit]

Alan Hunt (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable academic. Fails WP:PROF. The article is largely a list of courses that he has taught in the past and appears to have been created as a vanity article. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His Chancellor's Professor title (policy on this title) gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C5, and I suspect that one can find sufficient reviews of his books to also pass WP:AUTHOR. AfD is not for cleanup, and calling this a "vanity article" is both a personal attack and a violation of WP:BLP, but I removed the list of courses as I agree they are non-encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein. I also think he has a case based on his citation record. He doesn't seem to have a GS profile, but a GS search turns up numerous triple-digit-cited entries related to sociology and law. EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes at least WP:PROF#C5. Also, I turned up reviews of his books: [16][17][18][19][20] (I'm guessing there are more, but I stopped looking). XOR'easter (talk)

I've added those reviews and two more to the article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I might be convinced to change my vote if people actually add additional sources to the article. Wikipedia articles should show that the subject is supported by multiple sources. It is time Wikipedia was open and transparent about sourcing, and if editors are not willing to do this, we need to delete the articles involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- meets WP:PROF and likely WP:AUTHOR, with multiple books publised by academic publishers. This is not routine output. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. The books are meaningless, but having a chaired professorship means that he should stay. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lesage[edit]

Marc Lesage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:PROF. This is a vanity article created and edited almost exclusively by the subject of the article himself User:Lesagem. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with JPL. WorldCat shows none of his books break triple digit holdings (sort a low bar). Seems to be an autobio, also an orphan, and is almost all OR. Not a controversial case. Agricola44 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hester (professor)[edit]

Stephen Hester (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:PROF. The Wiki article is basically just serving as a redirect to his faculty page at his home university. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No RS, ORPHAN, etc, etc. Obvious delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of passing any of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Eglin[edit]

Peter Eglin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Stub article lacking references (and edit history suggests it was merely copied verbatim from his university website when it still existed). No indication that he meets WP:PROF. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No RS, ORPHAN, etc, etc. Obvious delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not in any way even close to meeting notability guidelines for academics. That this article has survived 8 years indicates we need to work to have more people participate in monitoring aritcles on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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