< 17 July	19 July >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gudo[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS and WP:GNG Zazzysa (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any independent sources.- Mr X 01:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/NACTOR. South Nashua (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarzameen[edit]

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

No reliable source found, therefore fails WP:RS and also fails WP:GNG . Only source listed is from it's website (self published) Zazzysa (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG. The claims of significance are dubious.- Mr X 01:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not clear from that article. South Nashua (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article is under construction, AfD posted only 33 minutes after creation. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of words ending in ology[edit]

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

This article is merely a glossary. Fbdave (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fbdave, can you please not put it up for deletion while the in construction tag is still on it. Is is customary not to nominate an article for deletion minutes after it is created. NikolaiHo^☎️ 23:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that my article was nominated for deletion a mere 33 minutes after it was created, while I was still working on it (and I did put an in use tag on it). Besides that, the reason for why it is nominated is that it is merely a glossary. Glossaries are in fact a thing on Wikipedia, for example Glossary of Christianity (you can find a list of glossaries at WP:WPGLOSSARY). Also, lists of words exist on Wikipedia, for example List of words having different meanings in American and British English: A–L, which provides a list of words and the related definitions — much like my article. This shows that articles which are lists of words with definitions are allowed on Wikipedia. I think my article is a good addition to Wikipedia, it provides a handy and interesting source of information. And it is not unlike other articles on Wikipedia, so I don't see why it should be deleted? Thanks for you time and work on Wikipedia. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article is under construction and "This article is merely a glossary" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Madg2011 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The guideline that should be read is WP:LISTGLOSSARY. I don't see a point in voting myself while the article is ((Under Construction)), but in the end it will need to meet: "Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited." WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because glossaries have a place in Wikipedia. However, I am only !voting Keep because it shouldn't be deleted. It is so customary to nominate articles for deletion minutes after they are created if they obviously need deleting. Both user space and draft space exist for reasons, which include so that article space isn't cluttered with things that are under construction. If an article isn't ready for AFD, don't put it in article space; don't just sloppily tag it as Under Construction. Do your construction in draft space or user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:LISTN based on the sources cited in the article.- Mr X 9:31 pm, Today (UTC−4)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) Winged Blades^Godric 03:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni Assia[edit]

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

Most of the sources are talking about the company and not him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Feedback taken on board. I've added more information to the stub, focusing on subject's life before the company. Has been subject of media coverage in his own right. Naturally as the original author I vote to keep. Mollybloomin (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a stub anymore; made some significant changes, added bio. Yinonk (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sources here plus 90+ pageviews per day suggests a keeper (my personal criteria suggests that pageviews correlates with notability although I know it's not an official criterion for inclusion.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Key, long standing player, in dodgy forex and biinary option scene. Potential fot notability to inrease due to civil lawsuits and enforcement following recent legislation.Icewhiz (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's less discussion here than I normally like to close with, but considering that all the parallel AfDs cited in the nomination all ended in delete, I'm going to go with that here too. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Djiboutian Canadians[edit]

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

A small group who have not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutian Americans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutians in the United Kingdom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutians in the Netherlands, which all closed as delete. Population figure already reported at Ethnic_origins_of_people_in_Canada#Smaller_ethnic_origins. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't necessarily need an article for every possible hyphenated combination of ethnicity and residence, even if that group accounts for less than 1,500 people total. This would be fine if some actual substance about them could be written and sourced, but if the census statistics themselves are the only possible source then a standalone article is no more necessary than a standalone article for every possible combination of bilateral diplomatic relations would be. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody seems interested in maintaining the article. If anyone would like it restored to draft space, let me know Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Cities Health District[edit]

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

Very expansive promotional article for a routine government organization. Much of it details their internal structure,of interest to nobody outside the center. Contains and extensive list of see also to a long list of major health concepts, all of which are pure SEO. Almost every ref is a press release DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech Information Security Center[edit]

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

Non notable. One of the many sections within a single research institute in a university. The only references are to the press releases from its own university. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are two sentences in the article that adequately cover the subject. This can easily be covered in the main article.- Mr X 01:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - awesome in its complete use of self-sourced references. TNT and start over, if an uninvolved editor cares to. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credofy Solutions[edit]

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

Definite Speedy Delete material. sources are misleading and insignificant like Silicon India. Non-notable company. Light2021 (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Decidedly non-notable. bd2412 T 22:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG and at least some of the sources seem made up.- Mr X 01:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any reliable sources, independent of the subject, to provide notability. There was this, but I considered it just one of a stream of profiles of entrepreneurial companies each advertising the company in question, and providing copy for SiliconIndia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeel[edit]

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

This article appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. It did not meet the Depth of coverage criteria. Echoasis (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. The article has been carefully maintained by a single account (the page creator) that appears to be directly linked to someone in this company's marketing department. This obviously an undisclosed WP:COI, probably to take advantage of the credibility a Wikipedia page offers. It should be deleted to discourage that kind of behavior. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IMO, it also fails CORP. John from Idegon (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Nichole[edit]

Delete . The article Kimberly Nichole does not appear to be in compliance with WP:Notability or WP:RS. --- Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 8). bd2412 T 02:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as insufficiently non-notable performer. Maybe just too soon, as they say. Quis separabit? 03:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goal Line Stand from Tigerland[edit]

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

This regular season game is not notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT. There at least a couple dozen games of similar stature every season in college football, often more than one over a given weekend. Although important in the 2016 SEC standings (and quite fun for Florida fans), it is unlikely to be nationally notable enough in the long-term for a stand-alone article.

I also don't like how earlier attempts to remove this article were quietly brushed aside. It was nominated for speedy deletion last week by User:RileyBugz, and since I agreed that it should be deleted, I copied (and tweaked) most of the text over to the appropriate section of Florida–LSU football rivalry. The speedy deletion was contested, so User:GorillaWarfare converted the nomination to a PROD, but the AfD banner was quickly and inappropriately removed by this anonymous IP. That's not how things are supposed to be handled.

As a life-long Gator fan, I will freely admit that I greatly enjoyed watching this football game. However, as a long-time Wikipedia editor, I know that one must put rooting interest aside in matters like this. As written, the text is often borderline WP:NPOV, with a questionable title and several opinionated statements that would require citation or removal if left in the article. I'm not going to bother fixing these problems, though, because according to clear notability guidelines, the article should be deleted altogether. ~ Zeng8r (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC) note I'd call for a merge with Florida–LSU football rivalry, but as I said above, I've already taken care of that. --Zeng8r (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the meaningful content has been merged to the article regarding the rivalry. An article on this particular game can be spun back out of the rivalry article at a later date if it turns out it was the "start of something big" or anything like that. As a side-note, the removal of the PROD tag (the AfD template hasn't ever been removed after it was added) wasn't entirely out of process. Ideally, the IP would have removed it with some sort of rationale in the edit summary or with the addition of a bunch of extra sources to cement the article's existence, but that doesn't always happen. Best just to treat this as a "contested PROD" and nominate it here as has been done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply My bad, I thought that the IP had removed an AfD banner. Still, I didn't like how an anonymous user deleted the banner without mentioning the removal in the edit summary, much less starting a discussion. Zeng8r (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's never a great look, I agree. In the long run, I'd say there's an argument for allowing participation in the deletion process, broadly defined (contesting CSDs, removing PRODs, opining here) to be restricted to logged-in users, although I don't know how enforceable that would be. I usually take the view that the IP removing the tag is most likely a/the contributor to the article and just forgot to log in, since the net result is the same. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Filled with original research, including the very name of the article. Lizard (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was created by a sock of User:BluesFan1930, speedied under G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Barrett[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he has Not made an appearance in a Fully Professional League so does not pass WP:Footy nor does he meet WP:GNG. Article is also a close copy of [1] While the copyright concerns no longer apply, the notability concerns remain valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - Plays for Dundalk F.C. which is in the Premier Division(highest) of the League of Ireland, not listed on the list of fully professional leagues. According to article he has played last two years there both they won championship. Looking at ESPN, this was most recent game where he played 2017–18 UEFA Champions League, subbing in at 64'. UEFA is a competitive tournament. and WP:FOOTY says Players who have played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The League of Ireland is listed at WP:FPL under the heading "Top level leagues which are not fully professional". (Emphasis added). Playing in this league does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly is. Striked old vote. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copying the following (without any suggestion of endorsement) from the talk page of this AfD where it was put seemingly by mistake..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barrett has played for two SPL clubs. He has also played for big Irish clubs and was part of a Dundalk side that made history becoming first Irish side to reach champions league play off. Then He played on the Europa league group stages Against AZ Alkmarr, Zenit and Tel Aviv. Surely that makes him "notable" enough for you guys. JohnnyTheWhite99 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't play a single match for Dundee, and isn't notable enough per WP:GNG for his youth career at Aberdeen to mean anything. His Europa League group stage appearences also don't count as notable as Dundalk is in a top league that isn't fully professional. LampGenie01 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He hasn't played in a single match for Dundee, and I don't think he satisifies the wider criteria of WP:GNG, which means his youth career at Aberdeen can't be used as an indication of notability. LampGenie01 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments put in the wrong place moved here..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barrett plays on a professional contract with Dundalk FC on a professional basis (plays 6 days a week as a job). He is clearly notable. JohnnyTheWhite99 (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the guidelines state that "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable.". Nowhere does it mention what type of contract they have. LampGenie01 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

n Seriously just forget the guideline. To be honest wiki guidelines are a joke. He's done enough to be considered notable and there is no need to delete the hard work and hours I've put in on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyTheWhite99 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that I'm afraid. My decision above still stands. LampGenie01 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G11 by Athaenara (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Boy Toyz[edit]

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

1. Article is written like a company brochure or corporate profile. 2 Does not provide sufficient references to establish notability. 3. This article is meant to promote company alone. 4. Need for encyclopedia is irrelevant . Light2021 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous promotion with sections such as "Services"; "Market Presence"; "Key People"; "Awards and Recognition"; etc. I've requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants this userfied for the long-term (with the intention that when the future becomes the present it can be started up again in mainspace), let me know Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tahseen Chowdhury[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Chowdhury's gimmick (announcing a candidacy before he's even eligible to vote) is cute, but in the end, candidates for this type of office are not inherently notable, and Chowdhury has only received the amount of press he has (which doesn't appear to be much) because of his age. If he wins the election in 2018, he will then become an eligible NPOL, but not before. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for declaring their candidacy in a future election, but this article features neither a claim of preexisting notability for anything else that would have gotten him over another notability criterion instead of WP:NPOL, nor enough reliable sourcing to deem him significantly more notable than other as yet unelected state legislature candidates. As written, the sourcing is based on a mixture of primary sources, blogs and purely local "teenager declares candidacy for office" human interest coverage of the type that every candidate for anything would always get. And for added bonus, the article was created by an SPA with no prior edit history, and has also been edited by an SPA named "TahseenCampaign", so there's some WP:COI in the mix as well — not that COI is a deletion rationale in and of itself if the article were otherwise salvageable, but it does confirm that the intent here was to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform rather than an encyclopedia. So no prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins the election, but none of this makes him notable enough to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is another article for a non-notable startup. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errund[edit]

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

WP:RSand GNG Zazzysa (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wasn't able to find any other reliable sources-- the only article that might even be close to hitting RS would be this one ([2]), which isn't even about the company in question. Book search turned up nothing either. Nomader (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:NEXIST:"Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." The article contains many reliable sources that I recommend you read. I also suggest that instead of limiting google search to news to expand to regular search to see other press coverage. Google News is well known for its bug and can hardly be counted as an accurate archive of news. Hsypark (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC) — Hsypark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Please assume good faith here-- I read the sources both in the article and the ones that you've linked below, and I just don't find them to be notable, unfortunately. The Wisconsin piece isn't about the article in question and Errund is just a trivial mention in it. Streetwise media (which is the Bostinno article) says that "Everyone is a publisher in the digital age" and has no editorial control, which means it fails WP:RS. The articles that you supported from Adobeinfuse's arguments are just generic company profiles that can be easily auto-generated and would never qualify to show notability. I'm sticking with my original rationale and my Delete !vote. Nomader (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are multiple reliable sources found on the entry, not sure why Google gave you only 2 results. For example, this one from Xconomy, a well known news publisher, ([3]) features the company among 5 companies. This one from WGN Radio a major news radio company in Chicago ([4]) features the company itself. This one ([5]) written by the same publisher features the company in almost half the article. Moreover, two other senior wikipedia editors have patrolled the article as well. Other reliable sources can be found on the article itself. For example, this one ([6]). In my opinion, the publishers (xconomy, madison.com, wgn radio, bostinno) are reliable and well known in the United States. Moreover, the coverage is significant. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In other words, this article has more than several significant and reliable sources written by independent parties. Hsypark (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and RS. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. The company has perhaps been shown to be newsworthy, but not notable. All the sources are from news articles in the last few days. Come back and start the article in six months if WP:RSs are still talking about it. TJRC (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has RS dated back to 2012 ([7]) and recent articles were spread out within the last few months and not days. Moreover, WP:TOOSOON is about having no reliable sources rather than the recency of the articles as you have implied: "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." But in this case, the sources do exist. Like you said, the company is newsworthy. A synonym for newsworthy is notable. Hence, the company can be counted as notable. Hsypark (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company clearly meets the guidelines for notability. Their coverage is significant and available in CB Insights[8] and WEDC[9].Adobeinfuse (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". A few examples of independent, reliable sources which have given significant coverage can be found in my above "keep" argument. Hsypark (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another nn startup that wants a Wikipedia page ☆ Bri (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing notability. Also concerns about the account that created it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's clear, the page fails WP:RS and WP:GNG where notability cannot be established. Has been listed for deletion for a while.Zazzysa (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Strategic management. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Management Process[edit]

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

Article is simply a shortened version of Strategic Management. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. It doesn't seem like there would be anything to merge, and the title would not make a suitable redirect. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Redirect per Neutrality. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no mergable content. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 20:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - plausible search term, and title is surely a suitable redirect; "strategic management process" phrase is used in business textbooks easily found on Google books (example 1 (7 uses of exact phrase); example 2 (20 uses of exact phrase); example 3 (18 uses of exact phrase). Neutrality^talk 19:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Neutrality has got a point here. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 17:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Strategic Management I think what is going on here is something that happens often in the IT and business world, some methodology has taken a generic term and has claimed ownership of it. A similar example is Rapid Application Development, it's both a generic term and the name of a specific James Martin methodology. So the article for Strategic Management Process is not really about the Strategic Management Process in general but rather a specific approach called ASP (or also called SMP). (Just to be clear, I'm not a strategy expert, I'm just going off of my interpretation of the two articles but I'm pretty sure I'm correct) I think what should happen is the content in the Strategic Management Process article should be added as one of the Concepts and Frameworks described in section 3 of the Strategic Management article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If people think redirecting is a better idea, that can be done outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohabbat Khawab Safar[edit]

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

Doesnt meet WP:NFILM Zazzysa (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable indication that establishes notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NFILM is not the applicable guideline, WP:TVSERIES is. Per that guideline, notability is indicated if the program airs on a national TV network (which seems to be the case with Hum TV). Since it's an Urdu-language TV show, searching for sources in English will probably not work. There is at least one source in the article ([10]) that indicates that further coverage likely exists. I have added a find sources box with the Urdu-language title at the top, hopefully someone who speaks Urdu can check. At the very least, it can be redirected to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV though, so deletion is no option. Regards So Why 15:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I agree with SoWhy. If not enough english sources can be found to support a proper article on the en.wiki redirecting is the best option. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets requirements of WP:TVSERIES and if it is not, I am helping improve this article.
Keep - Yup, SoWhy has nailed the appropriate guideline, as well as the rationale using that guideline. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep but renamed. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Khankhel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG .Fails WP:JOURNALIST. May be notable for single event WP:1E. Greenbörg (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete per nom. received press coverage in RS, but only for single event. --Saqib (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely covered and publicised in reputable sources like [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] (7th death anniversary), [17] and mentioned in book sources. Therefore keep. Mar4d (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: I think we can have a article like Killing of Musa Khankhel as he is notable for single event. Greenbörg (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, the press coverage he received is in context of his death. --Saqib (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be appropriate. Feel free to go ahead with it! Mar4d (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 1E, JOURNALIST. Worth a mention at Sufi Muhammad, but no more unless other notable things outside of his death can be dredged up. South Nashua (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consultation (media)[edit]

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

I just don't believe that this a real thing of any notability. It only has one inbound link, and that doesn't seem to relate particularly to this article. Since it's creation in 2007 nothing of substance seems to have been added. Derek Andrews (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quite possibly WP:COATRACK/soapboxing for "Bordewijk and Kaam" from a largely SPA editor who also tried adding related text a while back to Allocution. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. I realise technically it's not supposed to be a soft delete as there was a single WP:JNN !vote, but I think it's close enough to suggest that WP:REFUND is going to be acceptable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Spirit (South African TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating. Previous WP:AfD was WP:NAC-closed as "no consensus", but there was no opposition offered to deletion which means it should have be subject to WP:SOFTDELETE. In any case, as before, I have found essentially no coverage of this TV program, so it does not appear to meet notability under WP:TVSHOW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keyframe Digital Productions Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No reliable independent sources can be found for this company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but a blatant attempt at a Yellow Pages entry. Unsourced and purely promtional, was CSD-G11 but user removed the template. Not notable. Fails: WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See that Keyframe Digital Productions was prodded back in 2011, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy deletion material. Rentier (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought "oooh, I can rescue this", hit a Google news and web search and was crestfallen. :-( Couldn't find a thing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had the same thought, so I did WP:BEFORE before nominating. Looks good until you try to find sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krow VFX[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No independent sources can be found for this company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Non notable company. Jdcomix (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 08:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BRC Imagination Arts[edit]

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

Delete Blatant promotionalism. Fails WP:SPIP. Has been tagged since Jan 2014 for reading like an advertisement and it appears to have only gotten worse since then. References mainly fail WP:ORGIND as they're advertorials or interviews or use extensive quotations from company sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a carpet-bomb of references, so at first glance this looks like it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. But, as I started to review the references in the article, it became obvious that this was not the case. I read three that looked particularly promissing, from the NY Times, Time, and The LA Times. Unfortunately, all of them turned out to be about projects the firm had been involved in, and only mentioned the firm itself in passing. To meet WP:CORPDEPTH, we need sources which talk about the company itself, not just mention it as being involved in certain projects, when it's the project which is what's really notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG and CORPdepth as well. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of passing mentions, but can't find in-depth coverage. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Bracher[edit]

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

Delete Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE and GNG. Wikipedia is not a platform for hosting personal CV's. I'm not 100% sure that the awards meet the criteria. For example, the article doesn't clarify that the "2016 Designer of the Year" award is from "Interiors and Sources" magazine which does not appear notable, etc. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Bracher and his team employ a process of Strategic Design which drives business growth through aligning market opportunities with business optimization." is meaningless promotional language. Mduvekot (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional and non-notable. I was transiently excited by the New York Times Magazine reference, until I read it. It is clearly about the subject, but not at all the depth of coverage we require. None of the other references in the article approach what we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to West Indian Americans. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aruban Americans[edit]

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

There don't appear to be sources that cover this small group in any depth, so the topic fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that there have been a lot of AfDs for pages similar to this recently. As it stands, there aren't enough examples to keep this article, but I'm not certain they don't exist. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these and similarly stubby/undersourced articles into a new section at West Indian Americans. bd2412 T 02:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Merge - That's the winning idea right there: merge to West Indian Americans. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go Penguins[edit]

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

Article does not establish the notability of this public art event - one of probably tens of thousands mounted every year by towns and cities around the world. WP:EVENT states topic must be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". All art events are actively promoted by their organisers, and receive local media and publicity coverage, but this one does not seem to stand out in any way (unlike Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red). Nor does it meet WP:DEPTH. I've been unable to find any specific wikipedia notability policy on past or forthcoming temporary art/exhibition events such as this, and wonder if this is almost WP:ADMASK. As a former museum curator myself who worked in art galleries, I love to see every single public art event promoted and recorded; as a Wikipedian I cannot see the appropriateness of its retention here, and would prefer just a brief line and image in the page on Wolverhampton. I suspect other editors may regard this as borderline, so before bringing other similar articles forward for consideration, I would welcome seeing their opinions. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as this event involved over 200 penguin sculptures and being a member of the Penguin Cabal (SQUAAARRRKKKK!!!), this definitely deserves a wikiarticle Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I would have nominated this through WP:PROD. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and i would habe deprodded it:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the news hits are to do with US sports, nothing related to this event. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rawalpindi/Islamabad Union of Journalists[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unless someone fixes it. Consist of unsourced advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced since creation 12 years ago(?!) and no sign of notability under any standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A merger should be discussed in a dedicated merger discussion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WW1 (album)[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability. Seems to fail WP:NALBUM. Suggesting deletion or merge with White Whale (band). — JFG ^talk 09:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst redirect and merge to White Whale (band) – the review in Alternative Press doesn't appear to work, but it's been reviewed in several reliable sources [18] and described in some detail in a published book [19] so it passes criterion (1) of WP:NALBUM. As it turned out, it was the band's only album, so a redirect to the band's article may be acceptable. Richard3120 (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very obviously notable given a Google search. Reviews found from Pitchfork, Allmusic, Prefix, Tiny Mix Tapes, Alternative Press, PopMatters, Magnet, Stylus, Washington Post, NPR, and Time Out New York. --Michig (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Rat Killer[edit]

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

No sources BSOleader (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps speedily. Gbooks reveals what appear to be good sources. The lack of sources on an article -- i.e. its current state -- is not in and of itself a valid reason to delete it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that article @Mesoso2: was not notified of this Afd, as etiquette suggests. I've pinged him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Lack of sources is not a valid reason for AfD if a cursory BEFORE shows multiple RS - for instance [20] - shows several substantive book sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. A very notable historic event, plenty of sources available. BSOleader, please read WP:BEFORE. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable; lack of RS cites is not a reason to delete. I do hope someone will add them, however. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:BSOleader should understand the difference between "no quotations provided" and "no available sources". Pldx1 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A poorly presented article, needing finishing (it feels incomplete), referencing, and more. However it is about a notable subject on which WP ought to have an article, unless there is something similar to merge it with. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per WP:MUSTBESOURCES, the least those that claim that sources exist can do is to list them here, in a Further reading section, or preferably as actual sources in the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Finnusertop: They're not remotely difficult to find [21]. The onus is not on us to do WP:BEFORE for the nominator. – Joe (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Virtual queue. People can copy content over that is salvageable Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universal queue[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged since August 2008. Covered only in blogs and other unreliable sources. I realized that the tag removal was a mistake after seeing that the source I added was only a blog source. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed -- Gartner is not a blog. It's basically as legit as you can get business wise. prat (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- trivial & not suitable for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. The whole unified messaging / universal queue / unified communications notion was a thing, is a thing, and should be put somewhere even if it's not article worthy. I am against deleting reasonable content on principle. Let's look for somewhere to merge. Currently the best options appear to be:

1. Virtual queue (my preference)

2. Unified communications management

3. Unified communications

prat (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss merge proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 13:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't oppose a redirect to Virtual queue. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Virtual queue looks like a reasonable solution and is preferable to deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saneeya Hussain[edit]

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

Not many WP:RS to verify her self-promotional biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep the subject seems to received some coverage in RS. this page give some overview on the subject. --Saqib (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was also profiled in Pakistan's The Herald. Also she is credited with creating the Journalist's Resource Centre. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as I agree. Close it per WP:HEY. Greenbörg (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A move can be done through the usual procedure Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RTV Ora News[edit]

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

Albanian TV channel with no evidence of notability nor even significance. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are only three television networks in Albania: News 24 (Albania); Ora News; and Vizion Plus (Albania). The title of this article might be better as Ora News. I have added text with citations to the article and an external link to third party programme listings. --Bejnar (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep under the suggested renaming. There's a Springer book that mentions this station as a major player in Albanian advertising (these Springer digital books are peer-reviewed but often low quality). I also found a commendation from an OCSE official, in an interview with the channel - not a RS, but an indication that they might exist in Albanian. I found a couple of academic articles in English behind paywalls, but even the most popular TV channel in Albania (Top Channel) hardly shows up in Google Scholar. There is just a dearth of English-language coverage of the whole country: the academic literature is often in German; journalism is just as likely to be in Italian. Matt's talk 15:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AppRiver[edit]

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

a Typical press coverage on media. Non-notable as per encyclopedic standards. Only exist to promote themselves online. Light2021 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AppRiver - AppRiver has also won NUMEROUS awards since its inception and has seen tremendous growth in the past 15 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresaz0175 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Teresaz0175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note – I removed part of the text in the !vote directly above because is consisted of copyright infringement of content here. The copyvio has also been rev-deleted from this page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; notability not established. Typical promo content consisting of routine product news, partnerships and "Awards & Recognition". The one keep vote is by a SPA. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP and WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godman Akinlabi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darreg (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets WP:GNG. His career and the app he founded have been profiled by secondary sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a technologist and a religious figure, he is far from meeting our specific guidelines of notability for such fields. That leaves us with just WP:GNG. The app he developed isn't significant enough to confer automatic notability on its creator per WP:NOTINHERITED. I went through the references in the article and that is certainly not my definition of multiple significant coverage for a BLP. Notable religious figures in Nigeria always have routine coverage that shouldn't be difficult in establishing GNG. My suggestion for this new and promising editor that seem interested in clergymen is that he/she should consider articles for Sam Adeyemi (who was even the mentor of Godman Akinlabi), Poju Oyemade, Paul Adefarasin, etc. These pastors will clearly pass GNG. His church was even founded in this decade! If there was an article for his app, I would have suggested a redirect to it. If you can post three references that discusses him significantly, then I will change to keep. For now, I see nothing noteworthy in his career as a pastor. Darreg (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just pointed out that "we are left with just GNG" which I think you know is what Wikipedia depends on. This source from Vanguard and this one from The Nation discusses his Believers Connect app, this one by YNaija mentions/profiles his church. Pulse Nigeria covered his career here. There are also deep interviews from Thisday. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, when I speak of specific guidelines for religious figures, I am talking of rationales such as being a Catholic/Anglican Bishop, being the head pastor of a significantly large congregation, etc. Back to the article, I do not agree that the subject 100% passes GNG, but the references you've provided show that as a relationship coach and youth pastor, he's probably well covered. I'm now really indifferent. Darreg (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be restored at editorial discretion (or WP:REFUND if the history is needed) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Car Wash Systems[edit]

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

Not notable and promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: While there do appear to be reliable, independent sources available with in-depth coverage per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH; these sources lack a broad audience; they are either specialist car wash industry publications or local news. --Hazarasp (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. adverisement. The contents is utterly trivial, as it is baased on mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thank you to User:Carwil for researching sources. There's broad consensus after these sources were presented that the topic is notable, even if the article as it currently stands is a mess. So, somebody needs to give this some serious editing love, perhaps WP:TNT, and get the sources properly cited in the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Energy Ministerial[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines. The article is promotional too, with primary sources. The last 2 AfDs failed to achieve consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course, very shallow coverage in independent RSs. Rentier (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG, not enough directly about it. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This topic mixes broad international cooperation with a low press profile; it involves many players and produces regular agreements, and its an international body that has met 8 times. These latter facts suggest notability that may be hidden within the names of the many initiatives that seem to emerge out of the CEM. Nonetheless, these source suggest that there is strong independent interest in the overall topic from relevant experts: Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy podcast and article on CEM. Energy and Environment News article on a recent meeting. Foreign Affairs published a first-person piece on the role of the CEM in US strategy. We also substantial references in Addressing Global Environmental Challenges from a Peace Ecology Perspective, Energy and Global Climate Change: Bridging the Sustainable Development Divide, Global Governance on Renewable Energy, and "Introduction to the Special Issue: Governing Energy in a Fragmented World" in Global Energy Governance. --Carwil (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think I'd go and cry in a corner if I was asked to salvage this article, but suffice to say, a news search does give me confidence there is enough coverage in sources for somebody to do it. Ultimately, "nobody cares about this article" isn't part of the deletion policy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In light of the sources found by Carwil. But it should be stubified, all the unsourced and primary sourced claims should be removed. Rentier (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I almost speedied this article per WP:G12 as most of it is copied from the top hit in this report. However, since that's a Federal Government Report, the text is PD. Still could do with a trim, though. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Dance[edit]

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

Non-notable television program. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Burton (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Seems to have had a role in Lassie, but not sure if it was large enough to demonstrate notability. Natg 19 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked for coverage of him as an author, and he's definitely not notable that way. I can't yet comment on his acting. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Appears to have led an interesting life, but the acting history primarily consists of single episode appearances and not sufficient to convey notability.--Rpclod (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final, would close as no consensus if not for !delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh Very borderline. Is attached to notable things, his wife, and job and several notable shows, but NOTINHERIT, and a lot of those things are run of the mill. All those guilds are to be expected, yet the participation in movies and shows makes me not want this page to go.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I expect this will be an unpopular close, but I find the arguments to keep, while numerically in the majority, to be weak on policy. The creator of the article argues to keep, but gives no reason. Two of the other arguments to keep are essentially WP:CRYSTAL.

On the other side, the argument that this is WP:1EVENT strikes me as sound.

If future events unfold which add substantial coverage to this person, this can, of course, be revisited. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Ekim Alptekin[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Lacks non-trivial, in-depth support. Falls under WP:1EVENT. reddogsix (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that Mr. Alptekin is essentially only known for a single minor thing that is relatively recent, and that there is not enough secondary source coverage to fill out the article. Maybe he'll become more notable later, if he is further involved in current events or does something like run for public office, but Wikipedia isn't in the news business. RexSueciae (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per creator --Wikipietime (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aren't you the article creator? reddogsix (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major role in Eclipse Aerospace, ongoing role in Inovo BV and the exploration of the Leviathan gas field, ongoing involvement in U.S.-Turkish relations and the Michael T. Flynn lobbying controversy. PvOberstein (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wcquidditch:: I did some more digging since you first voted to delete, does it look any better now? He's been involved in the aviation industry since the early 2000s (Eclipse Aviation Corporation and Eclipse Aerospace) atop a few other things. PvOberstein (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you've added content, I still don't see the article subject meeting WP:GNG. I think recentism and WP:1E also applies and, therefore, disqualifies the article subject from GNG and encyclopedic worthiness. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ill have to disagree with your 'notable for only one event', as Ekim Alptekin's role in turning around a New Mexican aviation company was discussed in multiple secondary sources at the time, (within and outside of the United States), adding some notability for a figure in the aviation industry, atop his ongoing involvement in the Michael Flynn controversy. PvOberstein (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's marginally notable for the Flynn event, only. Coverage in a few publications during a short news cycle for the aviation company story isn't encyclopedic-worthy notability. That takes us back to 1E (Flynn). And then, there's recentism. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- mostly a CV~~designed to promote the subject~~. And what is an "advocate for improved Turkish-American relations"? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: More for the benefit of the record than to change anyone's mind, I would like it noted that nothing I wrote was "designed to promote the subject". ("Design" would imply some conscious intent to boost the subject, which I find vaguely disquieting to be accused of doing). If anything, I'd say the somewhat unsavory controversies over Michael T. Flynn and the Leviathan gas field tilt the article somewhat to the negative. I'm not entirely sure what a "glorified CV" means, given that any biographical page is going to have some CV-elements, but I attempted to expand beyond a mere resume with an exploration of his role in the Gülenism controversy and the Mueller investigation. Cheers. PvOberstein (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striken. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - almost certainly will continue to be a major figure in a major scandal. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep written in Nov of 2016, March, June and recent times in 2017. I'll do a little IAR and whip out my CrystalBall, and I find I agree with Bearian. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his association with Trump has got him on the national news radar, meaning he's now meeting the inclusion criteria, even if he wasn't before. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - copy from wikibooks:ROBLOX Game Development/Introduction. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ROBLOX Studio[edit]

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

How-to guide, not an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The rationale provided by both sides of the debate are more or less well-balanced. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Meeks (convict)[edit]

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

Creating Articles for Deletion discussion to discuss the merits of this article amongst the broader Wikipedia community, as more recent publications have arisen, stub article with questionable indication of notability. A previous discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Meeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a prime example of WP:1E. Has he done anything particularly notable before or after his 15 minutes of fame?PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt.: This has been deleted after AfD, Speedy deleted under a different title (Jeremy Meeks (model), recreated under a third title. Enough already. Since Jax was the original author of the one deleted via AfD, I think it's a conflict for him to remove the CSD template. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Niteshift36 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I removed the speedy deletion tag from Jeremy Meeks (convict), not Jeremy Meeks. Let's open the discussion to the Wikipedia community as a whole, and allow the AFD process to work. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an original author of the deleted article, you probably should have let somoene else remove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per extensive national and international coverage. Per succesful modelling career. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. Seems the press can't get enough of this guy. In addition to his initial 15 minutes and his modeling career, his impending divorce has been covered by People, Cosmo (and I don't mean Kramer), a variety of newspapers, etc. ad nauseum. GNG is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. I'm not fond of this, but the subject gets ongoing RS interest due to his successful modelling career. The article needs to fleshed out and moved to a more NPOV title like "Jeremy Meeks" or "Jeremy Meeks (model)". • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - @Gene93k:, if the article does get kept, I could not agree more with a move to "Jeremy Meeks", as he is likely the most notable person with this name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable for a Wikipedia entry, full disclosure, I created this article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you created it....or actually recreated it after 2 previous deletions. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage of his crime and conviction were judged insufficient for notability in the previous AfD, so the question has to be whether he has become notable since then. My assessment is that he hasn't. There are several sources, yes, but no in-depth coverage, and it is all pretty much on the level of a gossip column. I do not believe that there is significant coverage, and his WP:RUNOFTHEMILL career is also not grounds for a claim to notability - having a job doesn't make anybody notable. --bonadea contributions talk 12:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Going with much of what Bonadea said, there are some sources but not the needed in-depth to make this a notable figure. He hasn't done anything particularly notable after the mug shot...umm thing?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even though this guy has some press, he obviously hasn't done anything notable and also is mainly famous for 1 event, being arrested + being attractive (pretty low bar in and of itself). This not only goes against Wikipedia notable guidelines but it breaks the guidelines for people only notable for one event. This is a clear case of detete. If he actually does something other than existing at this point and the media covers it, I would more than likely vote to remake his article at that point. GoldenSHK (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There has been sustained coverage nationally and internationally of the article's subject and therefore it clearly passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename — for sustained coverage. Rename, because he now has a modeling career. -Mardus /talk 19:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, rename simply to Jeremy Meeks. -Mardus /talk 21:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But by that standard, we would also need an article about Meechy Monroe, which would be awesome. Monroe passed away within just a few days back.[22] -Mardus /talk 00:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ongoing coverage and notoriety. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I read through the discussion three times now and while it seems to tilt towards keep, there is no clear consensus yet, so I'm relisting it despite the amount of comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly notable person. I have not changed my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no more notable than the Trump orb which is still here. If kept, should be moved to Jeremy Meeks: the other person with the same name does not have an article. Or at least Jeremy Meeks (model); no need to have a 'convict' in the article name. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So your keep reason is that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Big Brother 7 (U.S.). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Malin (Big Brother)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR (which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions") as well as WP:GNG. Some editors don't want this to be a redirect to the article about the Big Brother so I'm asking for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother 7 (U.S.) I created this as a redirect to a list of Big Brother housemates, and Dexxc made it an article. He could be considered to have 'significant roles in multiple notable...television shows' (WP:ENT) but I would say the 3 notable shows he has been in all go together as part of the Big Brother family. More than anything though, this is an unreferenced biography of a living person. It has had an external link added to imdb, but it is unclear if it has been used as a source. I'm assuming it has, but it's unreliable and not an accepted source. Without proper sourcing, we can't keep it as an article. I looked for reliable sources to add, but didn't find extensive coverage. Unless sources are added to prove notability, I think it should be a protected redirect to the series he won. Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paintspot: You asked for this AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~Merge he was the winner of Big Brother 7 (U.S.), so that's the best target. There are no references; winning Big Brother is not inherently notable; and I don't believe material for a stand-alone article exists. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In the world of reality television, I'd say a winner and "all-star" of a reality television competition series as large, popular, and somewhat innovative as Big Brother is actually quite notable. Heck, if this isn't notable, why are any Big Brother contestants' pages notable?! I'd definitely argue that they are. Also, Malin's page is probably more notable than most Big Brother contestants' pages: he's one of its earliest winners and "all-stars", and he's done way more things (like being in a few movies and shows and things) than most recent winner pages' people have. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very few Big Brother contestants are notable; it's likely some winners meet WP:ENT but I don't believe all of them do. That said, the bigger problem here is that there are zero references for a WP:BLP article. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per past AfDs. Unless consensus has drastically changed, I'd say that winners of major "reality" shows are almost always kept. Changing this now would create a terrible precedent and could result in a flood of AfDs revisiting old fights. I warned you, Wikifolk. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Pointing to WP:OUTCOMES is circular reasoning. Please provide a policy-based rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've changed my "Redirect" vote to merge; while I support the redirect over the article as currently written, I don't support any history deletion. I note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie White (2nd nomination) as a reality-show winner that was deleted; however, the deletion case there doesn't apply here. Mike Malin has appeared on several series of Big Brother after his victory, is not a WP:BLP1E candidate, and likely meets WP:ENT. The reason I support a merge is the complete lack of secondary references in this BLP article. I find mostly TV synopses and scandal coverage (e.g. [23] ). Power~enwiki (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. General opinion is that this is a WP:BIO1E and the sources presented do not prove otherwise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsan Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has sources but fails to provide any WP:RS to verify as per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - As it stands, the article is pretty weak. The references are pretty lousy, the office held is not enough to pass WP:NPOL, and the allegations of vote-buying need to be very reliably sourced or removed to meet WP:BLP. That said, it sounds like there could be a decent article to be had, since the story overall (Pakistani expat cabbie wins millions, returns to start political career, helps out in the aftermath of horrible disaster, etc.) is unique enough to be worth documenting.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look like an autobio..previously deleted through AfD... a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician .. sources cited are not reliable enough. --Saqib (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's certainly some potential, as there's more substance present here than some of the other articles about Pakistani nazims that are concurrently up for discussion, but the sourcing for it isn't solid enough to pass WP:GNG. Of the five sources here, two are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, two are deadlinks whose content is impossible to verify, and the only one that's both live and reliable is a mere blurb. There's simply not enough valid or substantive reliable source coverage being shown. For what it's worth, I've already poleaxed the unsourced allegations of vote-buying — such an explosive and potentially libellous claim belongs nowhere near a Wikipedia article without airtight sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a followup, I was curious to see if there were any RS available and found several; I'm not sure if they are enough to salvage the article if added.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Where to for Lotto Winner? Back Home to Help His Town" - LA Times
- "Lottery Winner Helps Heal His Homeland" - ABC News
- "`Lottery Man' betting on Pakistani district" - Chicago Tribune
- "Lottery Wars: Case Studies in Bible Belt Politics, 1986-2005" (short mention in a book)

@PohranicniStraze: Thanks for this. You have done it neatly. I have no problem if other people agree. Greenbörg (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PohranicniStraze: Wouldn't this press coverage fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT? --Saqib (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I don't think it would. He wouldn't be notable for being a lottery winner due to WP:1E, and he wouldn't be notable as a nazim because it doesn't meet NPOL, and he wouldn't be notable just for the disaster recovery under 1E either. But the totality of the story - lottery winner turned Pakistani politician who spends serious money to rebuild after a serious disaster - makes for notability in my opinion. But I am still fairly new to the AfD process, so I would be interested to hear what more experienced editors think. With reliable sourcing, and with Bearcat helpfully removing the BLP violation, I am willing to change my vote if that is where consensus heads.PohranicniStraze (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the provided sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@PohranicniStraze:, @Saqib:, @Bearcat: The sources are for 1E so I will go with delete. Greenbörg (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can close this AfD because of your involvement. Let an admin close it or an involved non-admin. --Saqib (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I was asking for final words. Greenbörg (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's a clear consensus to delete here, but L3X1's suggestion of a redirect to Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule is a good one -- I'll recreate the page as a redirect. A Train^talk 19:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa azad[edit]

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

Promotional page created for a small time actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No references that talk about him, and the ones mentioned in the article, talk about the TV show in which he had a small part. Jupitus Smart 12:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Jupitus , How are you first of all this is not promotional page, this article belongs to Mr.Mustafa Azad who is upcoming artist, recently he done 2 Marathi Movies which is going to release in August and September 2017 about Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule he done a character of Rishi Bannerji brother of Lead actor Kavya Bannerji, Around 15 Episodes on air of this character with other cast. currently he is working with Producer Rupesh D. Gohil under RDG Productions telugu Movie with telugu actor Sundeep Kishan and the director Vamsi Krishna Naidu

I humbly request you to please dont delete this article, i will follow all rules & regulation of the wikipedia community,and i proud that iam a part of this community. I will update all references regarding this article as soon as they uploaded from news channels & Blogs

Thank you for your valuable time & support

Love & Respect Sachin Gangawane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.90.9 (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is exactly as Nom describes it, at the very least it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NActor. IP's reassurances are not very reassuring. Perhaps redirect to Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule for the time being? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not much discussion, so WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T+D[edit]

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

Non-notable publication FeralOink (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. I did not find independent coverage of it under its current title, but there are a number of problems with such searches. The listed awards, with which I am unfamiliar, suggest that there might exist such independent coverage, but the lack of citation to the original sources for those awards is problematic. The awards themselves, since they are in a very specific area may not constitute notability by themselves without some WP:GNG coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look under older titles because it seems to have only been T+D for a small part of its existence? I agree about the awards, but we can't base notability on only a small part of its history. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much coverage of it under any name. It isn't called T+D anymore. Now it is TD, and seems to be primarily a publication offered as a membership benefit from its latest publisher, Association for Talent Development. I rewrote the article in order to make it less promotional-sounding, see see here. Even with my re-write, I am not certain if it should remain, but now the tone is appropriate for a WP magazine stub article rather than reading like an advertisement as before.--FeralOink (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name change occurred in 2012 or 2013 but I can't find any source for that. I've spent enough time on this, and am still leaning toward Delete.--FeralOink (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice in an independent editor with no COI writing a new article from scratch. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ERa Eternity[edit]

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

Non-notable advert by a group member.

The article was previously deleted A7 as a puff piece by Willhire a WP:SPA, WP:COI editor ("Willhire - William Owens - Chief Human Resources Officer") with some edits by Jdaiey, ("JDaley - Jordan Daley - Chief Operating Officer").

It was refunded to Draft at the request of Prisencolin who hasn't edited the article at all. A couple of IPs have edited with minor improvements. Willhire then moved it back to mainspace. It's worth noting Willhire's own assessment, "I have made zero valid contributions. Honestly don't know why this account still exists." Cabayi (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revise This article appears to have COI violations, but the idea of the article seems fine since teams like Evil Geniuses have a page. It needs to be heavily edited to remove the self-promotion and trival details. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Revise The article was made with a conflict of interest, but I tried to write it in a way where it did not seem biased. The article is fortunately notable with reliable coverage sources from Dexerto, DOTeSports, WWG, and etc. I believe with heavy editing it will be a more valid article. The article fits along the lines of pages FaZe Clan, Fnatic, Team EnVyUs, and etc.. Keep in mind I will NOT be contributing towards this page anymore due to me not wanting it to be disbanded and have others contribute with good faith unless under the circumstances of having to fix due to vandalism or noticeable false errors. Just for clearance, I do NOT have any relation with User:Prisencolin, I believe he is going to be one of the editors who will edit in good faith whom does not have a conflicting interest. Also, what is on my user page should not pertain to what is a notable article and the use of it in your guide to deletion is not well done in my opinion. --User:Willhire (talk) 1:35 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revise per above. I believe there are reliable sources that cover this subject and has potential to be something beyond an advertisement.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks WP:RS and the WP:VGRS custom search engine gets us no further regarding meeting the criteria established in WP:GNG. Moving it to draft space is not tenable and would see it languish as it would not, for the foreseeable future, be able to be improved to the level necessary for moving into the article space. This is a straight delete. --Izno (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete per Izno, this does not meet GNG and should not be draftspaced (again). I'm hoping the closer will attribute appropriate weight to the arguments presented by Prisencolin (without veering into WP:NPA, Prisencolin has a reputation as an eSports inclusionist activist regardless of notability or content) and by Willhire, senior management of the article subject and strongest possible COI. Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izno, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#4 Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content, and these issues should be solved in draft before putting in articlespace per WP:NOBOGOF. Widefox; talk 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the several arguments which are WP:OTHERSTUFF are to be avoided, so those !votes need weighing appropriately. Widefox; talk 13:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. The article is largely sourced to social media and Youtube, and nothing presented here at this AFD has verified that anything better exists. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable references, so it fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and WP:NOBOGOF. As an orthogonal issue, this was requested to be undeleted, but then never worked on. The goal of WP:REFUND is so the content can be improved upon. If you're not going to improve it, don't ask for it to be undeleted; you're just wasting everybody's time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. I think there are sufficient sources existing to satisfy GNG, for when the article is re-written. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources to establish notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sculptured. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Ends[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (from their declined prod) was "has allmusic.com, but progarhives.com and encylopediametallum are not reliable sources: fails wp:n". On the merits, no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sculptured. Non-notable in itself. --Lockley (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as not notable (or even redirect without merging because none of the content is sourced). One reasonably informative ref is not enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Srikanth Velamakanni[edit]

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

Shallow coverage in RSs. See also: Pranay Agrawal. Rentier (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator says, the reference coverage is shallow, featuring such as a presentation photo name-check and a biography repeated in event material. I don't see the subject's company role as providing inherited individual notability. There is also a Q&A piece here. Some notability in his field may be arguable by virtue of his inclusion in a "10 Most Influential Analytics Leaders in India" (though that inclusion probably involves an in-role element) and serving on a NASSCOM committee, but my view is that these are insufficient to demonstrate biographical notabiility. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent, in-depth sources for the subject. I'm only seeing PR-driven coverage in WP:SPIP sources; no achievements independent of the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It seems like there isn't a claim of WP:NACADEMIC being met and WP:GNG clearly isn't. Claims of notability work much better when they are supported by evidence rather than assertions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen Slots[edit]

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

Not a notable person Alexbrn (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not defined by whether a random passerby can identify the subject, but on whether the subject is notable in their field. Slots discovered the appropriate medium with which to culture Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, the putative pathogen in aggressive periodontitis. He is an authority on non-surgical periodontal therapy and has authored many peer reviewed dental journal articles. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The instant recourse to ad hominem is not promising. Are there independent sources that accord Slots significant coverage? I drew a blank. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only avaliable ref is dead and not about the person in question.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the broken link. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I drew a complete blank in searches about this individual. He must not be that notable in his field if absolutely nothing significant has been written about him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slots is not a goofy dentist selling the latest scam-toothpaste or a novelty scientist. He's a reputable clinician and researcher in a super small and select field without a lot of visible fanfare and hype, and he's not going to be easily found on Google with the likes of Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Instead of trying to delete this article, if you think it's not well written enough, you ought to be WP:BOLD and edit it yourself. And now I see that Jan Lindhe is under attack as well. This is ridiculous. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The world is full of reputable academics and practitioners (I am surrounded by them IRL) but they need to be a bit special to rise to the level of meriting a Wikipedia article, as set out in our notability guidelines. I just don't see that Slots meets those requirements. That does not mean he is a "goofy dentist". Describing attempts to clean non-notable content out of WP as an "attack" is a problem: you should be here to help. Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts ought to be more precisely staged. Slots invented TSBV, which, at the time (early 1980s) was first in best efficacy at selecting for A.a. colonies. Without this shift in microbiological testing, the participation of A.a. was not possible, and so he's responsible for this change in the understanding of aggressive periodontitis (at the time known as localized juvenile periodontitis). I urge you to revoke your nomination for deletion immediately.DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he's so famed, it should be easy to find sources saying so. If there aren't such sources he isn't notable by Wikipedia's criteria and the article shall be deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Try again if he becomes notable. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's already notable. He developed the agar substance to grow A.a. and discovered this organism's role in aggressive periodontitis. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator SpinningSpark 10:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Eve Dicaire[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Eve Dicaire is currently ranked number 4 Welterweight contender in the World Boxing Association. The reference was added to her page. I believe that she does meet the Notable Boxing minimum standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wysiwyg123 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With that she does meet WP:NBOX. Should be kept.PRehse (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Spectrum of Finite Scale[edit]

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

A case where rarity does not necessarily equal notability. The album had this one review [24] but not much else except brief mentions in articles about other albums. It was self-released and limited to 1,000 copies so it had almost no chance to chart. Note to voters: Do not confuse this album with the identically titled A Spectrum of Infinite Scale, released a year earlier. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted in WP:OSE, it serves no encyclopedic purpose to remove a single item from an otherwise comprehensive list of similar items, absent content that contravenes policy. An encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz how did you come to such an unusual conclusion? This is not a part of a comprehensive list of items. In fact, this is a rare album that is not in-line with the group's other studio albums. There are plenty of acts that have some notable recordings with pages and some unnotable recordings without pages; this case should be the latter. Look at this subject individually, as you should be doing, and you'll see it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how did you come to the unusual conclusion that there is something "unusual" about the straightforward application of a settled principle? WP:OSE says rather plainly that "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items"; punching holes in such a comprehensive set of listings does not serve "the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference". Here, it is simple to look at the discography listing in the band's article and see that all but the band's most recent album (not to mention dozens of its singles) have individual articles. In this context, reasonable users of the encyclopedia would expect that articles in all the albums should (ultimately) be available, and doing otherwise fetishizes what is supposed to be a flexible internal guideline at the expense of value to people who expect Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could it be redirected/merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rwake#Discography. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Is a Door to the Sun[edit]

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

Non-notable Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found an AllMusic review and will add it to the article.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 09:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ no claim of notability; an AllMusic review is not sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band: One review is not enough and I can't find anymore. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that a single review does not rate as significant qualification for a stand alone article. Also, the article for the band Rwake should be considered for Afd, owing to sources being the band's own publicity and social media.ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their other albums, notably Voices of Omens, got more reviews, so the band is probably notable even if the main article is poor. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete or redirect to Rwake#Discography? Remember that redirects can be created even if the target might be deleted in the future, since the redirect would then just be deleted as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Lack of reviews online so probably not notable, although later albums did get more press; there may be offline reviews but the article is so short that replacing it with a redirect wouldn't be much of a loss, and if more references were found it could easily be recreated. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I see no argument against a redirect; I've struck my delete vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 19:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picaboo[edit]

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

Non notable, WSJ page does not exist. all are nothing indepth coverage. Light2021 (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Snapchat; according to this fortune.com source one evolved to the other. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I suggest that you re-read the Fortune.com article, and reconsider you !vote. It states: The name "Picaboo," it turns out, is a name already in use by an older New Hampshire-based company that published and printed images. To avoid market confusion, the co-founders rechristen their invention "Snapchat." The article under discussion here is about that undistinguished New Hampshire image publishing and printing service, not the Stanford wiz-kids' idea. --Bejnar (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that out, but forgot to update my comment here. In any case, in the long term we should at least have "Picaboo" as a redirect going to Snapchat, whether that is simply done by re-appropriating this article, or deleting this one and recreating it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing encyclopedic here, just a product brochure. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Bloomberg, TechCrunch and the WSJ provide more than just trivial mentions, so I believe that it ~~barely~~ meets our general notability guidelines and that it does not violate what Wikipedia is not. I have removed from the article the content sourced by the corporate page and the related references to eliminate the promotional tone. The remaining stub I believe meets, ~~just barely,~~ our criteria for inclusion. At the beginning of the article there is a disambiguation note pointing to Snapchat.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a couple of additional sources after a quick search: New Hampshire Business Review: Book Smart and Valley News: Picaboo, I See a New ... Yearbook. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment -- " Bloomberg Businessweek" is not Businessweek but a separate directory service, whereas the content is user submitted. So it adds 0 to notability considerations. TechCrunch is usually routine funding news. New Hampshire Business Review is local source, also probably PR driven. I don't see GNG, let alone WP:CORPDEPTH being met in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Comment I have to disagree with K.e.coffman arguments. Here are some of the reasons why I believe that WP:GNG is met:

I disagree that Bloomberg Businessweek is not valid. Yes, it does allows for some information to be user submitted. but it is not an open wiki. Their sites clearly states that the source for the information is S&P Global. It allows to submit requests for updating information. But they required that it must be verifiable by public sources and they also state that they verify the information before making any changes.
Techcrunch has been considered WP:RS for software in the past as it's subject to editorial oversight (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_110#TechCrunch and Engadgets).
New Hampshire Business Review meets the requirements for WP:RS I don't think it's correct to asume that it is PR driven just because it's a local source.
There was no mention about WSJ or Valley News.
As I stated before this were just some additional sources but a simple search reveals more. Some are just brief mentions, but mostly more than trivial: New York Times: [25], Fox News: [26], Chicago Tribune: [27] There are also a few books that also mention the tool: The Graphic Designer's Guide to Portfolio Design, Create Your Own Photo Book: Design a Stunning Portfolio, Make a Bookstore, The Heart of Your Move: The Woman's Relocation Guide to Easing the Stress

I will improve the article by adding some of the content referenced by this sources --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per several sources provided later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some additional content and inserted some of the sources I mentioned above into the article. In its actual state, I believe it is a valid stub as there is enough non trivial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, it is no longer promotional, and it does not violate what Wikipedia is not.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability is made in the lead. Fails WP:CORP for lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The article was created on 5 August 2014‎, by an editor who then ceased editing. It appears to have been created for promotional purposes. --Bejnar (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC) I have moved my !vote down here, as I have re-reviewed the article, and still find no claim to notability, and no in depth coverage as per WP:CORP, despite the additions. For example the added New York Times article has a brief mention of Picaboo in an article about modern self-publiahing. The article added from the New Hampshire Business Review is more substantial, but is highly promotional, it also conflated the origin of Snapchat with Picaboo as did Ritchie333 above. The net result is still lack of in-depth coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bejnar: According to our general notability guidelines:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Please let me know which of the following sources included in the article do you consider not to meet that criteria and why:

New Hampshire Business Review: Book Smart
Valley News: Picaboo, I See a New ... Yearbook
Book: The Graphic Designer's Guide to Portfolio Design
Book: Create Your Own Photo Book: Design a Stunning Portfolio, Make a Bookstore
Book: The Heart of Your Move: The Woman's Relocation Guide to Easing the Stress
The New York Times: Technology rewrites the book
Bloomberg Businessweek:Pikaboo`s corporate profile (it's not an open wiki, see comment above)
The Wall Street Journal: Pages of Memories Done in Less Than an Hour
TechCrunch: Tag Camp Photo Album with Picaboo(considered RS for software)

The brief mentions from other reliable sources (New York Times: [28], Fox News: [29], Chicago Tribune: [30]) complement it's notability, but if you agree that at least three of the above are valid I think it follows that there is enough in depth coverage by multiple sources to meet WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not understand the argument "it also conflated the origin of Snapchat with Picaboo" as the first line of the article includes the following disambiguation statement: "This article is about the web-based image printing service. For the photo sharing app formerly called Picaboo, see Snapchat." --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your cited source did the conflating. --Bejnar (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what you mean. I did not see any mention of Snapchat in the source. This company started in Palo Alto and moved to New Hampshire.

Delete. The first two sources are rewritten press releases, essentially repeating the company's own advertisements for itself, and local newspaper can't really be expected to do more than that.. The accuracy can be gauged by their use of the NYT articles as their reference, whichgave this company one sentence in a general article. TeleCrunch varies: its long reviews can be RSs, but this particular reference is a short notice. Bloomberg is a directory entry. Thefirst of the booksmentions it only, (twice pluas a picture legend) It is a fair assumption that the others are similar. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion on the sources provided and Crystallizedcarbon's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having four users (two of them admins for which I have a great deal of respect) with a different criteria on this article I am beginning to feel like Custer on his last stand. I honestly don't know this tool as I no longer print my photos and I never heard about this company before stumbling upon this AfD, but I feel compelled to invest my time and defend its inclusion. Besides fighting vandalism I use a lot of my time patrolling new pages, so if my understanding of how to apply our notability criteria is not 100% correct I am very interested in learning why and continue to hone in my skills. But if my interpretation is correct I feel that I need to be consistent and continue to defend that this article be kept.

@DGG: I very much admire your work, I read the comments on notability posted on your page. I agree that there is always some degree of subjectivity, but I personally feel that our goal should be to apply the criteria in the most objective way posible. In this case I see no reasonable reason for deletion. Addressing your comments:

I do not share your analysis of the first two sources. They are both reliable sources and both provide significant coverage so I feel they meet word by word the requirements outlined at WP:GNG. There is no clear indication that they are press releases as they are both signed. I also understand by our definition of secondary sources:

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

That the fact that they also include some information from primary sources like the company, its employees or even PR releases does not invalidate them as proper sources, as long as they are not copied entirely word by word, in which case I would have to agree with you. If there is such a PR release, please provide the link and I will remove the sources.

About the NYT. The source does not include only a single sentence. There are two separate references from two different articles published by the NYT, and in both cases they include a paragraph with three sentences.
The TechCrunch article has 362 words clearly meeting (in my opinion) the significant coverage criteria outlined in our general notability guidelines to consider that source valid towards establishing notability.
Bloomberg is not just a directory entry, There is a criteria to be included, it provides a brief description so it seems to be more than a trivial mention and being a secondary source subject to editorial control I feel it also contributes to establish the notability of the subject.
Regarding the books: The first book, as you say, includes just a paragraph with two sentences and an image with its caption but this also is more than a trivial mention so it also contributes to establish notability. I believe that your assumption about the other two books is incorrect. One of them has a very extensive coverage of its features comparing them to those of other relevant tools for picture books and mentions the term Picaboo 46 times. The third book includes at least two paragraphs.
There was no mention about the article in the WSJ rating it top photo book creator in terms of quality. Finally the brief mentions by Chicago Tribune and Fox News I think complement the other sources and help establish that this is a reasonably popular tool for photo editing and printing.

I have been here for three years and I am honored to have been trusted with the responsibility to be an admin at the es project, still I admit that I continue learning every day and I welcome the opportunity to contrast criteria with other editors with much more experienced than myself, so if I am mistaken in my interpretation of our policy I will gladly accept any guidance or criticism. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rajala, Liisa (2015-10-02). "Hanover-based Picaboo looks to disrupt the school yearbook market". New Hampshire Business Review. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  
  In 2002, two Babson College students, Kevin McCurdy and Howard Field, formed the idea for a cloud-based software platform to create personal photo books. That platform became Picaboo, which, in 2012 The Wall Street Journal rated the best photo book provider, in a comparison with Blurb, MyPublisher and Shutterfly.
  ...
  With millions of users worldwide, the business was doing well, but McCurdy said he started to hear stories from friends and family about the hassle of putting together school yearbooks.
  The company has worked already with several thousand elementary schools, middle schools, smaller high schools and some colleges in the U.S. and Canada.
2. Dizik, Alina (2013-01-09). "Pages of Memories Done in Less Than an Hour". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Picaboo Corp.'s BookGenie service required the least amount of editing. Without any tips or suggestions in the tool, it took us awhile to learn how to swap photos, but once we figured it out, it was simple. As for the lack of guidance offered in the tool, "It's a delicate balance of keeping things simple and offering a rich set of features," says co-founder Kevin McCurdy.
  Photos uploaded quickly and the layout looked good, requiring minimal tweaking. We liked the album's vintage travel theme. The site allowed the most customization of layouts, including adding more than 10 small photos per page.
  Once it arrived, the book was the best of the four services. While the cover quality was great, we would have liked to change the look of the cover title; an opaque textbox seemed out of place. Users can change the opaqueness of the text box, Mr. McCurdy says.
3. Lippman, John (2015-09-20). "Picaboo, I See a New ... Yearbook". Valley News. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  
  A Silicon Valley firm has relocated to Hanover and moved into the 128-year old Rosey Jekes building — no sign advertises the new tenant — that was formerly occupied by the retail boutique of the same name. The firm, Picaboo, launched in 2002 with an online application that enables users to design custom paper-bound photo books from digital pictures. Picaboo survived the subsequent shakeout among online photo book makers and went on to sell more than 2 million books to 1 million customers.
  ...
  Now the 50-employee company — 10 of whom work in the Rosey Jekes building — is adapting its online photo book application to the high school and college yearbook market, an old-school industry that continues to operate much the way it did half a century ago.
  ...
  The impetus for Picaboo began at the sixth hole at the Stanford University Golf Course.
  In 2002, McCurdy and Howard Field, who had been friends since their days together at the business-studies oriented Babson College in Massachusetts, were already a couple of successful young entrepreneurs.
  ...
  He and Field hired programmers to design the software and raised $18 million through two rounds of venture capital. The barrier to entry is relatively low: There are no plant or infrastructure costs and the capital expenditure goes largely toward software development. Fulfillment, printing and delivery of the photo books is contracted out to digital printing companies and other firms. Many of Picaboo’s staff members are dispersed around the country: The 12-person engineering staff lives and works in low-cost Boise, Idaho, a growing mecca for coders. Field remains in California and is executive chairman of the company.
  By 2012, after operating for 10 years, Picaboo was profitable.
4. Grotta, Sally Weiner (2017-07-21). "Best Photo Cards 2017: Picaboo". Tom's Hardware. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Picaboo has easy-to-use online card designs with some very nice creative controls, as well as a sensible, time-saving interface. Unfortunately, its print quality didn't live up to our expectations.
5. Ricketts, Camille (2009-06-08). "Picaboo raises $1M for photo publishing services". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Picaboo, a company that lets you publish your digital photography in professionally bound books and greeting cards, has brought in $1 million in equity and rights, according to VentureWire. Based in Palo Alto, Calif., the company hadn’t raised money since its undisclosed second round of funding in 2006. Its existing investors include New Enterprise Associates, CampVentures, Odyssey Research, Softbank Capital Venture Partners Mike Perlis and Randy Komisar and an unnamed partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.
6. Arrington, Michael (2005-10-31). "Tag Camp Photo Album with Picaboo". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Picaboo was founded in September 2002 by Howard Field and Kevin McCurdy, and is funded by Kleiner Perkins and Softbank. They launched in May 2005.
  It only works on Windows right now (although Mac user have built in software for this stuff that works very well already). Picaboo requires a client download and the album editing occurs on this client. While I’d prefer a web app (flash or ajax), having a desktop client does speed things up considerably.
7. "10 Great Apps to Preserve Memories". PC Magazine. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Picaboo recently announced Version 2.0 of its popular free software to create photo books and greeting cards from digital photos. Picaboo's new features include more customizable photo greeting cards and photo book covers, as well as an online tool called StoryFlow, letting users group photos onto pages before the book is created and the book is auto-created within seconds. Select from over 240 page layouts, dozens of themed backgrounds, and over 40 different fonts to customize your photo book. Use the built-in photo tools to rotate, crop, adjust brightness/contrast, and remove red eye to ensure that your photo pages will look great. Choose from over 50 professionally designed greeting cards in five different card sizes. Greeting cards are $2.28 each, while photo books are $9.99 and up. Picaboo 2.0 can be downloaded for free from Picaboo.com.
8. Fasig, Nicole Price (2008-01-09). "Hands-On with Picaboo: Creating Photo Books". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2017-07-27. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Similar to competitor MyPublisher.com, the actual building process occurs on your local system after you download the free software from Picaboo's website. Here's where I hit the first glitch: I own a MacBook, and Picaboo only works on Windows systems. I regrouped and brought the photos to the office on a flash drive, so that I could use a Windows machine. Unfortunately, the installation process still didn't run smoothly, and I kept getting vague error messages. I tried going to Picaboo's troubleshooting page, but it wasn't particularly helpful or straightforward. Finally, after turning off all other programs and restarting my computer, I was able to fully install the software, which ran smoothly after that.
  ...
  Though I didn't test it, Picaboo also offers a soundtrack option, where you can upload songs from your computer or download tunes from eMusic.
  Despite my complaints with the process, with a little time and tinkering I was able to get the result I wanted. I wish that Picaboo was compatible with Macs and that the installation had run smoothly, but once it was up and running I had few complaints. My dad's book looks fantastic on the coffee table, and that's what really counts.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Picaboo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I analyzed and found the above sources to be equally promotional; "He and Field hired programmers to design the software and raised $18 million through two rounds of venture capital", "Picaboo also offers a soundtrack option, where you can upload songs from your computer or download tunes from eMusic.", "Picaboo's new features include more customizable photo greeting cards and photo book covers, as well as an online tool called StoryFlow, letting users group photos onto pages before the book is created and the book is auto-created within seconds. Select from over 240 page layouts, dozens of themed backgrounds, and over 40 different fonts to customize your photo book. Use the built-in photo tools to rotate, crop, adjust brightness/contrast, and remove red eye to ensure that your photo pages will look great. Choose from over 50 professionally designed greeting cards in five different card sizes. Greeting cards are $2.28 each, while photo books are $9.99 and up. Picaboo 2.0 can be downloaded for free from Picaboo.com.", "lets you publish your digital photography in professionally bound books and greeting cards, has brought in $1 million in equity", "Photos uploaded quickly and the layout looked good, requiring minimal tweaking. We liked the album's vintage travel theme. The site allowed the most customization of layouts, including adding more than 10 small photos per page." and "easy-to-use online card designs with some very nice creative controls, as well as a sensible, time-saving interface", objections aside are still violations of our policies WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Not webhost, WP:Deletion policy, WP:Promotion and WP:Not guide. Every one of these says that fundamentally promotional content cannot be accepted as the encyclopedia's goal, including that of a advertising-free neutral encyclopedia. GNG itself makes clear that policies are priority before suggestive guidelines, and that company republishings cannot be labeled as independent and this is a sensible implementation; as always, quantity sources is not enough as quality. Crystallizedcarbon, while these sources may be significant to the company and consumer, we would simply consider and need something else outside that scope. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melker Sundén[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable script writer, as well as director and producer; significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE as I was not able to find in-depth reviews of his work; just a couple of passing mentions. The article lists one source: IMDB. The first AfD produced a few sources, but these were interviews and not sufficient for establishing notability of the subject. Previous AfD had low participation and closed as no consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing turning up of substance in a news or book search. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JForce[edit]

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

non-notable. nothing establishes encyclopedia notability. Light2021 (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. internal software, which the company then decided to sell to outsiders. The articles i mostly details of its development within the company, which is of interest to those on the project but nothing else. It's basically an industry press release, without good external references for notability. DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to be much other than press releases covering this Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Draugiem.lv. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Draugiem Group[edit]

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

non-notable. It is made collectively to promote it. Nothing significant is found to establishes Notability. other are : Draugiem.lv & DeskTime Light2021 (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Draugiem.lv; not independently notable. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draugiem.lv[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable. It is made collectively to promote it. Nothing significant is found to establishes Notability. other are : The Draugiem Group & DeskTime Light2021 (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This website is like Facebook in Latvia. Quite notable. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sufficient sourcing for an article exists, such as in Encyclopedia of Social Networks and Online Around the World. The article is not in a great shape, but it's worth keeping an article on the most important social network in a given country. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete. While independent sourcing was identified, there was consensus that the nature of the sources was insufficient to demonstrate notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AceProject[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously Deleted, Salt to this page. non notable. NY times coverage is on Blog sections and nothing in-depth. Coverage merely on Online blog. Not establishes Encyclopedia notability. Light2021 (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Duffy, Jill (2017-01-10). "AceProject Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  PROS
  
  Affordable. Lets you add a deep level of detail to tasks. Includes Gantt charts, reporting tools, time tracking features, expenses. Open API for paid account holders. Broad range of mobile apps.
  
  CONS
  
  No chat app or team discussion boards. Isn't supported by Zapier. Pages slow to load. Mediocre drag-and-drop tools. No calendar. New user invitations were not received in testing.
  
  BOTTOM LINE
  
  AceProject puts function over form in its sturdy but basic project management solution. It's affordable, but not feature-rich.
  This article is an extensive review of AceProject.
2. Proffitt, Brian (2012-06-19). "Basecamp vs. Zoho Projects vs. AceProject". ITworld. International Data Group. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  I didn't know much about AceProject coming into the research phase of this review. Therefore, it was a pleasant surprise to see such a comprehensive project manager when I rolled into the system.
  From the very first screen, I was impressed, especially with the dashboard that contained pretty much everything I needed to see about my own work. This system enables an unlimited number of users to track tasks, projects, time, and expenses in a cloud-based interface that was fast and efficient to navigate.
  ...
  Overall, these three tools each offer unique ways to help you manage your time and projects.
  AceProject is by far the most comprehensive and granular in nature, but for organizations that are looking for more collaboration than project management, it may be too much.
3. Kaelin, Mark (2011-04-19). "Review: AceProject cloud-based project management". TechRepublic. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  What is wrong?
  
  Speed: Because your project exists in the cloud, the hosted system's response to your commands can be a little sluggish when compared to an onsite application. However, as I am writing this review I received news that AceProject is upgrading its servers, which may mitigate some of these concerns.
  
  Learning curve: The AceProject suite of applications may be web-based, but it does not skip on features. New users to the system will likely go through a significant learning curve, especially if they have never used a project management system before.
4. Freedman, David H. (2011-06-01). "Tools That Can Help When There Is Too Much on Your Plate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Task-organizing tools can be as simple as a to-do list (and I’ll be doing a separate post on those tools). Project-management tools, by contrast, are for bigger, more complex organizing jobs — but you don’t have to be building nuclear subs to benefit from them. Jill Bode, who runs a public relations agency called Designed Write in Franklin, Ind., uses an online service called AceProject (priced from zero to $99 a month, depending on the number of users, projects and tasks) to track various campaigns and efforts — currently 46 different projects for 18 clients. “I’m not a great multitasker,” Ms. Bode said. “I really like having a tracking mechanism for making sure that everything is moving forward, even if I’m not directly touching each of the projects.”
  As do most project-management tools, AceProject has users type in the tasks that make up a given project, including who’s responsible for each one, when the tasks need to be started, when they have to be completed by, and what sort of time and effort is required to get each done. The process pushes Ms. Bode to think through the details of each project, she said, and then it keeps her posted on possible trouble spots. The service notifies her on login or even by e-mail when someone falls behind on a task, or when there simply isn’t enough time to get something done. “It gives me a 50,000-foot view,” she said, “and then I can zoom in to get whatever details I need to see what’s causing any problems.”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AceProject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the only active editors from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AceProject (2nd nomination): DESiegel (talk · contribs) and Satori Son (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
: As usual Copy-Paste job. NY times written exactly one paragraph that you copy pasted. No-Indepth coverage. other sources are not notable as per Wiki Standards. Daily online blog write everyday for this or that softwares. Pinging All from 2nd AfD: Kurykh, DES ^(talk), DES, L, Mel, Satori Son Light2021 (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The PC Mag review alone is substantial coverage, and i don't have any idea why Light2021 would think it not reliable -- I've been depending on it since long before Wikipedia was created. The NY Times coverage is more than 1 paragraph -- read down in the story for further coverage of Ace. It is called a "blog" but this is really an online column and a fully reliable source. (The fact that the column is daily adds to its reliability, not detracts, IMO.) The same is true of the Tech Republic coverage. These alone are sufficient to establish notability, and several of the others would be as well. No valid reason to delete this time -- much improved over previous version of the article. These source would permit improving the article, which should be done, but notability depends on the sources found, not the sources cited and used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage shown above is does not demonstrate notability. The tech crunch article is WP:Churnalism and really does not demonstrate why this is notable. It only discusses features of the product - it is very mundane and routine coverage. The New York Times article is insignificant coverage that mentions this product along with other similar products. It discusses general needs in common with types of people yearning to be organized then it discusses several products. Even PC mag says it has deficiencies. The "print" or "web" coverage does not go beyond helpful tips. Wikipedia is not an advice column. This article is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion wp:promo. I agree with delete and salt. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No TechCrunch article is mentioned here or in the article. The articles are clearly not Wikipedia:Churnalism. They provide detailed analysis of the company. Here is a negative review from PC Magazine:
But AceProject skips some aspects of project management that are essential to many teams, such as a calendar and an in-app chat box. It's slightly better than average, but it doesn't beat out PCMag's two recommended Editors' Choices, which offer small businesses more in features and value: Teamwork Projects and Zoho Projects.
Here is a review from ITworld with negative material about AceProject:
AceProject is by far the most comprehensive and granular in nature, but for organizations that are looking for more collaboration than project management, it may be too much.
Here is a review with negative content from TechRepublic:
What is wrong?
Speed: Because your project exists in the cloud, the hosted system's response to your commands can be a little sluggish when compared to an onsite application. However, as I am writing this review I received news that AceProject is upgrading its servers, which may mitigate some of these concerns.
Learning curve: The AceProject suite of applications may be web-based, but it does not skip on features. New users to the system will likely go through a significant learning curve, especially if they have never used a project management system before.
"Even PC mag says it has deficiencies." – that the article says it has deficiencies does not make AceProject non-notable.
Cunard (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources found are just routine mentions in publications that would talk about any software, good bad or indifferent, and the New York Times source listed above looks awfully like a press release or some other advert. There isn't anything in the above coverage listed that can't be simply expressed as "it's a bit of software". Which significant customers does it have? What's its userbase and national or international presence? How has it contributed to the sum of human knowledge? We don't know because the sources don't tell us. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything in the above coverage listed that can't be simply expressed as "it's a bit of software". – the reviews talk about what are the strengths and weaknesses of the software. This analysis clearly establishes notability.
There is no requirement for the sources to answer the questions Which significant customers does it have? What's its userbase and national or international presence? How has it contributed to the sum of human knowledge? If the sources did answer those questions, another AfD participant would probably say those sources are advertisements or reprints of press releases.
Cunard (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the days of TUCOWS, and they would mention the pros and cons of just about every software application released to the public. It's indiscriminate and routine coverage. Simply telling us the positives and negatives doesn't tell us why it's important. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive reviews of the company are not "indiscriminate" or "routine coverage".

Simply telling us the positives and negatives doesn't tell us why it's important. – there is no need to prove that a company is important per WP:ITSIMPORTANT. There is only a need to prove that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, which has been done.

Cunard (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that's only a guideline, not an absolute dogma. To give a (admittedly facetious) counter-example, I could claim Public toilets in Ashford, Kent is a notable topic because it meets WP:GNG ([31][32][33][34]) even though that sounds patently ridiculous. What WP:ITSIMPORTANT actually says is "don't just !vote at an AfD saying 'it's useful' without any other context", which obviously is not what's happening here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public toilets in Ashford, Kent is not notable because the only sources available are a government website and routine coverage in a local newspaper with titles like "Man freed from New Street, Ashford public toilets" and "Public loos in Ashford have been closed but you can relieve yourself in these 12 places". As WP:ROUTINE notes:

Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories).

If there was significant non-run-of-the-mill coverage of "Public toilets in Ashford, Kent" in national sources like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and The Times, then the topic would be notable.

The articles about AceProject are not "common, everyday, ordinary items". They are significant product reviews in major sources like The New York Times, PC Magazine, ITworld, and TechRepublic.

Cunard (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claims of notability are things like "the fourth most popular project management software on Yahoo! Directory", and all of Cunard's references are product reviews. I don't see any other coverage of the company. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article's subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and appears to have drawn notice from some large outlets. While this coverage is borderline routine (we would not create an article for every item that PCMag reviews), there appears to be a breadth in coverage that makes up for this. How much semi-routine coverage does there need to be for it to no longer be routine? This is a tough question, but I would err on the side of keeping the article. Malinaccier (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is permanent. This one looks to be permanently non-notable. Back in 2007 it was deleted as non-notable. The sources now date, at the latest to 2008. The most obvious ref to show this is A blast from the past written in 2008 about 2001 and really just a minimal passing mention from the company itself. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with due respect to the coverage provided above, which is all of a WP:ROUTINE nature. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I see passing mentions in reliable sources. I don't see "significant coverage", which is the standard. Rockypedia (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Choyce Cincere[edit]

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

No solid indication of musical notability or general notability. This autobiography contains peacock language and is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully would not consider the autobiography for containing peacock language. I would like to apologize to the community for failure to meet the wikipedia standards on publishing articles. However, I do believe the original editor that helped set up this article didn't use enough resources for this article. Rather than delete this article please allow myself and the editor to make the appropriate corrections. Readers would like to read this autobiography because it give readers who follow the artist more insight to the artist's artistry. Please do not agree to the deletion of this article. Sources that support the work of this autobiography are interviews, blogs, IMDb and supported sources from networks such as from Talkmedia Africa^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. We can provide much more sources if needed.

References

^ Eton, Asuquo. Asuquo Eton https://talkmediaafrica.com/?s=choyce+cincere. Retrieved April 21, 2017. ((cite news)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Choyce Schwartz, Composer". IMDb. Retrieved 2017-07-14.
^ Rosenblum, Jacob. "It's A New Day - From Ghostwriter to Artist". Jacob Rosenblum. Jacob Rosenblum. Retrieved 2016-04-09.
^ "Hot 97's Who's Next - Choyce Cincere". Hot 97. Retrieved 2016-04-09.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nom; there is zero indication of musical notability through reliable secondary sources. In fact, this should still be considered for speedy deletion since the article's creator was the one who removed the CSD tag.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The editor above asks to allow "myself and the editor" to make corrections, but the editor is the author, and so appears to be counting himself twice. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If readers would like to read the autobiography, there are many web sites that will host it for a nominal charge. But Wikipedia is not a web host. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Peacock/promotional language could be dealt with by editing, but failure to meet WP:GNG cannot. I searched, and failed to find any WP:RS secondary coverage. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, self-vanity article.--Cahk (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Impersonator#Celebrity impersonators. (non-admin closure) f e minist 04:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson impersonator[edit]

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

WP:OR, WP:FANPAGE. This seems like an answer to Elvis impersonator, but unlike Elvis impersonator there is nothing like Michael Jackson impersonator that can be called notable. This section has cited 4 sources none of them use the term "jackson impersonator" or even "impersonator". Other 2 sections[35][36] have no sources that mention the required terms, misrepresenting "influence" as "impersonator" would make Michael Jackson a James Brown impersonator. Violation of WP:COPYVIO can be found on this section [37] from [38]

4th cites an 8 year old event where Madonna hired a Jackson impersonator, and the last section[39] has only 3/8 notable names, rest of the 5 will need to be removed per WP:NLIST. After all this cleanup, the article would be barely 2 or 3 sentences and we can find same amount of "impersonation" for just any artist that has sold millions of records. Thus delete. Excelse (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Impersonator#Celebrity impersonators. Argument per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* KEEP Michael Jackson impersonator has a distinction from other celebrity impersonator.they were part of films in different lanugage, world tour.award shows,and World record breaking movements.There are tens of news articles available on google from reputed news portal bout Jackson impersonator from all aroud the world .once i read a daily mail article about them and i know dailymail is not a reliable source now but it says jacksons have more impersonators all aroud the world. the number around 44000.Most of them earns 500 dollers every day.Jackson's popularity in asia and africa comparing to elvis is very high.he is one of the most recognised face in the world.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Blocked for sockpuppetry[reply]

Since you are the creator of this article and have presented nothing more than WP:ILIKE, it confirms that you have no policy based reason to defend the article's existence. Excelse (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* KEEP Michael Jackson has the most large amount of impersonators that anyone has ever seen for an artist ever,they are all from different parts of the world,with different languages and cultures but they are all bonded by the desire to keep the legacy of their idol alive. Some do shows where other fans can go and have a good time remembering about Michael's music and legacy,some only show their talent on YouTube and do a few of shows in clubs and etc or they perform in the streets,there are even little kids that impersonate him and we can see them in talent shows too sometimes.MariiMariiii (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Blocked for sockpuppetry[reply]

— MariiMariiii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Impersonator#Celebrity impersonators as it is a plausible search term. No need to delete the article as redirects are cheap.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Michael Jacksons impersonators are notable as michael jackson.they are living all over the world by paying tribute to mj.they are not just limited in english speaking countries like elvis presleys fan base.if you guys decide to redirect this page;hope the same rule applicable to Elvis impersonator EdvinBabu (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Blocked for sockpuppetry[reply]

— EdvinBabu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A confirmed sock of Akhiljaxxn. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Impersonator#Celebrity impersonators. Argument per nominator, and Power~enwiki. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Impersonator#Celebrity impersonators per nom and Pawnkingthree. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting per above seems good, seeing as the title would make a good search term for a redirect.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Impersonator#Celebrity impersonators. I need to agree that is not a "formal term" or haven't a notability in media like an Presley impersonator. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 23:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. That redirect suggestion can be done at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gamil Design[edit]

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

Another advertisement for a very non-notable design firm. I started fixing it, but realized there was not enough left for notability. Has designed a few very minor accessories for popular products--the names of those notable products fill the article with bluelinks. When I saw the link to Trek Bicycles, I expected they might have designed an important helmet, but what they designed was a cage for a water bottle. I expected to see the usual several thousand dollar donation to local charities that's in article like this, but I see instead that the organized a community meeting. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant Promotions. Light2021 (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm also surprised this was G11 declined, maybe because it is such a long article. I actually agree the firm is most notable for having a name close to gmail. I don't think that gets them over the GNG barrier. Absent that coincidence, there would not even be a debate about notability. If DGG tried to make this page work and failed, time to delete. Legacypac (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources do not establish notability; most of it is trivial, as in:

Aly Khalifa gave the company his middle name,[1] Arabic for "handsome", pronounced gah-meel.[2]

Bottom line: sources fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the article is mostly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I would recommend redirecting to Gmail#Gamil Design so that it will still be possible to read about the one reason this company is notable, assuming a brief mention of people accidentally reaching this company's web site is considered acceptable. I overestimated the company's notability and should have given up all those years ago when it was clear the sources were never going to meet Wikipedia's standards.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But tag as ((POV)) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic in Metro Manila[edit]

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

Although there are multiple sources a close read of this will reveal that the article is a rant - an opinion piece studded with PoV too numerous to expect a patroler or other editor to clean up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep, but fix the article - If possible, the article must be cleaned up regarding neutrality, plus it looks like an essay that its creator started. Yes, the sources provide notability, but must be displaying a neutral viewpoint per WP:NPOV. The correct way to deal with its POV issue is tagging it with ((POV)) regarding the neutrality issue, not considering deletion per POV grounds. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TagaSanPedroAko. Added comment: the article is useful/helpful as it provides context to one of the metropolis' biggest and most daunting problems—traffic. Although POV issue must not be set aside or ignored with.JWilz12345 (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up removing all POV and unsourced claims. Ajf773 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Serena Rees. (non-admin closure) f e minist 04:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Les girls les boys[edit]

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

Advertisement for a fashion label that has not yet even been released--the references are just repeated their PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on an impending new business, sourced to announcement items. Notability is not inherited from the founder or her previous business. The coverage at Serena_Rees#Les_Girls_Les_Boys is sufficient. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serena Rees, insufficient notability for its own page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Serena Rees — WP:TOOSOON and already covered where appropriate. —Paleo Neonate - 21:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It previously existed as Les Girls Les Boys Rentier (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a recreation of deleted article—as Les Girls Les Boys it was last deleted as unambiguous advertising. References demonstrate no notability independent from Serena Rees, whose notability for a freestanding article is also questionable. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birat Futsal Cup[edit]

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

No indication of general notability or sports notability. No independent references. Promotional tone rather than neutral coverage (but there hasn't been significant neutral coverage). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent coverage Spiderone 16:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maner Sharif. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maner[edit]

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

Article contains same Inforamation from Maner Sharif— IM3847 (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maner Sharif as alternative spellings per Earwig's Copyvio Detector's result. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bot-created, too, I see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums by Japanese artists released in 2010[edit]

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

WP:TRIVIA indiscriminate list, not a notable list topic either. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE list with no selectivity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - about as WP:INDISCRIMINATE as you can get. 2010 in Japanese music is sufficient for this purpose. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Albeit Weak. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lee Firkins[edit]

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

No references. External links contain only personal website and a deadlink. coffeecup89 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chevvin 00:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There's not much out there, but there is this from Premier Guitar and this from an Italian source, which shows more than national appeal. In addition, while it isn't in-depth, this blurb also makes me lean to keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the sourced from Onel5969 above, also has a significant article in Guitar Player [40]. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources = passes WP:GNG.

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