The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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  09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestre de Jeux Vidéo[edit]

Orchestre de Jeux Vidéo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about an orchestra, with no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no reliable sourcing to support it -- the only references here are to the orchestra's own self-published website about itself. As always, every musical ensemble is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist -- they must have a claim of notability that passes a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, and real media coverage about them to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no secondary sources, and promotional copy such as "the OJV has seen its popularity increase at a blistering pace, accumulating success after success." in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 08:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmukh (yoga teacher)[edit]

Gurmukh (yoga teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hi,

I have many issues with this page.

1. It seems very promotional in tone. It seems the person-in-question is using Sikhism as a way to make money, mentioning private clientele and DVDs.
2. I do not think Yoga is a part of Sikhism. I have seen this trend where some Hindus have tried to highjack the faith using self-described "converts" such as the one whose page is being proposed for deletion.
3. There are zero reliable sources. In fact, the page seems to pass off the site "mrsikhnet" as the "sikhnet", where the latter would never mention things the former has (i.e. tout a vanity fair article; touting media coverage of self-described Sikhs is the antithesis of the philosophy)
4. The name she has assumed, along with the one she gave her child, while of course it is no business of mine, are very offensive. I have never seen or known any Sikh who adopted the last name Khalsa or named their child Wahe Guru. I find these to be red flags as to the person-in-question's commitment to the faith.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoUsername (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is a bit weak, but that's a reason to work on it, not delete it. Looking a the reasons for deletion:

1. I disagree that this is an excessively promotional article. It's about someone in a business with high profile clients.
2. Connection to Sikhism or lack or it is irrelevant to this discussion.
3. There are reliable sources in the article, the Yoga Journal, for example, and there are many other sources available which mention her. See https://yogainternational.com/article/view/kundalinis-queen-gurmukh-kaur-khalsa for one.
4. We don't delete articles because editors dislike subjects' names or the names they give their children. Meters (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, okay? And where is the basis for that being relevant to a person who espouses Sikh philosophy. Look at the WP:Lede where it is claimed this user is a follower of Sikhism, before going into their DVD collection.

It is very relevant. It is plastered all over the individual's page, and it has no basis. Either talk about their yoga without Sikhism (remove it), or leave it as-is and have your argument fall flat on its face. The page is obviously using the individual's purported faith as a key point.

yogainternational.com is not a reliable source. No source pertaining to yoga at that level is reliable. Can you show me a link where WP has discussed the sources you're describing and has determined them worthy enough to support notability? You're trying to allege one vanity fair article from 2009 is enough for notability? Others have been deleted for much less. I find your defense vacuous.

We don't make articles on people who use faiths they are not born into, in order to promote their yoga courses and DVDs, which are clearly on display in the lede and early on in this article. Especially when the faith has fifty-fold less adherents than either Hinduism or Islam, thereby creating a situation where people like yourself try to excuse offensive practices like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.249.64 (talk • contribs) 23:33, July 30, 2017 (UTC)

This IP is RandoUsername. See [1] Meters (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI'm open to being convinced that she is not notable, but I think there are sufficient sources available to show her notability. Again, the issue of Sikhism is irrelevant. We don't even mention it in her article (aside from a see also that should probably be removed). What she puts on her business's webpage does not determine whether her Wikipedia article should be deleted. Neither does her child's name. If there is material in the article that should not be there it can be removed, but that does not affect the notability of the subject. Meters (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject is notable. Has been written about in the Huffington Post (that called her one of the most influential yoga teachers of our time[2]), Los Angeles Times, Toronto Sun, Los Angeles Magazine, Vanity Fair (magazine), and others. Netherzone (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She's been covered by reliable sources over time as per Netherzone. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being praised in a blog like Huffpo does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - John Pack Lambert Fair enough that the HuffPo is blog-ish, however there are citations in the Los Angeles Times, Toronto Sun, New York Times, Los Angeles Magazine, Vogue Magazine, The Hindu, The Times of India, Vanity Fair, Yoga Journal. Your rationale is perplexing - does the HuffPo negate these other references and disqualify the subject's notability? Netherzone (talk)

I was wondering about this delete !vote myself. A weak source is not a reason to delete. Are there any policy based reasons User:Johnpacklambert can cite to support deletion? Meters (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adequate coverage and note her age, the work she did was groundbreaking in its time. Sources provide sufficient reliability; article needs improvement in tone, but the individual's notability meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - multiple sources verifying N as "influential" and not just one of 15 million yogis, easily passes GNG ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage in multiple reliable independent sources over years. Arguments about Sikhism in nomination appear totally irrelevant to this discussion. PamD 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is notable and has significant coverage in numerous reliable sources including Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Toronto Sun, and Los Angeles Magazine among others. Passes WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 14:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IBM La Gaude[edit]

IBM La Gaude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GEOFEAT and GNG. DrStrauss talk 21:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was an early and important example of the "Keep the geeks happy" school of industrial research. It was also a significant site within IBM, and especially for IBM-outside-the-US. Current article quality isn't reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Another new article at Afd that hadn't been added to Wikidata. I guess there's a bot that does this, but it takes time? Anyway, there is a short but better French wiki article, now linked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I'm obligated to believe FrenchWiki's calculation of believing it's significant in France would therefore mean, not only about IBM, but that's a significant subject therefore enough to keep here. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Other IBM research sites that revolutionised computing have Wikipedia information; an example is IBM Hursley. IBM La Gaude developed the first electronic computer-controlled PABXs in the world, the IBM 1750, 2750 and 3750 Switching Systems. Duncanogi (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Duncanogi (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Though not "protected," it seems the building has also received a historic designation for 20th century buildings from the region's fr:Commission régionale du patrimoine et des sites. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 08:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Vail[edit]

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

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

Single source is affiliated. The article does not convey why the subject passes WP:NPERSON. DrStrauss talk 21:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to the Art News article about her, there is also a New York Times article. Here is one of the numerous Italian articles about her. Her father was Peggy Guggenheim's son, Sindbad Vale (1923–1986) (See this), and her mother was Peggy Angela Vail (died 1988). The two married in 1957. See Vail, Karole P. B. Peggy Guggenheim: A Centennial Celebration Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation (1998), p. 78. ISBN: 0-8109-6914-9 Ms. Vail's bio and press release about her appointment from the museum points out that, in addition to the numerous exhibitions she has curated for more than two decades, she has written several publications: The Museum of Non-Objective Painting: Hilla Rebay and the Origins of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, was published in 2009 on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Guggenheim Museum in NY. Moholy-Nagy: Future Present, received an Honorable Mention in the 2017 Awards for Excellence of the Association of Art Museum Curators. Other publications include Art of Tomorrow: Hilla Rebay and Solomon R. Guggenheim and Peggy Guggenheim: A Celebration. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited in regards to the subject's relation to Peggy Guggenheim, and press releases are not viable Wikipedia sources. The Times article doesn't really tell much about the subject, and English language citations are always preferred for English-language Wiki articles over Italian ones. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beemer69 can you point to that in the guidelines or policy? I'm not finding anything that says Wikipedia sources for English Wikipedia should be in English. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – A leading staff member and director of two eminent art collections satisfies notability requirements. In the absence of specific requirements for arts administrators, WP:NACADEMIC nos. 3, 5 and 6 might apply. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Bednarek: that would be WP:NARTIST. DrStrauss talk 16:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — In addition to the coverage cited above, add 2,204 word article primarily about Karole Vail: "Family affair", Town & Country, p. 57, June 1998 Word count: 2024. Vail's biography of Peggy Guggenheim Peggy Guggenheim: A Celebration. Guggenheim, dist. by Abrams. 1998. 151p. illus. ISBN 0-8109-6914-9, has significant reviews such as Binkowski, Carol J. (February 15, 1999), "Peggy Guggenheim: A Celebration", Library Journal, vol. 124, no. 3, p. 163. Peggy Guggenheim: A Celebration has been cited in:
  • Diva: Defiance and Passion in Early Italian Cinema. Angela Dalle Vacche. University of Texas Press, 2008.
  • Notable Women in American History: A Guide to Recommended Biographies and Autobiographies. Lynda G. Adamson. Greenwood Press, 1999.
  • American Culture in the 1940s. Jacqueline Foertsch. Edinburgh University Press, 2008. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The NY Times article says quite a lot about her professional work and scholarship. There are also a lot of Italian references. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep position and sources are clear pass of WP:N (whether academic or artist). There is no guideline that specifies English sources are needed. but we have plenty if someone wishes to interpret WP:V that way. StarM 02:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice is sufficiently prominent for its director to be notable. There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Ssilvers and Megalibrarygirl subject has significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The question whether the nomination rationale was sufficient per WP:DEL-REASON is moot once others start arguing for deletion. While Northamerica1000 is correct when they say WP:AUD does not require certain kind of supra-local coverage and that "local" does not mean "48 counties of the largest US state", no consensus was achieved whether those sources are actually sufficient to establish notability even if they meet WP:AUD. SoWhy 10:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Collective[edit]

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

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

Only very local press coverage, so of no general significance for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well known in the state of California and covered as such. From a cultural perspective it is a growing and prominent force. Karl Twist (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. If California had its own wiki this article would certainly deserve a place but it is too local for wikipedia.Domdeparis (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close  No argument for deletion.  A deletion argument is based on a WP:DEL-REASON as stated in WP:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this fits what WP:Speedy Keep actually says, since the nomination is policy-based, something that the specific page mentions. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I cited WP:Deletion policy, not the guideline WP:Speedy keep.  Nor have you been able to identify a WP:DEL-REASON for the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of that actually supports why it would be either a Speedy Close or a Speedy Keep, which policy criteria exactly? Also, I have in fact cited a policy of my own, it was WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Not advocacy as shown below. Those 2 policies are clear-worded in what we use here. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you continue to insist on discussing WP:Speedy keep, including the part about the policies you cited.  I said nothing about WP:Speedy keep.  WP:DEL-REASON is a part of WP:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I agree with nomination with the important basis, "press coverage, no general significance for an encyclopedia" which is in fact one of the WP:Deletion policy criteria, therefore speedy close is entirely inapplicable here especially when there's no clear outcome for Speedy Keep. The only other argument, a Keep, is a WP:ITSIMPORTANT to its consumers, and offered no guarantee of improvements, which therefore is also criteria for WP:Deletion policy; one or two criteria is genuinely enough for any deletion, but worse when there's no foresight of improvements to counter this. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the argument that this is not suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia is premised on the sources being local, but local sources are fine.  "The sources are local" is not an argument for deletion.  Who is attracted to fake deletion debates?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD. Regarding WP:AUD, the topic has been covered nationally by HuffPost and regionally in the State of California by KQED, which is based in San Francisco, California. Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the sources do not establish notability: they are almost all local to Sacramento, CA. HuffPo is not NYT, and KQED is local to Northern California. WP:ADVOCACY for an org that is not yet notable per encyclopedia standards. All of this information can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Regarding WP:AUD, The KQED source comprises coverage throughout Northern California, which is not a locality. It is "the northern portion of the U.S. state of California. Spanning the state's northernmost 48 counties" (see image). The KQED website states "KQED serves the people of Northern California...". As such, the KQED coverage certainly qualifies as regional coverage. Sure, Huffington Post is not the NYT, but it comprises national-level coverage in the United States. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Analysis - I examined the sources above and, first the HuffPost mentions them an immediate 2 times and it's only to introduce the organizer, beyond there it's simply someone's submitted video; the next one is a local news story (which acually cannot satisfy WP:CORP since it says anything "directly or indirectly about the company or where it talks about itself) and this is a good example here:
• Nicole Martinez is teaching...."The building houses a...."...."The all-girls DJ class"...."in vast summer offerings"...."[She] is brimming with enthusiasm"...."Sol Collective was founded by"...."[She started it]"...."[She] receives substantial....funding...."...."[But she wasn't always a...."...."[She] went back to school...."...."[She discovered]...."...."One of the group's founding...."...."She sees herself as...."...."She and her new friends look...."...."[That's their] mission...."...."To listen to them, go to...."....
• "[Her] new project...."...."One woman began a...."...."[She] reflects on...."...."....raise funds from...."....
• "[Sol Collective] runs...."...."She started Sol Collective...."...."She was a...."...."But at the core of their mission"...."Sol Collective operates"....
• "She is the executive director of....will talk about this weekend...."
• (next one immediately after that is): "Sol Collective's director....spoke...", "[They] have been a gathering....", "Sol Collective....a place...and more....", "[Employee]....who worked with Sol Collective for five years says....It inspires me, he says....", "One of the ways....[They] have transformed people's lives...."...."They hosted...."...."The events highlight....comittment [they created]...."...."[They] have created a safe place"....For more information....visit [their webiste]
• "Sol Collective celebrated...."...."[They] invited...."...."I asked [her] a few questions...."...."[They] have hosted...."....
• Sol Collective is always buzzing....activity....[She opened] Sol Collective....She says (repeated a whopping 9 times)...."...."They came up with the idea...."...."Sol Collective brought the...."....[Founder] says she...."...., says [founder]....

One of the comments above states that a state publication wouldn't count as actually exclusively local, but this would in fact be the definition of state, as said by Wiktionary.

• ....history of Sol Collective goes back....the program was able to perfect its dream....[Their] calender is already booked....[They] invite all members....For more information, [their website]"
• Donors have pledged...."[They] rented a....", "Those events have included....", "....for a sale price of $406,000....", "....Sol’s revenue come from....events, fees from [members], grant and donations....", "[Founder] says she is aware....", "[They are] in the mortgage application process....", "....works to “promote economic justice and alleviate poverty...", "hear Sol Collective is purchasing....building"...."Sol Collective is on track to close....purchase....the group is...."
• The SNR source above is actually starting with a literal:

...any local talent....Sol Collective and this isn't enough to satisfy WP:Notability's measures limited on such news. And so, if we apply everything that WP:Notability means, it means this is not enough of the significant coverage, no matter if there are 5 or 10 of the same published stories, WP:Not Advocacy (policy). SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC) None of this is what WP:Notability actually means in multiple independent reliable coverage independent of the subject if that's still what the overall story is. There's one source that's labeled a supposed "overview content about the organization" yet that's where WP:CORP also says Except anything directly or indirectly about the company, wherever published or wherever it talks about itself and so since it's a a "financial deal", it's exactly that. To also quote WP:Notability again it says: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability. Since not one of these wasn't from either an Indiscriminate local journal or event journal, none of it can count as genuinely significant, and especially since WP:Not a newspaper (policy) to accept anything like it. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Cherry-picked quotes from news articles does not represent the full perspective and content of those articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I quoted the entire articles, hence the different sections and there's no evidence to suggest I picked anything but the relevant areas of concern. You're welcome to of course repost anything else that you consider relevant, but I specifically selected everything that had a clear promotional and given it's all of the above, that immediately makes the coverage not independent, reliable or significant since GNG needs coverage specifically about the subject. Since I quoted GNG along with my argument, what could possibly refute that if it's exactly what GNG means word for word? In fact, the quotes each above are numbered for each source. For example, since the HuffPost only mentions them twice, how else could that possibly be interpreted differently? SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Alex Shih^Talk 06:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Aryan[edit]

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

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

This article has major verifiability issues. For example, the sources alleging Hitler considered Asians honorary Aryans are considered unreliable. The talk page is replete with comments about the unacceptably poor sourcing. Smooth alligator (talk) 18:23, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• N. Bartulin's book Honorary Aryans notes, "Only two historiographical studies have really dealt with the question of honorary Aryans in any detail" which to me suggests a dearth of scholarly interest in the topic. This strikes me as peculiar given how thoroughly other aspects of Nazi Germany have been analyzed, and makes me wonder whether there is adequate support for this being a verifiable aspect of Nazi policy. This article seems to conflate Nazi toleration of, or cooperation or alliance with, certain people(s) with their being honorary Aryans, and if that mostly irrelevant filler were removed, there would be very little content left in this article. Of course even a myth can still be notable, but does it even meet that bar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth alligator (talk • contribs) 14:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is no doubt about the historical accuracy of the Japanese, for instance, being considered "Honorary Aryans". The article may need additional referencing, but that is that a reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it must be mentioned that the account which nominated this was created three days ago, which brings up serious questions about the account's provenance and purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The full title of the book mentioned above by Nevenko Bartulin is Honorary Aryans: National-Racial Identity and Protected Jews in the Independent State of Croatia, so it appears to be a specific study about a specific circumstance. The nominator, who appears to be familiar with the book, should say what Bartulin's conclusion is about the existence of the status of "Honorary Aryans" in Crotia. As for the lack of " historiographical studies", there are at least three (the two Bartulin mentioned and his own book) which can be used as sources, and we are not precluded from using non-book (but reliable) sources in our articles. Given that -- as noted below -- there are over 1000 results on Google, and keeping in mind that I certainly have seen the term mentioned in my general reading about the Nazi regime, the idea that there are not sources available seems unlikely to be true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BMK - poor sourcing means work, not deletion, and the article is clearly notable. Keira1996 04:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are at least 1,000+ results on Google Books mentioning this term. Alex Mattrick —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep -- Of course, the people to whom the Nazis gave this status were not Aryans; indeed that was the point. This was all part of their obnoxious racial policies. That policy (though completely flawed) is nevertheless notable and WP should certainly have an article on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on grounds that at least two scholarly studies specifically exist on the topic, addressing verifiability issues.
  That said, this article as currently written is quite awful. It has been compiled together in duffer's fashion from a large number of offhand derisory references to "honorary Aryan status," made by authors who never intended to imply that some kind of formal policy of "Honorary Aryan Status" existed in Nazi Germany (it did not.) I am not convinced that this article even needs to exist as a topic separate from e.g. Racial policy of Nazi Germany. TiC ^(talk) 22:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have no problem if a re-written version of the article had the title surrounded by quotes, as in "Honorary Aryan", with a lede that said something on the order of "'Honorary Aryan' is an expression used to describe the unofficial status in Nazi Germany of some races and persons." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the astute arguments of BMK. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. unremarkable company and promotional cruft, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Investigations[edit]

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

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

Article created by two now-banned editors. Website states staff have "combined 80 years experience". So, about 2 or 3 people then. Fails WP:NORG. Edwardx (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete -- unremarkable company and promotional cruft, as in:

• "Global undertake (sic) work on behalf of numerous clients within a wide range of industries!" Etc.

I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Appears to be a hoax. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Disney Music Award for Best Band[edit]

Radio Disney Music Award for Best Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Going to AfD this, but it appears to be a quite invasive WP:Hoax. There is an existing award, Radio Disney Music Award for Best Music Group, which is well sourced. I am unable to verify that "Band" has ever had an award. This award has infiltrated into many related articles, so a massive cleanup is needed should this be sustained as a hoax article. In most articles there appears both a "Group" and a "Band" award, with different winners so it is not just a group vs band synonym.☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and untangle the mess. I too can find no information from any source indicating this is actually a category in this set of awards. It simply doesn't exist. Further, the information in this article is clearly inaccurate even if you attempted to change "band" to "group" as an award category. @Patricia CV: you really need to chime in here. What were you thinking? Where did this come from? Why did you create it? Do you have any sources that support this in reality or was this really made up? This may be a WP:CSD#G3 candidate. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Patricia CV:, I note that you are continuing to edit [3] but have not responded here. Would you please join this conversation? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete zero news hits on the title, it looks like you know what. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Am interested in what author has to say, though. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cenk Aydin[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage in independent sources. "Managing Director" in investment banking means nothing, and Armstrong is only a small outfit. Created by a WP:SPA who has only worked on this and related articles. Edwardx (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only realised the article had already failed an AfD after the nomination was done. Edwardx (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Classic paid editor profile article. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Resume like. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goodlight[edit]

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

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

Lighting brand of a company, LED Eco Lights, that is itself marginally notable. Created by a SPA, who has only worked on this and LED Eco Lights. Plenty of advertising in the article, few references, and no independent in-depth coverage found. Edwardx (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Just largely a collection of self-promotion, no establishment of notability and based on the article creator likely WP:COI. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, WP:SOAP and lack of notability. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SoWhy 07:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Senedu Araya-Sellassie[edit]

Senedu Araya-Sellassie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person with absolutely no coverage anywhere and no claim of significance - reliable or otherwise. Fails WP:GNG and just about every N guideline I can find. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson[edit]

2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Closing as speedy keep so everyone can return to civil editing. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel in the prior AfD, everyone was distracted by the pressing issues of POV and WP:SYNTH which prevented a meaningful discussion of the notability of the article. Technically, this article still has issues because the person responsible was cleared of all charges, including arson -- making the title incorrect. Regardless, for a fire that caused minimal damage (smoked-stained windows and walls) and no casualties, there isn't any WP:LASTING societal impact. There is no WP:INDEPTH analysis and the brief blimps in the news reeks of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Trump's list can also not be used to establish significant coverage since it merely mentions the incident with 77 other attacks and according to Swedish courts this wasn't terror or arson. Most sources are now outdated or incorrect, an issue that happens with news-inspired articles. There isn't anything to merge since officially no crime ever occurred.

• Pinging editors from the prior AfD and talk page discussion: E.M.Gregory, Pincrete, CrispyGlover, Yellow Diamond, BabbaQ, Julle, and Sjö. Please focus your comments on the notability of this article now that some clean-up was directed. Anyone else is, of course, free to contribute.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping TheGracefulSlick, a highly experienced creator of AfD discussions, to format this page properly so that the recent AfD appears in the usual box at top of discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Here is the prior AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The coverage is, in my mind, a little more than just news - it is mentioned, as EM Gregory pointed out previously, in many articles written a while after the fact.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yellow Diamond thank you for revisiting this. I hope you realize merely mentioning an event existed does not make it notable. I urge you to read my rationale above and the corresponding policies. Most of the sources are not reliably reporting the incident and are, in fact, WP:ROUTINE news coverage. If you can distinguish a significant WP:LASTING impact (the Trump list is out since it is a passing mention and incorrect) or post-analysis that confirms WP:INDEPTH, I will happily withdraw this nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the coverage of this event goes beyond the day it happened. This goes beyond NOTNEWS. A previous AfD was concluded less than a month ago, POV pushingusually does not result in anything.BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BabbaQ yes and I explained quite clearly why I renominated it. Going beyond the day it happened still doesn't save it from NOTNEWS, especially since the sources are no longer reliable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that it is highly irregular to bring to AfD an article that was closed as Keep less than a month ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a highly POV nomination, which follows a highly POV rewrite of the article by editor Pincrete. WP:HEY, I have cleaned the article up, to make the facts, chronology and context clear. Note in particular that a suspect was cleared at trial for insufficient evidence. But that after the verdict was handed down, investigators in Germany arrested an ISIS operative making role of ISIS and guilt of suspect clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Another key fact removed from the article is the fact that perp was not released after being acquitted. WP:HEY I have now added sourced description of his transfer fromm police to security services after the trial concluded to be investigated for ties to ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This s the 1.) First terrorist attack by the Islamic State on Swedish soil. 2.) The fact that perp was acquitted is irrelevant because article was written after the acquittal when the arrest of a ISIS operative in Germany produced dramatic new evidence about the ISIS connection to this attack. Notability comes largely from the ISIS connection, 3.) Suspect was transferred form Police custody to custody of Swedish Security Services to be investigated for ties to ISIS when trial ended, even before the new evidence surfaced in Germany, and 4.) evidence about the connection between ISIS operative "Mohammad G." and the Malmo perp has provided new information on the way ISIS incites and confirms attacks that makes the events in this article significant not simply as an attack in Sweden, but as pert of a far larger body of work by investigators, terrorism analysts, and students of radicalization working to understand how jihad groups like ISIS instigate crimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you call my 'very PoV edit' had the support of every editor that looked at your sources E.M.Gregory. Your statements that the new 'German' arrest proves anything other than an ISIS reporter have no one's support and have been removed. Proper place to discuss content is talk page. If you want to write an article about the German arrest, do so, not use this as a coatrack, but at the moment there is even less printed about it than about 'Malmo'. Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This has been 1.) Ruled by a Swedish court to have not been not terrorism and therefore not ISIS, only E.M.Gregory thinks otherwise 2.) The fact that perp was acquitted is only thing that is relevant ..... the arrest of a ISIS reporter in Germany cannot overturn a court decision, nor can E.M.Gregory and the acquitted person is entitled to WP's BLP protection. Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa Editors should look at the description and sourcing in this [4] version of the article; material deleted by Pincrete in his alternative fact version.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Shenanigans also that User:TheGracefulSlick withdrew and closed this discussion a few hours ago, then returned and put the article back in place.

• Keep I am sorry @TheGracefulSlick: but this one appears to be notable as it has received coverage beyond the timeframe of the attack. So is there a connection to ISIS? I see no concrete link based on the sources used but this is a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issue that can be resolved on the article's talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Knowledgekid87 I respect your opinion at these discussions more than just about anyone else which is why I urge you to re-analyze the article. This article is partially about an arson that is not considered terrorism in Swedish courts and partially about an arrest that cannot be conclusively connected. I would say the arrest of the German ISIS agent is more notable than the arson. Most of the sources are no longer factually correct since they discussed this incident as a terror attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing problematic with including RS reports about a crime in an article, while shaping the article, as I believe that I did, in accord with legal developments and emergence of new facts over time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @TheGracefulSlick: When I heard Donald Trump mention this Sweden thing I was glad it was swept under the rug as it appeared to be nothing. In this source though it states: "“Specifically, Mohammed G had been in contact with a person who committed an arson attack on a Shia community centre in Sweden on 11 October, by mid-September at the latest." [5] Wouldn't this be considered a reliable source? Even if ISIS wasn't involved the Sweden arson incident was brought up again which makes it harder to dismiss it as being non notable. I am open for convincing but reading that source was a factor for me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Knowledgekid87: my take on it is, according to the source I provided in my rationale, there wasn't even a conviction for arson, let alone terrorism. The article seems to rely on the possible connection with "Mohammed G.". If the only thing notable about this is G., shouldn't the article be about him, not a technical arson that caused minimal damage? Gregory's statement that this was the first terror attack in Sweden is both not a claim for notability and is false according to Swedish courts. Unless he has some higher judicial powers that reverse court decisions, I'm not sure the article is focusing on the correct incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheGracefulSlick: Do you think that WP:COVERAGE would apply here given these sources are long after the event and initial coverage took place? I agree on the WP:SYNTH as just because someone is in contact doesn't make them guilty. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Nothing new here. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I'm not quite clear on what the article is about -- is it about the arson, or is it about the arrest of a ISIS reporter? If it's about the arson, then it's a pointless article, as the damage was minimal and the alleged perpetrator acquitted. Wikipedia does not have articles on such minor crimes. If it's about the arrest in Germany, then make an article about that event (not sure if it meeds Wikipedia's notability guidelines though). As the article stands now it's WP:SYNTH and should not be kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• K.e., This article is about an arson fire in 2016; a trial where suspect was not convicted due to lack of evidence connecting him to the arson; how the suspect was transferred from the police to the Swedish Security Service where he is under investigation for ties to ISIS; and it is about how, after the trial ended, the German Security Services arrested Amaq News Agency#Mohammed G. an ISIS propagandist and released information demonstrating links between this arson attack and ISIS, and making this particular arson attack notable for the insight it gave to security analysts because it so clearly established the manner in which an ISIS operative in Germany was involved in inciting series of major terrorist attacks in several countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a pattern of arsons, especially in this particular community. I say keep because this and other events like it in same community, have a lasting negative impact on relations between immigrants and locals. The see also section lists the others: Malmö Synagogue attacks, Malmö Mosque attacks, 2014 mosque arson attacks in Sweden, Arson attacks on asylum centres in Sweden. It seems like a pretty important social issue when mosques and synagogues continue to be set on fire. This community "Malmo has become the power-center for the far right Sweden Democrats" NPR the eloquent peasant (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Noticed this discussion on a talk page I watch. Amply meets GNG. Article issues can and should be addressed, however, especially concerning culpability and acquittal of primary suspect. Coretheapple (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) Lourdes 01:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seek and Destroy (1996 video game)[edit]

Seek and Destroy (1996 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article doesn't cite any source. A Google search only shows up links to wikis and archives, so it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG Hakken (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The VGRS search turns up... not a lot. --Izno (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Numerous magazine reviews establish notability. Additional reviews at http://hol.abime.net/1862/review . Deltasim (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Deltasim. You often need to look in magazines when writing about older games, especially if they're not still very well-known to this day.--IDV^talk 08:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mobygames has a buttload of reviews and even has many of them archived as PDF's 1993 version 1996 version Most games prior to a certain date don't have online reviews and are only in magazines. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:GNG per sources added to the article after this nomination and presented in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any clear agreement whether the sources presented here, and those used to improve the article during the debate, can clearly show notability. The discussion has got quite heated, so I think it's best to close it now than prolong the argument for another week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedego Electric Bikes[edit]

Pedego Electric Bikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Our policies WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Promotion are explicitly clear what can and cannot be accepted, and business webhosting is one of them, take for example: 1 is an indiscriminate news "guide-like article, 2 is an self-service business profile, 3 is company website, 4 is a similarly worded indiscriminate guide, 5 is from an indiscriminate trade publisher as is 6 and 7; with 8 being about store locations, which the first policy explicitly says: "business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions ". Acceptiny shape or form of advertising makes us a search engine or advertiser, and that's explicitly what our fundamental pillars fight against, this is no differently. If we then consider what else exists about this company, see this and this, with the latter offering: 1-9, 11-13, are store locations and 10, 15-20, 21 is a self-service company profile, 22-23 are business listings so are once again guides before repeating back and forth on the next page. WP:Notability makes clear: A topic is presumed to be notable if it is not excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia not policy. The WMF has also made clear that we are not to accept any advertising including covert ones, so the 2 accounts here and here aren't any different. Also, as WP:Notability says, articles must be in notability-condition to be accepted otherwise, or else it's simply a misuse of Wikipedia mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Keep – Meets WP:GNG and also WP:AUD, having received national-level news coverage in Newsweek, Maxim and CNET. After some minor copy editing, the article does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - These are the same exact sources posted here and the Huntington Beach Independent is in my analysis above, source of which in itself is unacceptable for WP:CORP as it's an announcement, see policy statement above. WP:AUD actually says nothing about instant guarantees and, like with WP:Notability, emphasizes WP:What Wikipedia is not, is priority, not contrary. WP:GNG actually says: Sources except routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention". If we somehow start considering republished press releases as these are, independent, then we are not longer WP:NPOV (policy). Current article as currently existing has not significantly changed or shown this is not simply a hosted business profile. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The sources provided above are bylined news articles written by staff writers, and are reliable sources. Additional sources are available beyond the examples provided above. The article would benefit from expansion, rather than deletion, because it is a notable company. Is it really necessary for large swaths of text to be in bold here?

Did you actually read the sources above? Sorry, no offense, and I try to assume good faith, but it seems unlikely, per the timespan of this discussion thus far. Furthermore, regarding "These are the same exact sources posted here", the CNET article I posted above is not the same CNET source that is in the article, it's an entirely different article, and the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Weekly and Huntington Beach Independent articles I posted above are not in the article at all. As such, it comes across that you have not actually read the sources I posted above at all, which is disappointing, because these discussion are supposed to be objective and fact-based. Lastly, after some simple copy editing, this is the current state of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep SK#1 or Keep  After skimming it three times, I still don't see an argument for deletion in the nomination.  Nor do I see the evidence of using WP:BEFORE to confirm that there is a value to an AfD.  I also made a casual review of the article and the names of the publishers of the sources and the titles of the sources and the date of founding of the company, and the only WP:NOT problems I see here are that Wikipedia is not censored and that Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Here is the first sentence from the 11 April 2015 Newsweek article, "Since its humble beginnings in 2009, Pedego has been....No. 2 in the U.S. and making a considerable footprint overseas as well."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep is inapplicable given there are 3 policies in the nomination and the fact COI accounts is a factor, and I even linked news searches. As for Keep, what's the policy basis for contesting the said policies? There's no weight on how this nomination is violating policy or is malformed at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you will read what I said, it says, "I...don't see an argument for deletion in the nomination".  Your reply here is that policies are mentioned in the nomination.  There are even more policies mentioned at WP:Policies and guidelines, but that doesn't make WP:Policies and guidelines an argument for deletion for Pedego Electric Bikes.  I can't refute an argument that doesn't exist.  However, given the extensive work your nomination has caused other editors to do, it is also not right that this AfD should be closed WP:NPASR when the worldwide scope of this topic is clear from the sources.  Yes, you've linked news searches, but there is no context for why you've done this.

COI accounts is not mentioned in the nomination and has nothing to do with this AfD, because even if they exist, which is hard to prove, the article has been edited recently. 

I also stated, "Nor do I see the evidence of using WP:BEFORE to confirm that there is a value to an AfD."  I don't understand why you'd put effort into that nomination and then skip the essential elements of preparing the community for a discussion.  It makes no sense to me.  Please withdraw this nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For analysis purposes, I will pin everything these sources say and, regardless of whether there's this or that, they are still promotional because:
• manufactured the Pedego Electric Bike, a colorful, sleek-looking beach cruiser with a battery pack that allows...exercise, and....the throttle and glide with nary a foot-pound or coulomb expended,
• manufactured the Pedego Electric Bike, a colorful, sleek-looking beach cruiser with a battery pack that allows one to decide when and how much one should exercise....twist the throttle and glide....,
• has dedicated Pedego store nearby....opened new stores in....making for a grand total of 65 brick-and-mortar shops from New Orleans to Dubai. Prices....$2,295 and go....depending on options,
• glide down the boulevard at 20 mph with your glutes as free from stress.... Thank Pedego’s pedal assist mode, accomplished with a wee twist of the wrist,....delivers a jolt of juice to....rear-wheel hub motor when your own energy reserves....ot....hit an uphill grade, whichever comes first.,
• shifting, seven-speed Shimano gear hub, grabby-good Avid BB7 brakes and a responsive twist-grip throttle, Do buy an industrial-strength lock for this....the battery locks up nicely,
• Stretch Cargo design, capable of holding up to 400 pounds, meaning another human being or two or a backpack full of gold bullion ---- Pedego $2895.00,
• Ford-branded beach cruiser powered by an electric battery that buys the rider up to 20 miles of pedal-free operation -- or longer, if the rider pedals part of the time., He formed the company,
• The plug-in electric bikes, which retail for about $2,000 to $3,000 (the Ford Super Cruiser is $3695), are designed in Irvine, pre-assembled in China from parts built there and elsewhere in Asia, then finished in California, said the company's seller,
• Electric bike brand Pedego has opened a store in Belmont . The bicycles are designed to provide an environmentally friendly alternative means of transportation. The shop is open for sales, tours, and rentals. The company is based in Orange County, Calif., and has more than 800 stores around the world. The Belmont shop is at -- Electric bike brand Pedego has opened a store in Belmont . The bicycles are designed to provide an environmentally friendly alternative means of transportation. The shop is open for sales, tours, and rentals. The company is based in Orange County, Calif., and has more than 800 stores around the world (this one is a clearly labeled "area business" therefore not significant), The Indepdent is also clearly labeled as "community news" therefore not significant, see:
• new 39,000-square-foot building will have a showroom where people can view and test out the products, though they are not sold on site. The bikes are sold at more than 80 Pedego stores nationwide, including one in Huntington Beach at 301 Fifth Street, and other bicycle shops. The bikes, said CEO. [The CEO] said the bicycles -- he said, "That's what our bikes are". and all of these are in serious violation of WP:Not how-to since it not only says how you use the bicycle, but what its components are, what it costs, what the background is, etc. Not once was there a single paragraph without the company or employee's involvement, therefore that would not satisfy WP:NPOV. Accepting any promotionalism in exchange for eliminating NPOV altogether, is a serious concern for an encyclopedia. As the company well knows, there are numerous PR agencies or hosts it can use, but it should be clear Wikipedia is not one of them. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The comment directly above contains copyright violations of several sources (see Earwig Copyvio Detector results, and the subsequent comparison pages listed there). I am WP:INVOLVED in this AfD discussion, so I posted a request for this matter to be addressed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG with material including LA Times and Newsweek, as well as other slightly less historic publications like Maxim. Article could be expanded with details such as product reviews in the various publications already cited. The AfD debate above seems to be drifting far from the topic and irrelevancies should be taken elsewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the purported references are essentially PR. It doesn't matter where they are published, the criteria for substantial discussion excludes this sort of dvertising. This article started as a blatant advertising draft by an obviously coi editor. Two experienced editors refused to move it into mainspace. The ed.primarily defending his own work above wrote the rest and moved it himself. What I do not understand is why that editor thinks other people's advertisements to be worth the effort, either writing them or defending them. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi DGG: I don't know. You seem immediately dismissive of significant coverage in major national news media sources about the topic, as has appeared in Newsweek, Maxim and CNET. Could you provide any evidence that the news articles are derived from PR, such as links to press releases from which the articles are supposedly based upon? Press releases are often easily found in Internet searches. One can type in the titles of the articles I listed above in Google searches to find potential duplicate content in PR sources. My searches have not yielded any proof that the sources are PR-derived. Without any proof, your assessment comes across as speculation, rather than as fact-based. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it's natural that any company will have public relations and that's what those jobs are for, to help and promote the company at their own gain and will, and it's been applied in nearly every other AfD, and this is no different. For example, I looked at the next sources posted in the nomination's News Search, and 24-34 are all the same announcements in the same manner so the clear logic is, not that all publishers copied each other, but that the company handed it to them, therefore it's primary enough to violate GNG. Take sources like this, this, this; they're all from different websites, supposed times, areas and people yet it's the same content, including content that mirrors their own press releases like this and this since they're equally posted at different websites, time and areas. See WP:NOT's quote: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors. That's actually also considering the same sources claimed to be acceptable by one of the Keeps, so the concern of such promotionalism still exists. That is exactly what's offered here, and that's an acceptable policy-based nomination. As mentioned, the article should actually be improved so there are clear chances of gauging whether the article can be accepted or not, and not simply the claims if it could. The concerns simply aren't in the article or sources alone, but in the history, see this one account which made a clear violation of WP:Not FAQ, so I agree that's a serious concern enough to warrant deletion. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:GNG and also WP:AUD, having received national-level news coverage in Newsweek, Maxim and CNET. After some minor copy editing, the article does not have a promotional tone at this time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've thought about this for quite a while, and there sure are a lot of articles that appear to provide notability. However, none of them meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP standards:
  • Maxim - I don't believe this is an independent source. Maxim is by and large not a cycling publication, and while I don't know what the US standard is, over here such glowing gadget reviews in light reading such as fashion / GQ tend to be paid for. It doesn't help that Maxim's other bicycle reviews exhibit similar prose. And beside the point, this confers notability to the product, not to the company, which is mentioned once in the form of a bare URL.
  • Newsweek - The source does actually discuss the company. However, the author is David Weiss, who may well be the same David Weiss who authored the Maxim puff-piece, so it likely fails the independent critierion.
  • CNET - Finally a reasonable review that mentions the cons as well as the pros, but it's coverage of the product, and not the company. Per WP:PRODUCT: "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right."
  • LA Times - May well have been based on an updated riff of [6]. Even if not, and if this is indeed an independent source, I'd argue that as WP:SIGCOV states that "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", and we're talking about a company with a PR department, and thus surely more influence over getting its name in major media publications than most other Wikipedia topics, WP:GNG is not being met here.
  • OC Weekly - A product review which does discuss the company, but doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH, since the company discussion part is sourced from quotes and reports by the company owner.
  • Huffington Post - This may well be significant coverage, but I'm not sure how independent it is, and certainly how reliable, considering it's chock full of company owner quotes.
  • Boston Globe - Routine coverage
  • Huntington Beach Independent - Local coverage of the opening of new company headquarters with a parade. This is not coverage of the parade, but merely an announcement relayed from the company in one way or another
  • Forbes - Another product review, company not discussed

On the whole, we've got a lot of dubious sources, some of which may be independent, some of which may meet WP:AUD, and some others that may constitute significant coverage, and together some might be construed to meet WP:GNG, but considering how shaky the foundations of building this article would be, and how easy it is for a company with a PR department to produce such sources, I'm inclined to vote delete. Daß Wölf 23:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No compliance with WP:Before.

Pointedly, it is the largest electric bike retailer in the country. Mark, Lois Alter (26 January 2015). "Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs Creating Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs Creating Baby Boomer Entrepreneurs". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Says who, the company? That claim in Huffington Post (whose reliability has been questioned by me and others above) is hyperlinked to the LA Times source. As for that article, just look at its structure. We have Company #1 and Company #2 that have joined forces. The cooperation has produced a new product, which is described, touted, and priced. The lesser known company's history is told, with their other products also mentioned and priced in passing, and we also have quotations from owners/spokespeople describe their plans for the future. Over half the article's paragraphs are of the type "company/owner/spokesman said...". No commentary by the article author, no opinions or any statements by a third party whatsoever. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but that's a press release to me, not a reliable secondary source which I'd like to have to cite such a bold assertion.

As for WP:BEFORE, I had found other sources on Google, but I don't see much of a point in dissecting every three-paragraph report on a store opening or closing. If you have any better sources, feel free to drop a link. Daß Wölf 01:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Heponiemi[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A conference "Rookie of the Year" award in a minor league does not satify WP:NHOCKEY. The coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Right now claiming notability requires WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Dellandrea[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete only a junior and has not played any league specified in WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails Nhockey, but actually does OK next to the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:NHOCKEY and I don't believe WP:GNG is met. An article in a local paper saying he'd be appearing in an under-17 tournament (not even a world championship) isn't enough for me. Papaursa (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleHR[edit]

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

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

Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are blogs, cover different topics or are (about) case studies for other software companies. No significant in-depth coverage about the company itself in independent, reliable, sources. Mduvekot (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG, as per several source searches; not finding enough coverage to qualify an article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are very few references out there at all actually and the ones that are there simply mention the name. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fsils GNG and is lacking in WP:CORPDEPTH. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Tarz[edit]

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

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

Proposed deletion declined by the author without addressing the concerns: the channel has 1,147 subscribers and the allegedly viral video has 254,787 views. No meaningful coverage of the Youtuber in RSs, fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. Rentier (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notable for one YouTube video. Sources do appear to meet WP:VER but in accordance with WP:ONEEVENT I do not find the subject notable enough to further the goals of the encyclopedia. Due to Wikipedia's policy against citing YouTube as a source, the inclusion of a relatively obscure YouTube does not bode well for the future improvement of this article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This has remained listed for 8 days with no arguments to keep it. Enigma^msg 00:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buchalter[edit]

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

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

Questionable notability. Many of the sources (3-8) are merely listings on websites or various "top places to work" clickbait lists. Sources 1, 9, and 10 aren't primarily about this law firm; again, just top 50 type lists for regional law firms. Source #2 doesn't support notability by itself. Note that the editor who created this article is blocked for undisclosed paid editing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @SoWhy: Do you mind explaining your relist in terms of WP:NOQUORUM? I would have expected this to be treated as a PROD, especially with two editors agreeing on deletion. (This guideline changed substantially a few months back, so you may be unaware of it.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: The guideline says "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the AfD nomination as an expired PROD." and "If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page." (emphasis added both times) Here we have comments from another editor, so the first part does not fit and we had no relist, so the second part does not fit neither. Personally, I would not mind the guideline to read "no comments from any editor besides the nominator or only delete comments" but alas it doesn't. I am aware that my adherence to written policy and guidelines has been criticized just recently but I don't think it's appropriate to ignore the guideline when it was just worded like this a few months back. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll make the bold fix; I was the person who did the re-write in the first place, and I didn't anticipate anyone interpreting additional support for deletion as somehow supporting keeping the article for longer... ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:51, 30 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 Mir Sham ud-Din Iraqi. Same person.  Sandstein  12:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi[edit]

Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Greenbörg (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Mir Sham ud-Din Iraqi. Appears to be the same person. Better article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It looks like the merge tag was there before you submitted this to AfD. Is there a reason why this should be deleted and not merged to the other article? It seems like an uncontroversial merge/redirect and seems like a reasonable alternative search, and thus a fair candidate for redirect. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like Uncontroversial merge to me, now the other article has been identified. It needs a proper merge, by someone who knows about the subject, not a mere redirect. I am concerned about the number of red-links in the article we at discussing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Srinivasan[edit]

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

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

Non notable person fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG - editor already blocked for using socks, now just using anon editing to defend. Only refs are blog posts, or don't mention the subject. KylieTastic (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the nomination. Poor blog sources do not establish notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not see and did not find significant independent coverage in reliable sources to show WP:GNG is met. There's also nothing that supports a claim of martial arts notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 08:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Davidson (actor)[edit]

Laurie Davidson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a newly graduated actor who has gained a lead role in a US cable TV series this month. As such, he doesn't yet meet WP:NACTOR (which requires multiple significant roles in notable productions). Maybe the best thing to do, for now, would be to redirect to Will (TV series) until Davidson is more established? Sionk (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep (as the primary author) This is an easy WP:GNG pass. He is the subject of several WP:RS articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fails WP:NACTOR but passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG which is sufficient. Has received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. While coverage is related to the role in Will, it has been ongoing for 1 1/2 years now, so also not a case of WP:BLP1E (well, strictly speaking the "event" is the same TV show but that's not what BLP1E is about). Regards SoWhy 08:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:GNG supersedes WP:NACTOR. DrStrauss talk 17:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think a consensus has been reached here and I agree with it: NACTOR isn't met, but GNG is definitely met. Given the refs, I think NACTOR will be met eventually at this rate anyway. South Nashua (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taskwise[edit]

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

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

The company fails notability standards. Daylen (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG poorly sourced to blogs and press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Probably could go with speedy as there are virtually no sources out there, especially nothing in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 07:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glorious India Award - Rich and Famous NRIs of America[edit]

Glorious India Award - Rich and Famous NRIs of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Struggling to see any basis for why this "award" might be considered notable. Can't find anything beyond regurgitated press releases, and can't find the awarding criteria. Edwardx (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Not able to locate reliable sources--Wikishagnik (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 30 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. SoWhy 07:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis BITS Pilani[edit]

Oasis BITS Pilani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

What was true for the 2015 AfD is still true today. This is cruft, with no actual evidence for notability and not enough independent coverage to pass WP:EVENTCRIT. It can be merged, but it will be created again and again with different names. Muhandes (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A large pile of junk. Nothing to establish notability. I chopped an enormous amount of promotional text. Salt. 104.163.142.4 (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. festival apparently at a single college. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, or draftify, this article has been reached. Concerns regarding the SPA are, I think, unfounded, and since their !vote was so lacking a basis in policy, it can be effectively discounted for the purposes of this evaluation in any case. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 06:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Cumming[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has appeared on multiple notable television shows. A news search brings back some press releases, but also some LA Times articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I concur with Ritchie333. He appeared on several notable shows and has continual ongoing press in Los Angeles Times, and is now publishing a book. According to Wiki guidelines, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." A news search brings back 4 LA Times feature articles; other newspaper articles can be found on the web. All the other co-hosts for the Selling NY, Million Dollar listing also have Wiki pages (those pages are written similarly) and most of the hosts of the same TV shows have Wiki pages deemed "notable" pursuant to community standards. If permitted, I can provide the reference links to all the other TV hosts with approved-Wiki articles. Also, he is co-writing a book with a New York times bestselling author (who has a wikipedia page) to be released in 2018. Mbarywiki (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Comment: I am somewhat new to Wikipedia. This is my first voting situation. Wanted to cast one vote only -- rather than take an "all or nothing" approach, I am more than willing to hear suggestions on how this page can be improved and further edited and to learn from people who are more experienced. If I did not follow the protocol, I apologize. We all have a learning curve. Mbarywiki (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this isn't "purely promotional", it is surely close enough. SPA creator, whiff of Coi, minimal 3rd party sources. If this were about a genuinely notable subject, cleanup would make sense, but this is a case where the People vs. Britanica test makes sense: In a pre-internet world, would the subject have shown up in People, or an Encyclopedia? Broadsheet or tabloid? Journalism or Press release? This looks on the wrong side of all of these. Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of this article just changed the words I wrote above, and added a second keep vote. I've reverted both, and left a talkpage warning. Anmccaff (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the page just added a couple of blatant examples of flouting WP:NPA. I've reverted them, and left a warning. Anmccaff (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? I have warned the editor above about warning without evidence, removing comments they don't like, and claiming personal attacks where none exist. If somebody disagrees with you at an AfD, accept it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This TV Personality is note-worthy. Any & all doubt can be removed by the numbers- which are completely objective. The article created is already getting approximately 100 views per day from the general public while in the voting process. If he wasn't note-worthy, he wouldn't have been covered by the LA Times repeatedly nor would anyone be interested in publishing his book. RobertUpton (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• — RobertUpton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am very dubious about how this AfD has gone. The above "editor" has, as noted, only posted in this AfD and i'd urge checking if some sock puppetry is at play here, especially as it comes not long after Richie advised a keep result is likely if another keep vote is given. I think the admin who handles the AfD should be mindful that the support for keep isn't necessary, at this stage, as strong as the article editor would like it to be. In fact, it would seem only 1 recognised editor, with the conflicted article author aside, has thus far voted to keep. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am a newbie... Some Wiki veterans have been teaching me through their positive example (Thank you Ritchie333.) As I understand it, this discussion is supposed to be about whether someone is notable, has sources, and how the article can be improved. According to Wiki guidelines, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." A news search brings back 4 LA Times feature articles, and several notable TV shows. This article subject has the required coverage from independent reliable sources. Several co-host and co-authors have independent Wiki pages. I understood this page is for discussion of the merits. Lets please discuss the merits (without personal attacks on private pages (talk)) and focus on the discussion at hand. If a topic received coverage in reliable sources and co-hosts all have standalone Wikipedia articles, seems clear that this article should be "presumed suitable for a stand-alone article." Lets focus on the merits. I am most grateful. Thank you. Mbarywiki (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just need to take a step back and let the process run its course; continually defending your own view when others don't absolutely agree with your position isn't all that helpful to achieving a fair consensus. Whilst it's a slight COI to post in an AfD for an article you are the primary author for, I think it's generally still allowed but you had a chance already to express your viewpoint so please just let it run. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify to Draft:Dustin Cumming as I can't find a compelling reason at this stage to vote for or against deletion, but moving to the draftspace would afford the editor some time to improve the article outside of the mainspace. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bungle Thank you for the invaluable direction and feedback. Much appreciated. Mbarywiki (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Phase (band). Fully protect if necessary. (non-admin closure) feminist 15:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wait (Phase album)[edit]

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

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

Article doesn't comply to both General Notability and Notability:Music guidances.--SubRE (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Only it does... :) any experienced wikipedian with music background can see with a bit of googling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The sources are either primary or not in-depth about the subject. Nothing here to establish why this album is notable.--Darth Mike^(talk) 17:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep *You are absolutely ignorant... we need indie rock experts here not your personal views... the BBC thing covers it... go read what rotation is... It's not down to your personal opinion on what's notable... Mid range acts have encyclopedic interest... their fans pack clubs and their fans buy records... You don't know anything about music... Google rolling stones sticky fingers, arguably the biggest band and their most known record and let me know how many non primary mentions you will find let alone, king crimson, etc. or a big mid range band... Post punk revival is a niche genre, but let it to the experts to decide you can't just do things because of spite... I can start pasting links I found but unless experts on the matter comment I don't see how this is constructiveMusicPatrol (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @MusicPatrol: consider yourself warned. Please remain civil, even if you disagree with a certain opinion. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more, although the article seems to meet the notability criteria. I guess it's subject of where you are in the world and what's your search engine. 3 years is a lot of time for an album and 404's are taking their toll. This place is for constructive discussion and knowledge sharing, not rivalry between the users! Peace brothers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.229.76 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I will go with keep as well, done some edits, meet's notability criteria, it certainly needs to be worked on, but I wouldn't say it should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.229.76 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article can be fixed, deleting should be the last resort! Asouko (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment how many do you need and in how many languages? It does pass general notability One, two, three, obviously the magazine that has Eric Burdon interviewed that has their review and interview and is a reference in the article is great too, or the cover/co-operation with them being discussed in Rooms Magazine... Asouko (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't why are you removing big chunks of text @SubRE: while admins and experienced editors are more careful... The_Cheerful_Insanity_of_Giles,_Giles_and_Fripp, or what is this doing in here A Social Grace, I don't get your fixation but the articles are totally fixable and notable and parts of progressive rock wiki project Asouko (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just to sum up... We know how hard it is to prove a negative, please reread all the comments above, the article should stay and I will improve it in time, there is material for it in the internet and magazines. You can't just erase an article just because someone woke up on the wrong side and decided to tagbomb for whatever reason, especially when experienced editors have tweaked the article in the past and never left a tag, notability once established is not going away... there are enough sources to prove notability Asouko (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article says that something was "designed by the respected in the field of commerce artist, Alexis Marcou". Hmmm. Of course, "the respected artist Alexis Marcou" would be perfectly idiomatic and grammatical. (Yes, it's somewhat peacocky and unencyclopedic, but this is a separate issue.) However, using a preposition phrase to modify an adjective used attributively, without moving that adjective, brings a result that's unidiomatic at best. This infelicity isn't of a kind that I often encounter. But this page on the band's own website says: "All complimented by the famous for his Marvel​ and DC Comics​ works Bill Sienkiewicz". I start to wonder if the two writers could be related. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC) ...typo fixed Hoary (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about whoever did it inspired by a press release? Somebody pinged my but I can't find the link really could you help Hoary? MusicPatrol (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage about the album from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG, and nothing in the article suggests it passes WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you didn't have a proper look there, having charted on last.fm and having songs aired on BBC aside from the reviews should be a strong enough proof for you that it should be kept MusicPatrol (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet [[[WP:NALBUM]] and significant RS coverage not found. I'd normally say "Redirect" to the band (Phase (band)) but given the amount of SPA editing, best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the artist's article (or selective merge of any claims that can be reliably sourced). This recording is not notable. It has not been widely reviewed or received substantial media coverage. Being aired a few times on BBC 6 Music is not sufficient to establish notability (being playlisted on daytime radio, perhaps - although the criteria in WP:NALBUM do not guarantee notability if sources do not exist). The last.fm chart is not a reliable chart per Wikipedia:Record charts. The usual way to say that an album is notable is to point to reviews and other coverage in reliable sources such as music magazines, websites written and edited by professional journalists/critics, newspapers, academic/scholarly publications, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reviews mentioned in the comments above and they pass the neutral point of view and reliability criteria, I could add them tomorrow if I'll have a second MusicPatrol (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Andrew Lane (film producer). (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Train Wreck (film)[edit]

Train Wreck (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Due to the commonality of the term used for the title, it's difficult to research this, however I found virtually nothing on this film. It's the only film of this production company, and doesn't appear to have been released in theaters. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alt searches:

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

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

Comment - thanks for those alternate searches, MichaelQSchmidt, but they also yield virtually nothing, although they do cut down on the number of irrelevant hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So why exactly is redirecting to Andrew Lane (film producer) not preferable per WP:ATD-R? Regards SoWhy 07:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure why I didn't do that SoWhy, as I usually attempt to find a viable redirect rather than deletion. I would have no issue with redirecting to the director's page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7. No need to drag this out further, no shred of significance. Most likely created by the subject. SoWhy 10:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuniknife The Primal[edit]

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

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

Article should be speedily deleted. The author has removed the notice multiple times. Fbdave (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC. Finding no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever, let alone significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Northamerica1000. In addition, it also doesn't meet the requirements for BLP articles. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Would probably fall under A7, though now that this has been opened we may as well let it run its course. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – A thirteen year old with no coverage in reliable sources who does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OverTheTop[edit]

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

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

This subject does not meet our notability guidelines for companies and organizations. None of the sources provided seem to be explicitly about this subject, at best they merely mention the subject in small or trivial ways. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT: we are not an advertising venue for "over the top" SEO. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSPAM and as a likely terms of use violation created in perfect formatting as the first edit of an editor once they reached autoconfirmed status to get it out of the NPP new editors review pool. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G5, G11, TOS violation. Rentier (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Doc James, blatant spam. DrStrauss talk 06:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete terms of use violation. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should have been a speedy delete, it is that blatant. Edwardx (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spot-checked the references and none gave information about the company itself. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  09:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ellie Drago-Severson[edit]

Dr. Ellie Drago-Severson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Minor mentions in sources do not constitute the level of notability required to further the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability of the subject of this BLP ineptly written by an spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vistra[edit]

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

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

Struggling to find anything approaching independent in-depth coverage. Likely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt A solid attraction for the WP:PROMO crowd. I cleared a bunch of advertising out of it, months ago, and then did it again, and now it's starting to creep back up, with the same content!. scope_creep (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, already deleted before, will probably be deleted again.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 18:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Child (exact repost) SmartSE (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H. Child[edit]

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

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

Run-of-the mill businessperson. Fails WP:GNG. Anything that looks like significant coverage is returning a 404 error. Edwardx (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 30 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) 23:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haqeer Rind[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. Only Wikipedia mirror sites are shown in my search for reliable sources on Google. Not even a mention of the topic in reliable sources are found. — TheMagnificentist 08:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SNOW. There is no evidence of notability per WP:CREATIVE. It's time to put this one to bed. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, I did look but didn't find sources. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INX (band)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BAND. References are largely press releases. There is a link to the charts, but they don't seem listed for the period given. Korean Wikipedia does not have an article about them. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft: Article should be moved into draft until the band have reached notability. Abdotorg (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, one of the sources described them as a "rookie group". WP:TOOSOON. — TheMagnificentist 08:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy's Bigger Burgers[edit]

Teddy's Bigger Burgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

zero evidence of notability--- just promotional news releases published in local journals and trade publications. DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I considered whether the article could be improved before I commented here, and I concluded it couldn't because (1) 3 of the 4 sections are simply rehashs of the Teddy's Bigger Burgers company website and the one other is simply a "general" information, (2) our WP:CORP notability is clear on not accepting brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings, routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources or passing mention and that's no different, even when considering the information may be facts since we're not a WP:Not a newspaper. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Searches do not reveal any third-party significant coverage of this company. Does not meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chahar house[edit]

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

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

Seams to be non-notable house. I can't find reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Probably a small hotel. Vanity/Marketing page created by somebody closely related going by the name of the creator. This is probably Chachar house going by the usage in the article. Jupitus Smart 14:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no claim of notability. A7 doesn't apply to buildings. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]