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.
no evidence for notability. Previously Prodded and restored for improvement, but no substant improvement has taken place--proesumably because there are no sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with both the previous WP:PROD rationales. This is a poorly-sourced article on a company which was previously public but was acquired in early 2014 [1]. There is mention of the name in subsequent ongoing consolidations ([2] – via HighBeam(subscription required) ) but I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a former publicly traded company, which gives it permanent notability. Even if it had since gone out of business, it would deserve a page. The article should notice the privatization and consolidations. Those are encyclopedic changes. There is clearly encyclopedic content on this subject with WP:RS to support that fact.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question above was not whether notability persists but whether it exists? WP:LISTED indicates no automatic notability from a stock exchange listing. It does suggest that in the case of a major listing (NYSE being the example) sources should be available if sought. But in such cases, and similarly in this case, of a firm which is said to have had a former NASDAQ listing, notability still needs to be demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep[3], [4], [5]. As per these sources, company was listed on NYSE as MSC, now listed on NASDAQ as MASC. As per WP:NOIMPROVEMENT,
"...articles are not notable or non-notable, topics are. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles...See also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
having a listing on the main board of the nYSE has usually been regarded as justification for inclusion, but not having a listing on NASDAQ--some major firrms do prefer to remain of NASDAQ, but the majority of firms there are very minor. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you have the evidence that it was listed on NYSE and you know that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), so why haven't you withdrawn your nomination? Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are simply not enough sources available to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply being listed on a stock exchange does not lead to automatic notability. If there are not enough reliable secondary sources, we should not have an article on it (See WP:WHYN). Also arguments of the type WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES are not useful if proof cannot be shown. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires sources, which in the plural could mean zero but in the context means two. Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources, which will in turn allow others to show where your research was insufficient.WP:WHYN has been repeatedly rejected over the years as a part of the guideline proper for good reason. It is circular reasoning that if applied proves that this topic is notable...that proof being that since we have an article, this proves that we have sufficient reliable sources to have an article. The current consensus is that WP:N is not a content guideline, see WP:NEXIST.WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an essay built on material rejected at WP:ATA as not policy based, because neither WP:N nor WP:V require sources. Unscintillating (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you are trying to say. Regardless from what I could comprehend
Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I searched enough and I just couldn't find enough sources.
The burden of proof to show sources lies on the people who are arguing that the article should be kept. So far I haven't seen enough reliable secondary sources.
WP:WHYN is still a part of WP:N. There is no proof that it has been "rejected as part of the guideline" proper.
WP:WHYN is not circular. It goes one way. "If there are not enough sources, we shouldn't have an article". That doesn't mean "If there are sources, we should definitely have an article"
"Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources" I have no idea how to show negative proof.
So we see no evidence that there is any problem with either WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability; rather, attention is directed to editors, guidelines, and essays to deflect from the evidence of reported research. Again, showing your search results allows other editors to consider the basis for your claim. Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete I can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings. The references provided aren't independent and/or significant discussions.Glendoremus (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what matters in these cases is if the article itself can be improved, and with the needed substance at that, but nothing has been offered here or different from what the article currently has, so our policy WP:What Wikipedia is not still applies, because the history here and all still shows a clear advertised business page, not an encyclopedia article. For example, above "can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings" still applies, since that's still what searches and the article shows, so WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:BASIC and WP:N all apply since it's not independent at all. As our policies note, if when there's enough for an article, we can reconsider but not when there's only a presumptive "maybe we can improve" or "sources exist". SwisterTwistertalk20:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources presented at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH to build an NPOV article. This material might as equally be housed on the company web site. I thus do not find this page to be of value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTED, there is no inherent notability, and that guideline is unambiguous in asserting that some listed companies may not be notable. No sources in the article or here suggest notability, and nothing has been offered in this discussion to change that situation.Keep The sources found by Cunard below are reliable, independent and provide some depth. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: These are some very well found sources. Impressive work. I have changed my vote as this clearly fulfills the "significant coverage" requirement in sources that are most certainly independent. The first source, which covers the activities of the company and mentions its demise, is particularly relevant. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues.
...
Luckily, slick marketing by Lexus made quiet cars all the rage in the early 1990s. Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals.
...
As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market. “Our biggest competitors are the car designers,” says Edward Vydra, Mat Sci’s recently retired chief technology officer. “If they can design cars without noise, that’s it [for us]. At the same time, they are our biggest friends.”
Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the moneylosing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as antivibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest
With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors.
Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances.
In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks.
...
Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford.
...
It's worth noting that Material Sciences is a thinly traded stock, with only 17,000 shares changing hands a day. That can make the stock volatile. Investors should exercise caution when building a position.
When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.
The book notes:
Public Company
Incorporated: 1971
Employees: 740
Sales: $266.8 million (2003)
Stock Exchanges: New York
Ticker Symbol: MSC
NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers
Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets.
Founding the Company in 1971
MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ...
The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.
International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation:
Arndorfer, James B., "Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms," Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3.
Keefe, Lisa M., "Metal Firm Is Up for Sale," Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70.
Murphy, H. Lee, "Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal," Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36.
Nelson, Brett, "Shhh!," Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84.
Savitz, Eric J., "A Fresh Shine," Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14.
Setton, Dolly, "Steel Deal," Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190.
Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., "Tripod for Growth," Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33.
Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US.
Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation.
Comment and analysis - All of the sources above have clear pricing and costs information or along with other primary-sourced content, which violates our main policy, WP:Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, see netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales, That win helped land a contract for the same part, Material Sciences has spent $1 million, Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces, MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets., . The company's products are used, they most of their sales in US. Next, the information contains clear quotes such as the company life story, the businesspeople thoughts and plans, etc. which are unacceptable for article significance. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG given it's all PR information, not for an encyclopedia. SwisterTwistertalk19:58, 23 March 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.
Non-notable (as of yet), not yet existing pre- and primary school. No substantial coverage found, and WP:CRYSTAL applies. The article's author has noted (when removing my PROD tag) that it is going to happen and it is a merger of existing schools with articles, but I still don't find that the merged school has become independently notable at this time; and, since it hasn't existed yet, there isn't much to be said about it independently of its component schools. Others may see it otherwise, but I figured I'd put it up for discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't even come close to notability based on the very few sources I could find. It seems enough to add the few sentences on the existing articles for schools that are closing. If the buildings and location are the same, to some extent this is a renaming and continuing history for Greenacre, so should the Greenacre School article be renamed (with a redirect) after the merger of the schools is complete? Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:48, 16 March 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.
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Fails NFOOTY, at least for now. He may meet that criteria eventually, in which case I'd be okay with a recreation of the article. Ultiumately, I'd really like to see NFOOTY be altered to include youth players on professional level teams that are expected to be named to the first team within an upcoming season. South Nashua (talk) 18:54, 16 March 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.
Keep Item is a television series and there are three sources in the article, not just one (please use plain English for your deletion rationales, L3X1, it isn't up to discussors to decode them). Known series airing on two national networks along with a Netflix release; WP:N is more than met. Nate•(chatter)20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the illegible rationale. Can you show how it meets NFILM? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources It hasn't, AWN and Screen Australia are like IMDB, they write about everything, and don't count as notablity sources. I also don't see it passing WP:NFOL3X1(distant write)20:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market OK, it's on 2 networks, which is called turning your head sideways and squinting, but thats my opnion which is why I AfDd this article. And on BeIN Series (MENA) you could of stated that other BeIN offshoots had been voted "Keep" on. And Shawn's right, rather than assume the nom. has forgotten the N guidelines, cite the WP you believe something slots under, rather than laying down broad statements "N is more than met". L3X1(distant write)23:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is on you to know what policies you're citing and why you'd like the article deleted before you bring a nomination. It is becoming exhausting to see noms which are malformed, vague and which require a discussor to do their own homework to decide a nomination's fate because the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE. I have other things to do and I don't have time to point out policies which you should already know when you create the nom. Also, CBBC is one of the largest children's broadcasters in the world and 7TWO broadcasts throughout Australia. WP:N is clinched with the show's over-the-air coverage. Nate•(chatter)00:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a review by The Independent. I dispute the allegation that Screen Australia is "like IMDB" or "don't count as notability sources". The article passes WP:TVSHOW with its appearance on at least one national TV network (it actually is on two such networks + netflix). The article has RS supporting the subject's notability. It also passes WP:GNG with substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rather a speedy keep per WP:SNOW. WP:TVSHOW states that: Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience. This show airs in more than three nations, the UK and Australia, as well as on Netflix for North America. Add the fact that it has been covered in multiple reliable sources, and that it was nominated for a Logie Award, I don't see any reasonable argument for this to not be kept. — Yashtalkstalk16:47, 17 March 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.
Tabloid satire student paper that gets published maybe every other month. There's an interview with the editor in a 2010 edition of the Badger Herald student paper. The only other coverage is blowback the same editor received when he appeared in an Obama ad. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:37, 15 March 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 Politics of Iran. An ill-defined term, which appears to be just a general phrase rather than a specific name for a group of people. Yes, the phrase appears in many sources but none of them give a consistent definition. A redirect to Politics of Iran is the most appropriate course of action. (non-admin closure)Exemplo347 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, reliable sources show that (1) the term 'moderate' is part of the Iranian political parlance and that (2) the term is contentious.
Regarding the WP:OR claims, that's a content issue. Nominator is advised to tag what he considers OR so that it can either be referenced or removed from the article.
Also, the argument that the term 'moderate' is a neologism does not make sense considering that it has been mentioned since 1987 as shown by the Boyd reference. That's 20 years in the making.
Keep Gnews reveals this to be a widely used term and concept. Also, the notion that it's a neologism is rather incredible to me: it's a term I've been hearing for about a generation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term is mentioned, no doubt about it, but the first sentence in the article reads "The term Iranian moderate is subjective and lacks formal definition" (and the rest of it is unsourced). The subjects is not really clear. A few years ago, the term referred to the reformers, but now it is used for another grouping. It seems to me more of a journalistic, rather than a scholarly term. Pahlevun (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the Gatestone Institute is not a news organizations and they still talk about moderates and the subjectivity of the term. [11] Furthermore, Wikipedia does not care if the term is used mostly by journalists, we only care about reliable sources. The sources provided above are considered as such. IdlePheasant (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it doesn't have to be "scholarly" - just for me the stub is so underdeveloped that it's little more than a sort of hybrid disambiguation/redirect page anyway. I won't be moving to the delete side, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I won't do so mainly because the article was created today and I think there is at least potential for growth here, and around the apparently changing concepts of Iranian moderates. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what other articles you refer to, but the term moderates has been used to describe certain factions in Iranian politics since the 1980s. There are enough references available (and provided) to expand the article. In regards to what could be discussed here: (i) the debate regarding the use of the term 'moderates' to describe a certain faction, (ii) people belonging to that faction, and (iii) how moderates have played a role in Iranian politics. IdlePheasant (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, a sub-policy of the policy you just cited, this article must be kept because "the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources." This article provides sufficient reliable sources that establish the notability of the term 'moderates' within the context of Iranian politics. Furthermore, per the policy you cited, "encyclopedia articles at Wikipedia may start out as stubs, but they are works in progress, to be expanded." This article provides enough reliable sources so that editors can expand it beyond stub status. IdlePheasant (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That might be valid if this were a well-defined topic. Instead, the article says that the term "Iranian moderate" can refer to different groups. Which one of those groups is the topic of this article? Pburka (talk) 20:32, 19 March 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 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.
Fails WP:NACTOR as all roles in TV series are insignificant (Doctor Who comes the closest, but even that was not a very large role). Lack of sources in the article, and lack of reliable sources available (on Google) also demonstrates this non-notability. QuasarGt-c19:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that he is well-known? At the moment, the acting roles listed and the sources available do not support this view. QuasarGt-c00:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's certainly got credits, but I can't find any coverage in reliable sources beyond passing mentions and cast lists. Pburka (talk) 22:29, 18 March 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.
Hard to tell if this monthly defunct student paper is notable without any sources. I was not able to locate any. Considering it only had a seven-year run, it probably isn't. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence that this newspaper has ever been widely cited or talk about outside of its limited audience. Indeed, the article itself doesn't make any such claim. By the way, the paper's run was for only four years, not seven. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:57, 16 March 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.
Delete The "National Robotics Competition" is actually "National Robotics Competition for Primary Schools" (and on top of that all participating schools appear to be Chinese-language schools). The kid is 20 years old and the "Career" section is virtually blank. Timmyshin (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, references puffed up. I removed several that attest indirectly to his (routine) ability to organize a school blood drive.104.163.144.60 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a person who has excelled in student competitions, but there is nothing inherently notable about his actions. Winning primary school robotics competitions is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 17 March 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.
A bi-weekly satire newspaper that lasted a year and a half (forty-ish issues). Only found a passing mention in Splitsider. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:27, 15 March 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 per consensus of opinion that this person's body of work doesn't meet notability criteria and that mention of her in Reliable Sources lacks significant coverage, being related only to a single event. — CactusWriter (talk)19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The bulk of the references are actually just author bios on various websites. The publisher "pedante press" appears to only publish Grey's book making them self-published and not inherently notable. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Here is the Courier Times of Roxboro, North Carolina (dunno where Grey lives and if this is local or not,) covering a new book of here [14]. Note that it is published by "PeDante Press", which appears as though it may be self-published, at least, all books listed on Amazon.com as published by PeDante are by Erika Grey [15], and "Pedante Press" doesn't google well [16].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grey's 2013 book The Empire: Bible Prophecy and the European Union is published by a vanity press, Next Century Publishing. My gNews search [17] found no mentions of this book. Nor do I find books under he name by searching the catalogue of a major library.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link in my comment above is a gNews search. It "found no mentions of this book" in any secondary sources. It did produce 1 hit, to an online bookseller. 96.59.153.17, what is needed are WP:RS that discuss & describe the book. things like book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This author has been on Coast to Coast AM, at this profile, has authored many books on Amazon.com, and has been cited by The Christian Post in this article. I did not see it, but another editor mentions that she is cited in this article in the New Yorker. (I'm jealous that I'm not as notable!) In all honesty, somewhat borderline, but she definitely makes the grade as notable enough to have an entry and not get deleted, by a small, but definite margin: she has made her mark on the world, and our obligation is to report (not make up, and not out-of-hand "delete") the news. Erika Grey is newsworthy, and thus noteworthy of an entry into an Encyclopedia on the subject on Bible prophecy as it relates to the world's geopolitical developments.96.59.153.17 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
With all due respect, E.M.Gregory (talk), I take issue with that! My IP address changes, and I will give you but one example: this diff in the Bohemian Grove article showed my IP address 96.point.something (actually 96.59.138.30, not the 96.59.153.17 which I got by the luck of the draw, today), but not this exact IP address each time, so, no, I'm not a "one purpose" editor or a WP:SPA single-purpose account as you Wikipedians call it!!96.59.153.17 (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum I noticed this news item in a paper covering "Roxboro" and "Person." Another editor wondered if this was a local paper: For what it's worth, Grey appears to be living in Connecticut, according to her Twitter account (and her own website, which at this link speaks of a Connecticut doctor who was her doctor), which is nowhere near Roxboro,_North_Carolina (a City in North Carolina) and Person_County,_North_Carolina (a County in North Carolina). Perhaps, the other editor was wondering if she only got news coverage from local papers? Apparently, she's 'big time', and the Courier Times from far-off NC felt she was newsworthy. (I'm really jealous now!!) "Keep."96.59.153.17 (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsPage views are spiking upwards (probably due to the Coast to Coast appearance), along with a cool graph of views. And here is an unofficial VfD (Votes for Deletion) vote-counter and here is misc. page information. (These are cool links we can use for any page, not just this one.) Time to take notes and bookmark pages.96.59.153.17 (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any notability criteria giving a pass to people with books sold on Amazon (half the frigging world can say that much), to those who've been guests on CoastToCoastAM, or who've been namedropped in NN publications. Where's the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as the GNG requires? What part of WP:AUTHOR does she fulfill? I don't see it. Nha TrangAllons!21:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reply OK, about the Amazon thing, heck, yeah I agree: Even I have a book on Amazon. No big deal, if that's all it were, but the author is notable for many more things, and so it is the weight of cumulative evidence. In her field, she's noteworthy.96.59.153.17 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, StAnselm (talk), but calling ALL of these in sum-total to be 'no name' publications is even worse: Sure, some are less worthy news sources than others, but the "lesser" news sources do nothing but ADD to the cake. The cake is there, and if there are some so-called 'no name publications,' they are merely icing on the cake: The cake is quite solid.96.59.153.17 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources'User:StAnselm, I did find that first source in one of my searches, CanaryCryRacio [[19]] Is self-describes as a podcast, a sort of audio blog. It didn't look like a meaningful secondary source. Was I wrong?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The billmartinezlive.com/ show [billmartinezlive.com/] hosted by Bill Martinez interviewed her. He's got 5,000 followers on twitter and 5,000 on Facebook. Is this enough?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what defense St. Anselm might give, but I will point out that after having cleaned up the article (and, as I said, above, no, I'm not a WP:SPA: I edit elsewhere, but my IP changes]]), the case for notability or newsworthiness has increased by about one order of magnitude. You can see the article page, and judge for yourself: I may not be perfect, but my edits are all made in WP:Good Faith, and, on balance, apparently helpful & accepted by others, but take a look: This one is worth saving.96.59.153.17 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A number of others have discovered numerous credible secondary sources citing the woman. I imagine more could be found, but that would require Googling and get me a headache. I'll leave it to the experts to find any more sources, if needed.47.192.27.215 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— 47.192.27.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Comment I just now noticed this: http://www.erikagrey.com/p/events-radio-tv-conferences.html her personal page lists her appearences, and while I can't verify the absolute accuracy of them, the few about which I know, on this list, are correct: She is one VERY BUSY person, and is like "Savoir-Faire," she is "everywhere!". This, of course, does not (all by itself) warrant or justify an Encyclopedia entry, but it sure doesn't hurt. Also, I would add that while she is probably only in some "professional organization" directories or "religious" encylopedias (and hinted by her copious & ubiquitous presence on their online counterparts), her possible absence in a "regular" encyclopedia (say: Brittanica as but one example) is not necessary fatal to her entry here: Times are a changing, and so we must change with them: An online encyclopedia e.g., Wikipedia is (or should be) more inclusive than one you might find in your local public library. So, based on these factors, she seems appropriate here (even if, I admit, not as 'notable' as, say, Dr. Billy Graham).(Google lookup on phrase above and related video - funny!. My 0.02 worth.96.59.160.94 (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There are about as many interpreters of Biblical eschatology as commentators. If PeDante Press really publishes nothing but her work, it is self-published (or effectively so), in which case the article should be treated as a mere ADVERT and deleted. Her two books on beating addiction are both published in the same year, which also does not inspire confidence. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you raise some good points. I did not know about this aspect of her publishing, but I did a little research and find that NOVEL RANK lists only one book as having been published by them: "The Seat of the Antichrist." However, AMAZON at this link shows a bunch of books, all by her as an author, but every single book in this list has a co-author other than Grey: "by Erika Grey and Lawrence D Palmer" are the authors for one book and "Erika Grey and Lia Frederick" for the rest. The very fact that Amazon lists more then NovelRank suggests to me that these rankers are not exactly comprehensive. (But I would not imagine much would get past Amazon.com. Her authorship, if it were the only thing, might be suspect if she was self-published and didn't sell a lot. But many others think she is an expert, so the book issue is icing on the cake, and not the cake itself. Now, http://www.erikagrey.com/p/events-radio-tv-conferences.html lists her schedule. As I said before, I can not vouch for the accuracy of her list, but in several cases, I did some checking, and all the entries I checked were actual cases where she was a guest. The fact that she is a guest on a regular basis (and not as a "one-time" thing), indicates that many others objectively consider her some sort of expert. Myself, as smart as I am, still, by contrast, I'm very lucky to get ONE letter to the editor, or in rare occasion, a guest column, published. And, I have never been a guest on any program, at least in recent memory. I am lucky to call in, and this is in spite of my brilliance, the fact I've written a book, and also accomplished some very impressive things in the legal field, which was not the degree with which I graduated from college. (It was in other than law; I studied hard biosciences.) So, you see, unless you can put together such a solid record of being cited in tap-ranked journals, or put on numerous shows on a regular basis, then I would not stand on equal ground: whether her views are correct or not is not actionable (tho she does seem mostly accurate, at the least). That many others, objectively, think so, when she makes the TV, talk show, or radio show tour on a regular basis [20], and/or gets cited by credible reliable sources is a valid metric. That she has also books is merely additional, not substantive. (But, ten or so books is still impressive; and I would faint under such a heavy TV talk/radio show, and schedule for conferences, unless I devoted myself singly to that: The sheer volume of her TV/radio/conference appearances indicates that she is no small-potatoes expert, in the objective eyes of numerous news media/conferences/etc. So I scanned a few of her appearances, as I said earlier, and verified as accurate at least those few I checked: I might be stronger, faster, and smarter than Grey in a head-to-head battle, but in her specialty, she is much better than me. Here is evidence (even if not proof) of her notability on this head: others (who invite her HERE on a regular basis think so). This implies notability.96.59.183.125 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)— 96.59.183.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
KEEPI have been one of the early contributors of this article and I believe numerous other people accept her as notable as she is regularly invited on radio talk shows and is listed in a key Evangelical Christian directory in her genre.32.208.50.163 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)— 32.208.50.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While there is disagreement here, I would point out two things: First, notability is inherent in the WP:RS, not our views of them or the subject of the article. Secondly, a good number of comments, on both sides of the issue, have been discussed on this discussion page (and elsewhere, when you include the talk page, Talk:Erika_Grey, individual talk pages, and even in edit comments. One overlooked point was the lack of comparability between a "physical" encyclopedia, with its inherent limitations on space, and an electronic, or online, encyclopedia. I won't reinvent the wheel, but rather refer to the already-robust discussion above, as required reading material for anyone before they aspire to vote. Also, I do find it odd that nothing has been done, even though it has been slightly over a week since the last or most-recent relisting on the 15th.96.59.177.243 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)— 96.59.177.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete — fails WP:AUTHOR. Coverage in sources is mostly either trivial, incidental, or one-event. Body of work is obviously self-published and not critically cited. Similarly fails WP:GNG due to lack of extensive, significant coverage. Pretty much at best, as far as attempting to establish expertise, we would have [21], which is solely due to a single appearance (Coast to Coast AM, a show that basically also gives random appearances to the Ancient Aliens/tinfoil-hat/pseudoscience crowd) and is probably de facto a self-published media-release biography. She's admittedly covered in exactly 3 news articles ([22][23] and [24]) that all popped up at the same time (inauguration), which even more seems to reflect the coverage as, at best, WP:BIO1E (i.e., "you'll never guess what some people are saying about Trump!"). --slakr\ talk /07:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly as per Slakr. She's a self-published author who isn't truly recognized as an expert in her field, and who has attracted limited attention from non-notable media appearances. The limited coverage in reliable sources appears to have been around the time of the inauguration and has not continued. Mackensen(talk)11:26, 24 March 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.
Speedy Keep - Per WP:MUSIC section 2 and 11, 12 she has had a chart listed song on the main Swedish chart.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: BabbaQ (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete - All I can find in terms of charting songs is one song which featured her (Mirakel), and which spent one week at number 19 at Sverigetopplistan in 2012. However, she is not credited as the main artist at sverigetopplistan.se , it only says "feat. Sara". She does not appear to have had any solo releases at all, judging by the information at her own website. She was also a member of a band which had several charting songs, but not while she was a member of the band, so that does not factor into her notability. --bonadeacontributionstalk19:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean WP:MUSICBIO point 12, "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."? The article does not mention this at all, nor did I find anything about it when I was looking for sources. Could you please provide some details about when that "broadcast segment" (weird term IMO) took place, and through which medium? --bonadeacontributionstalk12:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You simply ignore to give proof of how she fails several sections of WP:MUSIC which has been raised as proof that she is notable. Her participation in Melodifestivalen and her finslist status alone makes her notable per WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see the discussion above, that's the song that was briefly at no 19 of the Sverigetopplistan. She does not seem to have been the main artist, though - it says "Feat." and to me that seems like a deal breaker. --bonadeacontributionstalk19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That she has a featuring status is irrelevant. Especially since she participated in the Melodifestivalen with the song as co-singer of the track.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Melodifestivalen is not a claim to notability - the song which featured her finished in 10th place per this source. I have posted to the NMUSIC talk page to ask about "featuring" - I would like to know what the general consensus is. --bonadeacontributionstalk20:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is placed 10th is also irrelevant concerning notability or not. It reached the final in a major TV production and was one of the top 10 songs. And per section point 12 of the WP:MUSIC consensus standard for inclusion she is relevant. Per 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.. And when I came to think about it she also passes criteria 1. as well. BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Melodifestivalen is a contest, not a television feature or documentary (fails criterion 12), and so her participation there certainly doesn't mean she meets WP:MUSICBIO - criterion 9 is quite clear on this, only the winner, runner-up, and third place count, even if we ignore the fact that she is not credited as a main artist for the song. As for criterion 1 - really? How is that? There is one source in the article that is about her, and that's an interview - where are the multiple published sources about her, as opposed to sources briefly mentioning her name while discussing the main artist? Because those are the only sources I can find, trivial mentions of her at best. I would not be opposed to redirecting the article to the article about the band she was in, though. --bonadeacontributionstalk07:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sheelah Per WP:MUSICBIONote that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band,. The charting songs are part of the band. The only other song which is relevant was the one in which the subject was a featured artists. I do not see any proof to show notability independent of the band. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote does not mention above tslked about sections of WP:MUSIC which she does passes. You say you dont see proof, but you give no proof that she fails the threshold.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sheelah since she was a member of this group from 2009 to 2010. She does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or the more general WP:BIO. It's possible there are more sources out there that I did not find (I don't read Swedish) but there is nothing in the article to justify keeping this bio. Meters (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Give an explaination for this !vote otherwise it becomes irrelevant. How is she not notable, per which sections of which guidelines?--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers section 2, 11 and 12 of WP:MUSIC it is a fact. A song she was part of charted, and she participated and reached the final of Melodifestivalen which is a major singing competition event broadcast on Swedens main channel SVT. The article is sourced with good sources. The !votes above are basic WP:IDONTLIKEIT per the fact that they dont mention the fact that she covers WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC per above mentioned sections. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Despite BabbaQ's claims, this is not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. This is a case of an article not showing the notability of its subject, and of the subject possibly not being notable. bonadea showed that the subject does not meet MUSIC criterion 2 and you appeared to accept that. Criterion 12 has also been discussed. I agree that simply being a 10th place contestant on a music show does not meet the standard of being "a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment". As for criterion 11, there is no claim in the article that she "has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". Please provide sources showing this if this is the case. As for criterion 1, again, there is no claim or evidence in the article that she has been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". If there is such coverage please provide the sources. I've looked without finding such sources, but as I said, I don't read Swedish, so I may have missed them. Most of English Wikipedia editors likely have the same problem. Meters (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Sorry my !vote isn't clear. The reason I gave duality is J 1982's keep argument is good yet looks a slightly flimsy to me, and Meter and Lemongirl's votes aren't convincing enough to make me vote Redirect. Her being "feat." is of less interest to me then the song only getting to 19, but I suppose 19 is better than not at all. Now I'm leaning more towards redirect. L3X1(distant write)12:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote. It's a consensus based on "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." The policy based arguments, in my opinion, don't support keeping this as an article. The AFD has been open for almost 3 weeks, and no new sources have been added to the article to help establish notability. For that matter, there have been no content additions to this article since the day it was created almost 4 years ago. If she's notable let's see the evidence, because I can't find it. Meters (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than aware. If a consensus exists, it is keep. That was all I was stating. And consensus is based off the merits of the arguments, if we're going to keep quoting WP at each other. L3X1(distant write)23:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aware, then don't don't bother posting a count. It just makes inexperienced editors think this is a vote. The closing admin will evaluate the arguments. Meters (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why this attitude. This is an Keep worthy article and user L3X1 agrees with me and other editors of that. No need to be pointy and having an attitude about it. As you state, the closing admin will consider reasons given. So why be pointy about someone elses reasonings. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But while we are at it. There is no consensus for deletion, or redirect. Then Keep for new re-evaluation in the future is the way it should closed. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant per WP;OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We dont base !votes on previous and other AfDs. You give no explaination for your !vote either.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Users are entitled to !v without you jumping down their throats every sentence. Please just let the process evolve organically: you will change neither the editor's opinion not the closing admin's decision, so way to waste your time :) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.15:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see "this behaviour all the time. It is called making an argument, you would have never made this "tantrum" comment if I had shared your opinion on this article. If you are so sure about it getting deleted or having no impact than why respond. I think your biggest concern is that I do not share your opinion :)BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BabbaQ asked me User_talk:Meters#Sara_Li to review the new material [25] added to the article. The birth of her daughter is not notable. The 10th place finish at Melodifestivalen 2012 has already been analysed above by User:Bonadea and does not show notability. The appearance on Så ska det låta doesn't show notability in my opinion. It's just a guest appearance in one episode of a musical game show show that has been running for 22 seasons. I don't object to adding this material to the article, but none of it shows notability. Meters (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you basically ignore the sources. POV does not trump Wikipedia guidelines. Sara Li covers several sections of WP:MUSIC above. I understand your position but no one still has given me anything else than POV. Or a drive-by !vote of redirect without any further commenting. I just find it a bit odd overall. BabbaQ (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is this POV? I didn't ignore the sources. You asked me to look at the new material and I did. The sources are fine (well, the Så ska det låta source is a bit weak). They just don't contribute to showing Li's notability. She had a daughter. So what? Nothing wrong with mentioning it in the article, but it does not make her notable. Adding a sourced mention that she finished 10th in the Melodifestivalen 2012 contest rather than just participating is an improvement to the article, but again, it does not show her notability. As I said, Bonadea has looked at this and shown that it is not sufficient for notability. And, as I also said, I don't think one guest appearance on a long-running musical game show show is sufficient for notability either. Nothing wrong with mentioning it in the article, but it does not help show notability. The show may be notable but simply appearing on it does not make musicians notable. Meters (talk) 20:52, 22 March 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.
Assuming the issue here is notability, then I don't think there is any debate. The 4-Hour Body (the book that launched the diet) was in the NYT bestseller list for three weeks and was in Amazon's top five for two months. The diet has also spawned a slew of websites and blogs. A more interesting question is whether the diet as such deserves a whole article, or whether it should be moved to The_4-Hour_Body or Low-glycemic_diet.Pengliujian (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Websites and blogs?! We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - so we'd be looking for coverage in nutrition text books, secondary works in journal articles, etc. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below about journal articles - journals tend to use the term "low glycemix index" rather than "slow carb", though the two are used interchangeably, which is another reason why I have suggested moving this to Low-glycemic_diet. For non-academic sources (which are relevant here, since we are discussing a popular diet, not a trend in nutritional science) there are plenty of popular books advocating/explaining the diet, providing recipes etc. I don't have the time to investigate them or the money to buy them, though. Please remember that I am not the original author of this page; I just cleaned it up and added some missing information (the sections on Scientific Support, Criticisms and Variations). Pengliujian (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis is prohibited by policy. If sources don't state or imply things specifically about the "Slow Carb Diet" you cannot take it upon yourself to do so on Wikipedia's behalf, and make a WP:COATRACK. This is fairly basic stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I was talking about. I am saying that this article should form a section in Low-glycemic_diet because (a) the slow-carb diet is a type of low GI diet; (b) the literature uses the terms "slow carb" and "low GI" interchangeably. Generally speaking, scientific/medical journals say "low glycemic index carbohydrates" and more popular sources say "slow carb", but I've seen both terms appear as key words in the same journal article. If you put sources which refer to "low GI" in the slow-carb article, then it would indeed look like synthesis to anyone who wasn't familiar with the topic. (You also have potential confusion between "a slow-carb diet", which refers to any low GI diet, and "the slow-carb diet", which generally refers to Ferriss's version of it. Again this would be cleared up by making this a section inLow-glycemic_diet.) Pengliujian (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete entirely promotional and sourced almost entirely from the book in which the diet is proposed; would need to be completely rewritten to be a WP article, and there are insufficient independent, reliable, secondary sources with which to do that - this fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the need for secondary sources. The problem is, as I state in the article, that there are no controlled studies of the Slow-Carb diet, and I don't want to include low-quality sources. There's a ton of anecdotal stuff, but I don't think that is worth including. What I can do is cite some of the sources that Ferriss himself cites, but that will take some time. Pengliujian (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, doing that in WP would be WP:SYN. Ferriss can do that; you cannot as a WP editor. We summarize secondary sources here - to meet WP:Golden rule there needs to multiple, independent sources with substantial discussion of the diet. Where are they? If you cannot find them either, please stop arguing. Thx Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I take the point, but I don't think it would be WP:SYN if it's stated along the lines of "Ferriss cites X to support Y." OTOH, it would not then constitute an independent source, which is why I didn't originally do this and just stated "Although The 4-Hour Body contains copious references to the scientific/medical literature, no controlled, peer-reviewed study of the slow-carb diet as such exists to date." As I said, I can provide hundreds of sources from blogs, diet magazines etc., but I was trying to restrict myself to scientific literature and publications with a very wide circulation like WebMD. (I also found Fox News, but didn't want to discredit the article ;-))The point is that the article is not making any claims about the efficacy of the diet (nor should it), but simply describes it, so there is no need for sources outside the original author, except in the sections "Scientific Support" and "Criticisms". (In fact, I replaced some secondary sources with references to the primary sources, since in that case, the latter are more authoritative). Anyway, I've found a few more usable sources (e.g., Mayo Clinic) and will add later today. Pengliujian (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would this condemnation of the article have anything to do with my recent comments in Talk:Emotional_Freedom_Techniques by any chance? I'm sure you wouldn't stoop so low as to try to have someone's contributions deleted because they disagreed with you on a talk page. Pengliujian (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor makes problematic edits on one fringe topic, it's natural to check if there is a wider problematic pattern - this led me to this (problem) article. As it happens, I edit on fad diet topics a lot. Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Merge Since the slow-carb diet is a type of low GI diet, it might be better to condense and move this to Low-glycemic_diet, except for the parts which deal with the reception of the book, which should go to The 4-Hour Body, and some parts which can be safely lost (e.g., the recipes section). The dearth of high-quality secondary sources referred to above is largely because any serious assessment of this type of diet uses the term "low GI" rather than "Slow Carb". Pengliujian (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this above, and you didn't answer. To have any content about this in WP, much less a whole article, we need independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss it. As the WP page of the author of this diet notes, the guy is a relentless self-promoter. So I ask you again - please provide three such sources about this diet. High quality, independent, secondary sources. What are they? Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even here you are promoting this by calling it a "popular diet" and I ask you a direct question and you offer me sloppy garbage about the general concept instead of this particular diet. I am done asking for independent, reliable sources about this diet - there clearly are none and you clearly can produce none. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this deletion discussion, btw. (pls read WP:BLUDGEON if you have never have) Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is now impossible to improve the page because Alexbrn is reverting changes. I have tried to address the criticisms that it is promotional by only focusing on Ferriss's diet; however, any attempt to include information on slow carb diets in general (i.e., other than Ferriss's) are reverted. Pengliujian (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually trying to be helpful by responding to your pointing out (on the talk page) the fact that the cheat day is not a part of all low GI diets. The disruption is all on your part. You have scheduled an article for deletion then sabotage any attempt to improve it. Pengliujian (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have policies like WP:NOR and WP:V which are not optional. Adding dubious material in contravention of them does not improve the article, it makes it even worse. Alexbrn (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was you that pointed out that a cheat day was not part of most low GI diets: "Are you seriously proposing that when researchers write about low GI diets, they have in mind that the subject is interchangeable with a trademarked fad diet with its gimmicky cheat days &c. ?!" This is not OR; it is disambiguation, since otherwise the reader might not realise that a cheat day is - as you say - peculiar to this particular diet (the idea seems to be borrowed from cyclic ketogenic diets, but that's another story). Still, I'm done with trying to be helpful, since you are determined to have the article deleted come what may. Pengliujian (talk) 10:46, 17 March 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.
Sources of questionable reliability do not appear to demonstrate notability. Created at this incorrect title apparently due to page protection at both Birol Guven and Birol Güven, both salted due to incessant socking. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:22, 15 March 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.
Student newspaper that serves three thousand undergrads. Couldn't find anything to indicate notability. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an appropriate new section in University of South Carolina Aiken. Generally speaking, some content about a university's newspaper is appropriately included somewhere in our coverage of the university. In addition to the primary-source paper and school websites, at least a few other sources are available to verify the content here, such as [26][27] Without more, these sources are not enough to warrant a separate article, but it's relevant content about the university, and better merged than deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:53, 15 March 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.
Seems to fail on all known notability grounds. This is really an engineering concept and as far as I know we don't have any notability guidelines for proposed systems like this, so I think the only thing we can go by is WP:GNG. I don't really see it passing any of those criteria as it seems that only associated people and flash-in-the-pan news-sources have covered this particular idea of William E. Smith (himself not notable, I believe). jps (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not seeing a lot of RS, and seems all a bit Crystal bally to me.14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete Fred Hoyle and his panspermia theories are highly notable. This isn't so much INHERITED as tagging weakly onto its coat tails. If this very large project is real, then it has to demonstrate notability for itself. I'm unconvinced that it can achieve either. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with reasons stated by others. Dismally small number of hits in google for this. It's an interesting idea, but it's WP:TOOSOON for this article without some markedly better sources. --Krelnik (talk) 15:03, 15 March 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.
Delete. None of the references in the article suggest that the subject of this article meets notability guidelines. The references are primarily about other subjects, such as Bakare's employer, making only passing mentions to Bakare himself. Deli nk (talk) 19:43, 21 March 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 duo exists, they do good work. They are not notable. Current sourcing consists of mere mentions, non-RS (Genius & Twitter), and a press release. Searches turned up a few mentions, but no in-depth coverage of the duo. Onel5969TT me11:37, 15 March 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.
Delete (possible CSD A7): An article on a start-up firm, sourced only to a business listing. My searches are finding nothing better. (Note that there is also a similarly named company in Brazil [28] and others in South Africa, India, etc.) Regarding this one, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:37, 15 March 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.
His death had some news coverage, but fails WP:BIO1E. Being Moderator of the Free Church does not confer notability: it is a rotating leadership position in a relatively small (13,000 people) denomination. StAnselm (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (declaration of interest - I created the article). The subject's death has been covered widely in numerous media. He was a published author with at least 12 books to his name. An obituary said "Iain was a well-known figure in Evangelical circles throughout Britain, and beyond, and tributes have already come in from the USA and elsewhere". The Daily Telegraph described him as a "well-respected minister who was known as a talented preacher and accomplished theologian". It is clear that he was influential beyond his own small denomination. The circumstance of his death were unusual and notable. I submit that all these reasons combine to meet WP:GNG. SmilingFace (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The adjectives used - well-respected, talented, accomplished - are all ones that fall short of notability. If he wasn't notable before his death, WP:BIO1E suggests he shouldn't have an article now. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I have now located 17 books he authored, two he was joint editor of, and 1 he contributed to. Also...
He could have adorned pulpits in the largest cities in the world or become a professor in an American seminary, but he valued the community which nourished and nurtured him, and he shared their values (Geoff Thomas (pastor))
Iain D. Campbell was a brilliant communicator, in constant demand as a lecturer and conference-speaker... But he was also a master of the written word, as his many publications show (Donald Macleod (theologian))
He was a gifted Reformed theologian who longed to see it taught faithfully, warmly, imaginatively and clearly. (Dr. Malcolm Maclean, chair of the board of Edinburgh Theological Seminary)
Iain D was a rare gift – a brilliant communicator, an academic, a master of the written word and a pastor...It is hard to over-estimate the colossal impact of Iain D. Campbell’s ministry both locally, nationally and internationally (Gavin Mackemzie, Christian Focus Publications)
Dr Campbell was understandably in demand as a conference speaker throughout the country and overseas. He was due to go to Korea later this month to deliver lectures at a Theological Seminary in Seoul. In addition to his powers of speech he also possessed admirable writing skills...His writings are marked by rigorous research, clarity, faithfulness to Scripture, humility, purpose and an obvious concern to honour and exalt the God who had so wonderfully gifted him as a communicator of the gospel (Rev James Maciver, minister of Stornoway Free Church)
I quoted all that because point 1 of WP:AUTHOR says The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The subject's peers clearly regard him as an important figure and hence this criteria is met. Combine that with the unusual circumstances of his death, his body of work, and I submit that, whether or not he was notable before his death, he is notable now. SmilingFace (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- (1) Author of a significant body of books (2) as Moderator of a significant denomination he was in a position similar to a bishop. While that office is for a shorter term and less prominent, it probably still makes him WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know the person, and have not verified if I am correct, but it's not impossible that if notable, it be because of the extra-marital affair and suicide, if it made the papers. PaleoNeonate (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Addressing the nominators point that "Being Moderator of the Free Church does not confer notability: it is a rotating leadership position in a relatively small (13,000 people) denomination." First, are we sure that being FCofS moderator does not confer notability? By means of comparison, the four year rotating leadership position of an organization of 14,000 people seems to convey notability on its incumbents. Granted it is not quite the same - four years not one but the organizational sizes are similar. Secondly, is the denomination really that small? It could be argued that while it is small by historical standards, it is currently the fourth largest denomination in Scotland, easily has many more people in its churches on a Sunday than the majority of denominations in the UK (some of which really are small) and, in parts of the highlands and islands, it is the majority religious organization. In general, if there are multiple reliable sources for moderators such that there is enough material for biographical articles of decent length then I fail to see why we could not create them. There seems to be easily enough for an article in this case and all of that is without considering the subject's volume of published works or professorial chair. Greenshed (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to take a view on whether every moderator of the Free Church of Scotland is notable. But for the subject of this article, I believe the combination of factors (former moderator, body of work, wider roles, manner of death) is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. SmilingFace (talk) 09:18, 21 March 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.
Keep. This is tricky. It's a poor article with many style and grammar errors - and I'm confused as to why MC Alger football team has a judo team, but then it seems to have a volleyball team too - but it was brought here not for that, but for notability. If the subject really was in the national team for 7 years, it is likely that he "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" (WP:SPORTBASIC. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be no record of him competing at a major event, even as a junior (which is generally considered insufficient to show notability), so WP:NSPORT and WP:MANOTE are not met. There also seems to be a lack of significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:05, 20 March 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.
Problems with existing references:
1.) This is a YouTube channel
2.) This is an Instagram page. It appears to show something like a newspaper article about the song "Slow", but I can't figure out what the newspaper is supposed to be nor anything else about the article's publication except the date (November 2014). Without knowing what the newspaper's name is, we can't know what its distribution is like, and so we can't assess its value to for establishing a notability claim
3.) This does not link to an article— it appears to be a Dutch music listing of some kind
4.) This ref comes from Cd Baby, which is not an independent source
5.) A verified Facebook page is not evidence of notability
A Google search on people likely to be him turns up listings at Soundcloud, the CD Baby music store, Skempi, and his Twitter account, but no substantive coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. KDS4444 (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG other than the aforementioned Instagram of a 4-paragraph article in a local newspaper. All other sources are social media, database listings, passing mentions, etc. The "new resource" referred to by the article creator above is to a blog by a bassist who played on one of the artice subject's singles. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)22:33, 22 March 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 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 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.
Fails WP:GNG. Outside of the promotional tone, I could not locate any significant, in-depth coverage of subject to establish notability. The closest I found was this from The Globe and Mail which reads more like a testimonial about the company [32]. CNMall41 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found another in depth recent article a journalist did on Nandini. Do you suggest adding in the Globe and Mail one to the wiki page too? Link
Therobmilne (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2017 (EST)
Noticed single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Therobmilne also created a badly styled article promoting her company's file format: Trusted Encrypted File (TEF) which is also up for deletion. I would say the person has a slightly better argument for notability, but this is clearly a vanity piece. W Nowicki (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Fails WP:BIO. 1 article in the G&M is not significant coverage, nor establishes any enduring legacy or impact. -- P 1 9 9✉15:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fairness to the article's creator, I do think that the newly-added CPA Canada article strengthens the "keep" argument a little bit, but not enough. Essentially all we have here is a businessperson who started a company. I'm not seeing any claim to significance that goes beyond that. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:14, 15 March 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.
Although the artist himself (Ray Lynch) is a notable artist, the sheet music by the artist does not show any notability. Also, the original article creator seems to have a connection to the artist in question. Yoshiman6464♫🥚03:40, 28 February 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.
Delete. As RA0808 points out, there is a mention in a local newspaper of him playing former World Champion Viswanathan Anand in the Super Rapidplay Open section at the 2014 London Chess Classic (also confirmed in a passing mention in the Daily Telegraph). But that is not enough to meet WP:GNG and merely playing a Grandmaster in a speed format of the game does not make one notable. To put his playing strength into perspective, his FIDE rating of 1744 puts him 2906th in the world for Under-18s. The article calls him an "Under 16 European Chess Champion," but the only source is his own school's website and I have not been able to verify what exactly this tournament is and if it was notable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 16 March 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.
Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, significant support. "References" are mostly unrelated to individual or are minor in nature. Advertising page created by related party. reddogsix (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any real claim to significance here. What I am seeing is an article that has been padded with lengthy digressions into the histories and backgrounds of people and organizations that had any connection to the subject. When you disregard those digressions, there really isn't very much being said about the subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:53, 15 March 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 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.
Strong Keep Hey Piotr, thanks for raising your concerns! Firstly, let me say that I made this article, and think that Anna is notable, as she is a young immigrant woman being covered by media in the UK business arena, that has been traditionally dominated by men. Which is a really notable feat, especially in the present Brexit climate! I have now added three more sources to this article, where Anna was featured. Including the British newspaper Metro, which with a circulation of 1,476,956 is the third most circulated paper in the United Kingdom, this is where I first read about Anna in the print version, when she had a double page spread. I have also added a reference to Bdaily a UK based local business news source, and I would not pass judgement that newer companies such as Real Business or Belle Magazine are not reliable straight away, especially in context to the current revelations about lack of authenticity in the traditional news media. I have also added an international news source from Poland WP Kobieta (Woman). WP is the sixth largest Polish web portal, and had an Alexa rank of 453 in December 2016. Also the sources that "mention her in passing" are in fact about her app, which is what she founded and is notable for, so in the given context they are appropriate in reference to her notability too. JuneKennedy (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the editor does have a point, that being simply listed on Forbes alone may not be enough for notability, I think there maybe some confusion here about the Forbes sources. Forbes is referenced twice: one time as a list, but there is a second reference to another Forbes page, which is an article on her. Also her being on that Forbes list, is covered in other sources too. Taking all sources into consideration here, I would say she is notable. ()20:34, 16 March 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.
Comment. I would support a merge, but I wonder why this needed to come to AfD - merges should be proposed on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Always check the non-English versions folks. The Dutch article, while it has crap for sources, does appear (through crap machine translation) to list him making national charts per WP:NBAND. A Google news search shows about 300 sources, although basically none of them are in English, so it's hard to comment on their reliability or depth. But still, it's enough for me to slap on an expand Dutch tag and move on. TimothyJosephWood16:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two big hits with Alice Deejay, two lesser hits in the Netherlands credited to him alone. Good coverage isn't really jumping out at me from a GNews search - a lot of false positives for other DJs named Jurgen. Arguably satisfies WP:NMUSIC on his own, but as it stands, even if the en version were to be expanded from the nl version, it can all be easily covered in the Alice Deejay article. Definitely not a good deletion candidate either way. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 8 March 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.
I came across this article via the related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KillTeaser. The article looked to have problems with notability and a search for sources brought up little to establish notability other than performing at some anime conventions and local events. They exist as a band, but that by itself doesn't give notability and there just isn't any coverage for them that would justify inclusion. They look to be a fairly obscure niche group and while they seem pretty awesome (they play in a lot of genres that I happen to like), the coverage just isn't there. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)08:01, 15 March 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 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 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.
Was deprodded without rationale. While a worthwhile organization, no indication it meets notability criteria. Unfortunately, searches are difficult due to the commonality of the name. Onel5969TT me18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page has useful information regarding sensitive issue. Many references to external verfiable sources like Times of India Tusharkumar101 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles in The Economic Times (link 1 and link 2) do not provide significant coverage of the subject. The Wikipedia article says "OFFER" stands for "Organization for Friends, Energy and Resources". I searched for "Organisation for Friends, Energy and Resources" and "Organization for Friends, Energy and Resources" but did not find significant coverage about the subject. I did not find significant coverage when I searched for the NGO's name and the founder, Kallol Ghosh. The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
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.
Delete not enough evidence of notability. Founder Marc Gustafson mentioned on the Reach the World page hyperlinks to the Reach the World page. Going to need some secondary notable sources.Sgerbic (talk) 04:13, 8 March 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.
Lots of WP:ROUTINE sources, but nothing that seems to meet WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league or for long enough (90 games req. for AHL goalies), no major awards (2nd-team All Star in a Major Junior is highest), and no senior national team appearances (junior level only at U17 tournament). Yosemiter (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Backup goaltender in the mid-minors, superficially heavily honored, but nothing in fact that meets any notability criteria, whether that of NHOCKEY or anything else. Ravenswing 08:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was about to vote delete for not satisfying NHOCKEY (even though I would not regard 2nd team all-star as superficial or minor it does not satsify NHOCKEY) and I wasn't originally finding much coverage. But then I found some articles: [33], [34], [35] and [36]. And I found this, which while not great coverage on Anderson himself states that he holds (or held) a significant OHL record. So I think he makes the bar. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlendog: If anyone wants to vet those sources as non-routine coverage (the THW one seems the most "secondary," at least here as it is not a local-ish paper like the others you listed) I would be fine with retracting my nomination. I also address my concerns on his "most OHL wins" record below and why I find it questionable to grant notability based on that. Yosemiter (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yosemiter: Local coverage is not inherently precluded from being significant or secondary coverage, but in any case I would not regard the Toronto Star as local coverage given its wide reach, even if they were covering a player in a nearby city. That is hardly a local newsletter doing a "local boy makes good" story. My point about most OHL wins was a little more subtle than suggesting that it makes him notable. It was more that I am treating that story as an element of significant coverage of Anderson even though it does not deal with him directly in detail, because it is coverage of an achievement that has some significance. And while I agree that setting a record for games or wins is not the personal goal of a typical OHL player, achieving such a record still elevates him in a manner that is different from the many OHL players who stayed in the OHL longer than they may have wanted without setting a record for it, and gives him some significance within the context of the history of the OHL itself. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He does indeed hold the all-time OHL record for wins. I am not sure how much of an honour it is though, it seems rather difficult to assess whether this distinction is particularly notable itself.18abruce (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@18abruce: I saw that and questioned it myself. But then I saw he also has played the most OHL games of all goaltenders (Is that an accomplishment in a Major Junior league where the goal is to move on to the pro leagues?) and is seventh most in losses. At best, it seemed that he was an above average goalie with longevity. Currently, the NHOCKEY criteria for the Major Juniors is First team and top ten scorers. I am not sure if there would be goalie equivalent, but it could be either wins or save percentage. Yosemiter (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the list of the other goalies that he passed to be number 1, they are not exactly distinguished. I think it is more relevant whether he meets GNG or not.18abruce (talk) 21:44, 14 March 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.
Keep he has been frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music including URB, Rap REviews, HipHopDX, 2DopeBoyz, to pass WP:MUSICBIO. He has won a notable DJ competition, his album Reality Kings and Reason was critically reviewed from an independent source. He was also involved in the production of Malt Disney EP which HipHopDX positively reviewed. He also passes GNG as he has been the subject of independent reliable sources. --PabloTheMenace (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: PabloTheMenace (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Are you able to provide a link to any biographical reviews in notable secondary sources? The link above is an amateur review posted to a non-notable website. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MUSICBIO states that "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". He has won a notable DJ competition, he has been the subject of independent secondary sources and he has released and produced records under a notable indie label. 13:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)PabloTheMenace (talk)
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.
Delete Lots of OR text ("page sizes are typically..."???) that form a definition rather than an article on something notable.104.163.140.193 (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - Of the four sources included in the article, only one of them is about the subject. The other three are a dictionary definition (which is, of course, never useful for establishing notability, and nothing but a definition of the word "journal"), and two links about coloring books, neither of which mention the concept of coloring diaries. That leaves only the singular source, which is not enough to establish notability. Looking for more sources, you will find a number of hits for the term "coloring diary", but all of them that I can see are just product pages, with nothing talking about the concept at all. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 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.
Redirect to Doc Schoko; Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. The target article is also at AfD, so if it gets deleted, then delete this one too. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 9 March 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.
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER as a not notable reality television personality. Appearing as a contestant on The Bachelor and then as a contestant on a second reality show does not meet the notability requirements of ENTERTAINER, as neither role was "significant". Also fails WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO. Was previously PRODed by another user citing WP:BIO1E. -- Whats new?(talk)22:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete she got a recent spike in media coverage due to appearing on a reality show but there is no evidence of ongoing non routine coverage that would make WP:BIO. she really hasn't actually achieved anything in the entertainment world like have a significant acting or hosting role. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 19 March 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 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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Only the two refs from EETimes seem non-primary (design-reuse.com doesn't seem very reliable - "Suppliers, list your IPs for free." - seems like they would reprint anything either for free or for a fee, no indication of editorial control). For the EETimes article, one focuses on a "fledgling DSP design house ZSP Corp.", and the remaining one seems "busienss as usual" -
"Chinese ASIC design house acquires LSI Logic's DSP unit", and doesn't seem sufficient to establish notability for the topic. At best, a summary of the referenced parts of the article could be merged to VeriSilicon. On that note, there is also the clear WP:COI/WP:CORPSPAM issue to consider - this was created by WP:SPA User:VeriSilicon... PS. If this is deleted, please restore as the original redirect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into VeriSilicon. Everything except the history section is just describing the products in promotional terms. Alas, the parent company article is in even worse shape, written in marketing-speak. I am in a related industry, but have no idea what the heck SiPaaS means. Nothing to do with "platforms" nor "solutions" for sure. The parent company (up for proposed delete) might be notable, but maybe not worth saving the current article since one would need to start from scratch anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J94707:55, 15 March 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 first derby match will not be played until July 19, 2017. There is no indication that the name will be JenkinsEar2K. Currently no support for that title can be found anywhere. This is both WP:TOOSOON and WP:OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walter can you give me some time? This article was created in anticipation of what will begin in a matter of months. I'm still locating all the sources. How much time do I have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolyfett (talk • contribs) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally a few days while editors look for sources to verify if the event is notable or not. The main issue is that there are no sources for the name itself. There may actually be a derby (or rivalry cup) here, but there's not enough to support that now. A similar thing happened with the Hudson River Derby. Fans created the page. It was deleted. Matches were played and it became notable. It moved around but it was eventually populated and all objection to its existence was silenced. Check the AfD and the edit history on the page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Walter thank you for the understanding of the process. I'm in contact with several fans of both soccer clubs and I was trying to assist in getting the article created prior to the actual matches in July. I've edited articles before, but never have I created one from scratch like this one. I'll save the article template since it took so long to create, then I will attempt to post again if the current article eventually gets deleted. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolyfett (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Draftify for the time being. This might be notable in the future, and the creator needs more time on it anyway. Not ready for the prime time. No such user (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally with this rivalries a first name is proposed, but then the fanbases of the teams find something else completely. By July 2017 something else might be proposed, and it could be something else in 2020. Or by the time the match is whistled both teams are in the division cellar and this is airing only to diehards on Sun Sports so it won't matter what the name is. Make sure a rivalry is relevant before creating an article, lest we end up with embarrassments like the Civil ConFLiCT. Nate•(chatter)20:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a notable topic, but until somebody actually wants to write an article about it, there's little point in keeping this almost empty shell in main space. The two first "keep" opinions make little sense and are disregarded. The article can be userfied or draftified or whatever the current fashion for such things may be. Sandstein 14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three months have passed since the previous AfD concluded that article should be kept and expanded, but it's still mostly empty, which is stunning for such a prominent public figure. Suggest to draftify the article until there is actual substance. — JFGtalk09:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect, or Userfy. The existence of this paltry, completely ineffectual and non-substantive double-talk 90-word article, with two (count 'em) citations, is an embarrassment. It needs to be quickly removed from article space. Softlavender (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I supported keeping this the first time around, but seeing as no one's worked on it since, I'm neutral now. I'll go with whatever the consensus is. Ethanbas(talk)02:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – There is room for improvement, but the dynamics of the first 1—0—0 days have been breath-taking. Improvements will come about with time and tagging. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion's transclusion to the log was deliberatelyaccidentally sabotaged, and it did not appear properly during the past week. Therefore, this relist is not to be counted as a relist. There may be two more relists after this without comment from the relisting administrator, as per standard procedure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a clearly notable topic that is part of the well-defined structure of Category:Public image of American politicians. There are already reliable and verifiable sources, and President Trump -- for whatever he may, or may not, accomplish -- has a rather public image that will only have more and more material for expansion of this article. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Topic is very notable and significant, and will become even more so in the following years as with every U.S. president or other influential politicians. However, the article in its current state is poorly written and referenced, so while I don't think it should be deleted, a major expansion should be done. If not, maybe draftifying it or merging it with Donald Trump would be a better, immediate solution, but I'm not sure. κατάσταση19:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the topic is eminently notable, which is why the abysmal lack of contents in this stub is very puzzling and disappointing, even three months after the first AfD noted the same situation. Meanwhile many minor articles related to Trump are created weekly, and the major ones still see hundreds of edits per day, so there is apparently no lack of editor motivation to write about him. This one should go to Draft space until some meaningful contents are added and structured. — JFGtalk20:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or WP:TNT. Notable topic, but this article doesn't even begin to scratch the surface - just the two citations, both from September 2016, for someone who's been a public figure for 20 years or so? I suspect that other possibly-interested editors wouldn't even know how to begin improving the article as it currently stands. (I haven't looked, but I have a suspicion that WP:FORK might be another issue.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no intention of or interest in doing so, but I reckon that I could write an article several times the length of this one, fully supported by WP:RS citations, on "Public image of Donald Trump in Scotland" alone. Narky Blert (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the comparable page about Obama was created with much more substantial content and sourcing. This article shouldn't remain on the site unless it ca be edited to meet a similar standard. Porphyro (talk) 23:17, 16 March 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.
No indication of notability, poorly sourced. I was unable to find any online reliable sources. There may be some in print form, or some that I couldn't find. Anarchyte(work | talk)07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at minimum Merge. Due to the age, one has to switch to searching print magazines and books, and Google Books shows it comes up a good # of times in those searches, though with the snippets available, its hard to tell how much exact context. At minimum it is clearly a searchable term, so a merge, probably to Adventure game as a first suggestion. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AGT was kind of a big thing back in the day, yet the impermanence of the early internet produces an unfortunate recentism in cases like this. --pmj (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the Pmj's comment. This page has value. I added external links establishing notability. --mkepaeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkepaeg (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 March 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.
A working actress, but no indication of notability. Was a bioprod, but imdb was added, making that point moot. However, that is the only source. As a blp, most of the short paragraph which makes up the bulk of the article (other than the filmography), should be removed as non-sourced.
Lots of small roles in films and episodic tv. Her one semi-significant role was a recurring role on the short-lived tv series, My Two Dads back in the early 90s. Due to the commonality of the name, can't find enough in-depth sourcing on this particular person with this name to show they meet WP:GNG. They clearly don't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969TT me04:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Notable actress. She started off in a significant role in Mutts in 1988. Played Rita Crowe in Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects in 1989. As one of the supporting cast, she played Shelby Haskell in the popular series My Two Dads from 1989-1990 Her character appeared in 32 episodes. A reoccurring role as Rhonda Ruskin in Arresting Behavior during 1992. A co-starring role in Last Exit to Earth which was directed by Katt Shea. Co-starring role in Joyride in 1997. Supporting role in Last Chance, directed by Bryan Cranston. Co-starring role in Gemini Rising with Lance Henriksen in 2013. Much more than minor roles. Some good supporting roles and at least 3 co-starrin g roles in well known notable movies. More than enough to satisfy the requirements. I will say this again. This is another messy page that needs tidying up. Let's get to work folks. Karl Twist (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the larger roles she has had are all in straight to video (DVD?) films. Still not sure this passes notability guidelines. Onel5969TT me11:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Boy, this one is hard to parse. Subject does get mentions in Variety and Entertainment Weekly, but not in The Hollywood Reporter (online – which means she hasn't done anything significant in the past decade). Looking at her roles, only My Two Dads can be considered a "significant" TV role. So the assertion to notability rests on her claim to notability as a "film actress". What I can tell you is this – most of the sourcing currently used at the article is rubbish. I'm inclined to advocate deleting this under the concept of WP:NUKEANDPAVE – maybe somebody else can attempt an article for this subject again, but this time do it right (i.e. with proper sourcing, etc.). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to JBall post 19:01, 7 March 2017. Hathaway has been a prolific actress and has been in notable films and television shows. Roles have been prominent too. Yes according to Imd she hasn't done a film since 2013 but just because it's not in Imdb, it doesn't mean she hasn't been working. But, if she were to never work again then that wouldn't affect her notability status as her output has been fairly prolific. Quote: - "What I can tell you is this – most of the sourcing currently used at the article is rubbish." - I total disagree there. Most of the refs are acceptable. Some, possibly a few could be replaced with better ones, and if that's the case it's simple to rectify! Quote: - " I'm inclined to advocate deleting this under the concept of WP:NUKEANDPAVE". - That would be a senseless act with no justification. If you have a look at what I have done to improve it from this to this, you'll see that I have sectioned it in such a way that makes it easy for anyone to improve (if need be) section by section. And if the need arises, it's a simple job to improve any part. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability guidelines for actors do not limit roles to theatre-released films. The guidelines state they must be "significant" roles in "notable" films. In general as long as we have an article on a film, it should be notable, and if we do not have an article on a film it might be notable still. In reality I am sure we have articles on non-notable films. Still, there are direct to DVD films that are notable. Roles in television and theatre also count, although in television it normally takes appearances in multiple episodes of a TV show to be considered significant, and in theatre the specific production, and not just the play itself, needs to be judged notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't really relevant that she hasn't acted since 2013. She had a significant role on My Two Dads, a well-known television program, and there are enough secondary sources to prove notability. Imalawyer (talk) 17:37, 15 March 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.
Merge Lots of content here has not been moved to Charity evaluator; how can you delete it instead of properly merging and redirecting to save the content? Personally, I would say we should merge both articles into a new one at charity evaluation. K.Bog19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Most of it is RS'd and refers to organizations which are notable enough to have their own articles. K.Bog07:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can tell by the bluelinks that the timeline mentions notable organizations. That's irrelevant. Taking 1 random example: 1987 - "The NonProfit Times, a newspaper covering the nonprofit sector, is launched." Verifiably true, but not relevant enough to merit mention in the parent article and already covered in the article about the publication. VQuakr (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are relevant, which is sufficient for deletion to be unwarranted when there is still unmerged material. If you want to put together a comprehensive article which describes these organizations but want to start from a blank slate where you have no idea where to even start, you're just going to make things harder for no good reason. K.Bog19:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is true that there is any content here worth keeping, adding it elsewhere is fine, but currently this timeline conflicts with the title which renders it misleading disinformation. For instance, non-profits have been evaluated since there have been nonprit organisations. This list is mis-titled and represents a list of more recent charity evaulation organisations. And it points/promotes/advocates spammingly in the direction of an organisation which has been heavily advocated here in a false "grassroots" (astroturf) manner, which is distressing for our editors and unfair to users.TeeVeeed (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like all lists/timelines/articles, this page is restricted to notable cases. There may not be reliably sourced cases of nonprofit evaluation from before the 19th century. Charitable organizations in general are a fairly recent topic so I don't expect there to be much content from before this, though I certainly don't think it wouldn't be worth including. K.Bog19:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other articles created and primarily written by this user. There is too much promotional content and too little attention to policy. This article is functionally spam. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this indiscriminate, redundant list. If people are so keen to save some of this content for inclusion in another article, the onus is on them to copy the content to their sandbox and get to work on it. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:39, 19 March 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 due to the lack of reliable sources needed to support notability. A merge suggestion was made, but not agreed upon; if anyone would like to consider this option, I can userify or email the text. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
provisional Keep - I can't check the named book sources, but this is certainly a widely-used concept; a basic Google search piles on all kinds of documents, from blogs to articles to books. Naturally all so heavy on the woo that just scanning the list gives you orgone poisoning, but then this is a woo concept, and a notable such a one may have an article. The article even seems appropriately hedge-y to me, although some improvements could certainly be made (in addition to better sourcing). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that notability is determined by a subject's coverage in reliable sources, not their coverage in unreliable sources. This is something that I've struggled with in the past, and am not entirely in agreement with, but it is what it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you are right it is surprisingly difficult to find decent sources on this. The idea is floating around since the 1970s, and it is certainly notable, but it finds surprisingly little mention in secondary sources. I found this 1954 reference which seems to confirm that a Frenchman called Bovis was indeed researching the Great Pyramids. And this 1974 source is the first mention I could find in primary "psi" literature. The editorial task here is to unearth the actual publications by Bovis, which presumably appeared in obscure 1930s French journals. --dab(𒁳)22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How could a reference about Mr. Bovis in the context of archeological photographs as well as a mention in a handbook of "parapsychological" discoveries denote reliability in source about an article on a highly esoteric matter about nutritional aspects notable for featuring something as critical as health benefit claims? lmaxmai (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge in modified form with an article about esoteric claims No scientific proof is mentioned for this highly esoteric concept. Absent here, it is at least mentioned on the variant of the article in German. Further, the article makes health benefit claims and that is not acceptable. lmaxmai (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see an editor pointing out above that this is a "highly esoteric" subject; in case you haven't considered that statement fully, you should be aware that it is an admission that this subject is not notable. "Esoteric" is an antonym of "notable", after all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not notable woo like another user claimed, no reliable sources discuss it, not even a skeptic book has attempted to debunk it - it really is that un-notable. 82.132.216.220 (talk) 06:43, 15 March 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.
Run-of-the-mill PDF application that fails WP:NSOFT. "Wikipedia is not a directory of all apps that can be confirmed to exist. An app that is just another entry in a crowded field needs more persuasively significant sources, of a kind that indicate that it stands out from the crowd." This absolutely does not have that. Routine reviews from download hosts (which arguably are not even third-party sources as they have a vested interest in the software they host) does not create notability.
Per WP:NSOFT: "the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable." That's all this article really has going for it, and that's not enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Aoidh (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has current or historical reciption with top placements in big download portals, e.g. in the biggest ones for the German market. Depending on category it places in the top 10, e.g. with 5 million downloads on chip.de alone, to use some absolute numbers. Has numerous mentions in special interest magazines (and here I take c't as an example not a random, arbitrary collection of apps, which would not have editorial effort) which objectively confirms a certain current and historic reciption. --83.135.228.180 (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That heise.de/ct magazine article about PDF printers ("Portable Dokumente") may be good reliable source (but behind pay wall). Pavlor (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are also the software's download host. Not a third-party source and not something that shows notability in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you meant this as a joke. Chip and heise.de/ct are some of the most important german technology magazines. Of course these are reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. I don´t get why hosting of software titles makes them less reliable (eg. Chip.de hosts more than 30000 packages...). Pavlor (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said hosting the files made it a less reliable source, I said it made it not a third-party source. Big difference. Wikipedia articles require third-party reliable sources, not just reliable sources. The sources must be independent of the subject to show notability, simply being reliable is insufficient, per WP:N. - Aoidh (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe my English comprehension is limited, but what makes Chip.de and heise.de not-independent on the subject of this article? If PDF24 Creator and said sites/magazines were owned by the same company, I would agree with you. However, as far as I know this is not the case there. Both sites are clear third-party sources. Pavlor (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A site that hosts software has a vested interest in promoting that software. They wouldn't host software if there was no reason to do so, so promoting that software increases the downloads for that software. They are not independent of the software, they distribute it to customers. Being owned by the same company is not the standard by which a "third-party source that is independent of the subject" is determined. There is a relationship between Chip.de and PDF24; Chip.de hosts the software for PDF24. That relationship means that Chip.de is not an independent, third-party source for PDF24. That's not to say it's not a reliable source, but the reliability is not the issue. - Aoidh (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is reason to host software... reader's convenience. I must admit I find your argumentation questionable at best. Pavlor (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable as per what, exactly? I explained, through Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays, why the source is not suitable. You've provided no explanation as to why it should be. That you don't like the explanation does not render it moot. That source is not an independent source. A software host is not independent of the software they host. That's something so basic I can't see how it can be questioned, would you care to explain how they are independent, especially when taking Wikipedia policy into consideration? - Aoidh (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per the other sources, both of these are routine, run-of-the-mill "take all comers" software reviews, exactly the kind of sources that WP:NSOFT points out as being insufficient for establishing notability. The issue is that these are the only kind of sources that exist, adding a couple more doesn't solve the notability issue. - Aoidh (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aoidh's arguments are clueless as to how much software is distributed. Sites that distribute thousands of software programs do not disqualify them as a reliable source. In fact, it makes them a more reliable source. Their reviews matter, as does the average review of users on those large software distribution sites. The more popular the software distribution site, the more reliable. The more popular the software program is in its category, the more it deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even ignoring the fallacy of popularity as reliability, I'm not arguing that it's not a reliable source, but rather that it's not an independent source. As per Pavlor's above, you're not addressing the issue that's being brought up, but arguing against something that's not being said. A software host is not independent of the software it hosts. Reliability is not the concern, and not the issue as to why the article's subject fails to show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The software hosting sites are independent of the software. They did not create the software, and they don't own the software. No amount of verbal jousting on your part changes that fact. That again shows your cluelessness on how software is reviewed and distributed. It does not benefit a software hosting site to give dishonest reviews. In fact, quite the opposite. The site loses credibility if it does that, and people can go to other, more honest, sites to download the software, and to learn about the software. The popularity of a software hosting site is partially dependent on this. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most people only attack other editors when the argument they present is too weak to stand on its own. Something you might want to keep in mind when you accuse me of being "clueless" because you quite obviously are unfamiliar with my knowledge here. What you're saying, that the standard for independence is ownership/authoring of software, is both patently wrong, and contradicts both Wikipedia and scholarly views on what an independent source is. You need not own something to have a conflict of interest, that's another degree of independence, but not the only one. This is not "verbal jousting", it is a basic principle of citation. You'll notice that the Wikipedia article on Independent sources does not make the narrow claim you do, but rather says that the sources are "unconnected". WP:IS also refutes your narrow claim. If there is a meaningful relationship whereby one party affects the other, it is not an independent source. The software and the software host both have a relationship by which each stands to benefit from the other. A software host is not independent of the software they host. This is a fact, trying to arbitrarily limit the definition of an independent source does not change this, though I welcome to you cite anything that supports your narrow definition, but given that I've cited a few things that contradict you, I find this to be unlikely. Any site loses credibility if they give dishonest reviews; like your initial comment about reliability, that's irrelevant to the issue of independence to the material. I'm not suggesting that "I'm right and you're wrong and there's nothing that can be done about it", but please show something to back up your claims as I have, and stop with the "verbal jousting" that you accused me of. - Aoidh (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your point of view is too narrow. Computer magazines since at least the early 90s bundled software with every issue ("cover-disks" or later "cover-CDs"). This certainly doesn´t make them less reliable or independent source for Wikipedia. Hosting software on the magazine page is only culmination of this trend. Pavlor (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My "point of view is too narrow" based on what, other than your opinion? There is a relationship between the two by which both stand to profit, creating a potential for a conflict of interest. I'm not saying there is a conflict of interest and the host is inflating its opinion to profit as a software host, but that potential is there. That relationship exists, that's not even a question, there is a relationship between the two, and thus the host is not independent of the software. It's not a narrow "if you didn't write the software code you're independent of it", that's completely out-of-sync with any definition of an independent source, which is a source which has a relationship by which it lacks the appearance of neutrality in its comments towards the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is always some "conflict of interest". Take advertisments in paper magazines as an example - following your point of view, we should discard use of any computer magazines, because they get money from adverts about software/hardware they may review. Hosting software is quite harmless in comparison... Pavlor (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pavlor has provided articles in Chip and PC Welt and 83.135.228.180 has provided an article in c't that provide significant coverage of PDF24 Creator, which passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I agree with Pavlor and Timeshifter's arguments that these websites are independent of the subject. PDF24 Creator is freeware so the download websites are not acting as distributors for commercial software where there would be a financial conflict of interest.
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.
And so on. These articles are created in full accordance with WP:SPLIT, since once fully complete, the tables alone would occupy way more than 100 kB (maybe even more than 200 kB), which would surely require splitting nonetheless (and it's absurd you even suggest to merge Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 2014 to European Parliament election, 2014 (Spain), when one is a 219 kB page and the other one a 77 kB one. What's the purpose for merging? Where do you see the lack of usefulness aside from just stating that those're useless?). I acknowledge that the main articles must be worked on, but that doesn't mean these ones have to be removed. I repeat, they're not useless; I've just started by those instead on the main ones in this case, but that doesn't mean they're the same. They're indeed intended to be separate, because they'd include a lot of tables and lists that're not suited for the main articles.
Additionally, as you may also easily check in their talk pages, those are listed as List-Class articles in the WikiProject's quality scale, and this is how this is meant to be since those are just purposed to be lists of data with links. However, the main articles are not meant to be mere lists. Impru20 (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You also argue this should be deleted because of it being a fork, but I don't see where this meets the definition of forking. Forking involves the creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject, and this isn't the case here. Here you have one article intended for the election itself, and then one separate article covering election results in detail as a stand-alone list article. This is NOT the same thing.
Also, since you speak about readable prose size, I'm not meaning this you say, but rather, as WP:SIZE says: "Usability considerations concerning the size of an article have been determined to include: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc." In this case, it's obvious that all of these tables can't comprise the same article as the main election article itself. An election article is purposed to cover all issues related to the election, not only results, whereas the spin-off here focuses just on results. If you put all of these tables in the main article, you'd obviously be making this section to have an undue weight in the article, while also hampering the reader's ability to navigate through the article. I may understand the confusion with the newer articles, since they're still mostly empty and this issue may not seem so obvious. However, you've also proposed to merge European Parliament election, 2014 (Spain) to Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 2014, and both of these are fairly complete. Do you understand the readability issues that could arise from merging these two? Just check it yourself, but I'm sure that what you're pretending here is just the opposite of what WP:SPLIT is actually meant for. Impru20 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can bring you some other examples of articles for elections where spin-offs specifically intended for election results have been made (I'll only add one per country):
As you see, this is not something unusual to do when the info on election results is too abundant to include all of it in the main article. Indeed, elections not having a separate article (or articles) like those is not because they've merged the data together, but because they don't show a fully detailed breakdown of results. But when this has been done, customary practice and Wikipedia policy seems to support splitting those. This is also done for election opinion polling, which is usually split into separate articles when many polls come out due to length issues and not left into the main articles. As I said, you seem to have mistaken this for a fork but this actually isn't, since this is not the same subject, but rather, a sub-section of it requiring for in-depth coverage not allowed by the main article. Impru20 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Wikipedia already has too many tables and graphs. Where they explicate and improve prose, graphics are useful. Entire standalone articles of graphics and tables, no matter how interesting or useful, aren't encyclopedic. It's article editing for editing's sake just because we have the numbers at hand. I'd support deletion of all the examples Impru20 points out because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Chris Troutman (talk)00:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here we were not talking about outright removal of the data (much less of all these articles), but just whether these specific articles should deserve a separate article or not in light than the main articles for European elections in Spain are, as of yet, still poorly developed. The data's validity itself is not questioned, and arguing to remove all of it and also to remove any similar articles just because "Wikipedia has too many tables and graphs" is not a valid reason. There're a LOT of articles in many areas we would've to remove if we're to abide to your restrictive interpretation of WP:NOTSTATS (opinion polling articles would also fall under this category, yet WP:NOTSTATS#3 actually establishes that those should be split from the main article when too lengthy). Btw, I think you actually misinterpreted what I was actually doing when referring to other articles. I was not arguing that "this should exist because other stuff like this exist", but I was arguing that this should be done "this way" just like it's done in other places. It's not "if", but "how". I can't see how election results are not valid data to be included in Wikipedia. Impru20 (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these articles could use more prose, but there is a lot of valuable information. Plenty of other articles with similar scope exist for other countries and elections.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need more prose in election articles, but that's not a reason to delete accurate, sourced information that is of value. Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron merging would cause two main issues: 1. It would make it harder to edit the main article due to the sheer size of the data available (167 kB in this article alone), and 2. It would cause an undue weight problem, given that the European Parliament election, 1987 (Spain) is about the election in general and the data shown here is about the regional breakdown of results only (see WP:SPINOFF). Unless you propose to remove the data, I think there's little choice but for it to be left in its own article to prevent causing conflicts (as well as to allow a more detailed presentation of such information). Impru20 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why do the results need to be broken down on a regional basis anyway? Wasn't this election, like other Spanish elections to the European Parliament, held on a nationwide basis rather than region by region? --Metropolitan90(talk)05:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, because it allows for comparison with regional breakdowns for Congress elections as well as with regional parliamentary elections. On the other hand, because sources in Spain (and I mean secondary sources, not just the Ministry page) do frequently make such a breakdown of results themselves (check this, this or this, for some recent examples in 2014 and 2009). And particularly, this is always done for Catalonia or the Basque Country (given their quite distinct electoral behaviour). In Spain election results are nearly always broken down on a regional basis, given that autonomous communities are the first-level political and administrative division in Spain. Additionally, it is not that they "need" to be broken down on a regional basis, just as nothing is really needed in Wikipedia actually (why do we need to report on elections in the first place, for instance? No one forces us to do so. It's done because it gives information on autonomous communities that may be useful to users and because it provides for a greater understanding of Spain's electoral behaviours in general. Impru20 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 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.
Delete When an article tells us what level of honors an academic got for their PhD it is not a good sign. At least in the subject of history of philosophy it generally takes quite some time to make a significant impact enough to fulfill academic criteria 1. Fusaro has not reached that point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN person, Italian wiki page is just a vanity page with anything concrete. Also, the page was created by a paid editor. 151.53.30.131 (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quote discussion above. Furthermore also the discussion for deletion of the Italian page was superficial and probably lead by fans rather than average impartial users. --AlanGiulio (talk) 19:55, 21 March 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.
Doctor that appears to fail WP:GNG. Most of the previous content was copyright violations that seemed aimed at promoting bariatric surgery. He does get a few quotes in Indian magazines concerning weight loss, but they are not articles about him, so the coverage does not add up to what is required by WP:GNG from what I can see. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG. After a secondary search on this man, I find little evidence to support his notoriety. Therefore I believe this to be a case of WP:TOOSOON and should be removed. V.Putnam (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an industry that turns out a lot of promotional material, and as far as I can tell from searching that is what we have on Agrawal. Nothing seems to be approaching indepth coverage in independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 17 March 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 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 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.
Redirect to Cartier Women's Initiative Awards#Past Laureates. There's little question that the article has a promotional tone. The line about her company providing "environmentally friendly and sustainable solutions for sanitation" is an unattributed quote from one of the subject's interviews. And most of the article is not about the subject, but about her company and what it sells (note the sections on the company's board and its clients). But these problems can be fixed. What is not fixable is the lack of notability. The subject did receive the Cartier award in 2013, after which there appears to have been a brief spate of "media buzz" in late 2013 and early 2014. But it wasn't persistent. Even the "Press" section of the company's web site doesn't list anything beyond that brief spate three years ago. And so, all we have here is a person whose claim to notability derives solely from a few routine interviews that were done while launching her product. That's not enough for an article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. I'm not proposing a "delete then redirect". And converting directly to a "redirect" will preserve the ability to resurrect the old text if ever there is a better claim to notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Cartier award (added to article now) and items like this article in the Hindu, this mention in the Guardian, this mention in the Financial Express. Arguments above referring to persistence of media coverage are inaccurate per notability policy (notability is not temporary), and in the claim that one cannot be notable based on "a few routine interviews that were done while launching her product". We do not know how many interviews she did, and policy says nothing about the number of interviews required for notability. What we do know is that lots of good sources that talk about her in sufficient depth do exist.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has been featured in The Guardian, The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle and New Indian Express. These are more than passing mentions and they cover an extended period of time more than one note. They talk about her work, its connections to women's lives in India and while discussing her company in a number of them, also treat her as an independent subject. She passes WP:GNG on her own and that is independent of her company. --LauraHale (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People need to remember that "promotional" is not a valid rationale for deletion unless the tone is so clearly an advertisement as to be unfixable, in which case you speedy delete. If there is a problem with tone, you tag it, or better yet, fix it. This article easily passes WP:GNG (per LauraHale's and 198.58.162.200's comments) and this makes me wonder, good faith always assumed, if WP:BEFORE was attempted? freshacconci (✉)11:48, 21 March 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 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.
Comment. It seems that the whole notability question turns on whether being a silver medalist at the China International (badminton) qualifies the subject under Criterion 3 of WP:NBADMINTON. I don't know whether it does or it doesn't. But this nomination is showing up on the Article Alerts at the Badminton Project, so perhaps one of their members will come on by to let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:56, 15 March 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 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 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.
This website doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) or Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals), or WP:GNG, because it hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources, nor has it won major awards, or made significant original contributions to its field. The citations in the article currently are mostly self-references, and I wasn't able to find any independent coverage at Questia, GeneralOnefile, or Google., other than press releases from Close-Up Media, Inc. or OncLive itself. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete With the CNBC link, I wonder if there's more out there in terms of external coverage, but I agree that it doesn't meet the periodical notability standards as it is right now. South Nashua (talk) 01:56, 15 March 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.
Promo entry on an unremarkable movie; does not meet WP:NFILM. The awards listed -- "8th Best Film" -- is not significant. No encyclopedically relevant prose.
The article went through an AfD process in 2010 (with a no consensus result) but is not better for it. It's still strictly a WP:CATALOG entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I wrote in the initial AFD, fails WP:NOTFILM, and has no coverage shown in reliable independent sources. The Pink Grand Prix is a readers' poll conducted by "PG" (perhaps "P*G") magazine, a publication of no established notability. According to this news article [41], cited as a reliable source in the article on the award itself, "PG" is a "fanzine," or fan magazine. Reader polls, whether for print or online publications, generally aren't seen as establishing notability unless the publication is clearly notable (if then), and when they are, only the first place finisher is generally seen as having its own notability established by the poll. The film's article is sourced only to a comprehensive listing of produced films, which establishes only existence but not notability, and to the fanzine's own website, which lacks the independence required to establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:18, 15 March 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.
Comment - The sources confirm it is happening. That means that it isn't just a proposed tournament, and it certainly isn't a hoax. That being said, WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason for keeping an article. Withholding my !vote for now as to whether it is notable, but I just wanted to make sure everyone votes for the right reasons rather than relying on the nomination statement. Smartyllama (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Delete, clearly it's far from certain that it'll definitely happen. Re-create if/when we have more information available as for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Skemcraig (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I searched before I proposed the deletion and couldn't find any sources, but have now found this [42]. So it sounds like it was a proposed tournament which now won't occur (in 2017, at least). Mattlore (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as WP:TOOSOON and per Mattlore's source which contains a brief mention indicating the tournament won't happen. (The very reason WP refrains from WP:CRYSTAL-tyoe coverage.) Given the overall confusion, it would be best to wait until a definitive article can be written from significant coverage in reliable sources. — CactusWriter (talk)18:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy into Therealflea's userspace—then when meets GNG—move back to mainspace – makes sense to get the article away from mainspace while non-notable, if it will probably become notable. Also meant as in between keep and delete. J94719:49, 24 March 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.
Keep As the starting point here is a museum exhibit, there should be a strong presumption of notability, per WP:PRESERVE. There seem to be other sources in Italian covering this person's work so this seems adequate for further work per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Well if somebody thinks every museum exhibit is by default notable and ought to have a stand-alone entry.....that is mind-boggling.And may-be one should cite the sources he/she has found rather than simply stating about their existence.Winged Blades Godric15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's mind-boggling to me when someone gets so set on deleting harmless articles. Andrew and I made policy-based arguments above. We aren't going to change our minds because the AfD nom disagrees. Lepricavark (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May-be you could just provide the sources and the policy stating--Museum exhibits are enough notable by default to have a WP article.And no I did not ever ask you to change your mind!Cheers!Winged Blades Godric16:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you expect me to go looking for an exact quote that you made up, maybe your self-assessment is correct. I'm not going to quote Andrew's exact words since they are pretty easy to find, but my point was that Andrew cited a policy right after he made his claim about the notability of the subject. Lepricavark (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue of notability seems quite clear. The notability guideline says that "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this ..." A museum would usually be considered such a reliable and independent source. The entry in the Museo Galileo for this topic is therefore prima facie evidence of notability. As we find that other sources cover the topic too, we have adequate confirmation to retain the page. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Andrew D. (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for policy-based arguments. PRESERVE intones finding sources rather than removing unsourced sentences. It doesn't proscribe presuming notability. I absolutely understand Godric's exasperation with arguments based in unreasonable inclusionism. Peterkingiron's comment makes me question competence. Chris Troutman (talk)19:50, 15 March 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.
Keep. No reason, no evidence suggesting this is a hoax. I notice this AFD because I am browsing AFDs about places, and note similarity to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehran House of Volleyball where the same deletion nominator suggested a hoax with no evidence. Existence in that case is established by photographs. What is going on? Just because an editor is not familiar with a topic area, they assume it is a hoax, and then they open an AFD and call it a hoax? If so, that is not right, that is like calling "fire" in a crowded theatre. --doncram00:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for "Mavila family korom" returns only sites that mirror this article, so this is certainly a hoax. Not to mention this is unsourced and poorly written @Doncram: Please do not engage in Personal attacks against the nominator or any other editor. Per the guideline, comments of your nature are considered a personal attack. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?". Best regards - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I usually work on articles about obscure historic sites, and it is very common for a search on a relatively obscure Wikipedia article topic to bring up only mirrors; that does not prove a hoax at all. It just shows your search is too narrow or that sources are off-line or in other languages.
It is not a personal attack to note a problem in another editor's editing. I did not know or identify any characteristic of the editor like they are a train spotter; I just pointed out the very relevant action of falsely calling something a hoax when it is absolutely not a hoax. Please feel free to bring this up for discussion at wp:ANI if you would like to get the opinions of other editors. --doncram02:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I have no intention of taking this matter a step further by bringing it to ANI, we have no solid evidence here that this is either a hoax or it isn't, unless you can, for example, provide sources against my claims, I will continue to stand by my comments in this discussion, regards. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I edited at the article to remove the tagging as a possible hoax, and I removed (by commenting out) the unsourced statements that I think may have been perceived to be controversial, about a shooting in April 1948 and otherwise. There is a "Korom Road" in Payyanur near to the coordinates given in the article, which presumably was named for being a road to "Korom" in the way roads are often named. The Payyanur article has been asserting, without any objection I am aware of, that Korom is one of three administrative villages in Payyanur. Substantiating a claim of a high school in the article, there is indeed a Korom Government High School, as listed here in a "modern education" website listing schools. --doncram22:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably verifiable — The core issue is the policy of verifiability. The main policy-backed argument is that there's no evidence that the village exists. Other things nearby having the name "Korom" doesn't mean that a village officially exists or otherwise meets WP:GEOLAND. Although not an actual guideline, this concept is covered in common deletion outcomes for places. As far as whether it's truly a "hoax," I don't know—that's literally the problem here. The policy-based presumption is that it shouldn't have an article unless we can prove it exists. It's not a valid reason to "keep" something because there's not evidence that it's fake; it's the other way around: there has to be direct evidence it's not fake to be kept. No prejudice against speedy undeletion the moment that's demonstrated. --slakr\ talk /08:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Despite several weeks of argument, there has still been no reliable evidence to verify the existence of this supposed village. ReykYO!11:14, 24 March 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.
I am nominating this article as a test case to seek input on the notability of people who serve as "vararepresentant" in the Norwegian Storting. Essentially, a vararepresentant is a deputy or substitute to a regular representative at the Storting. They are a person who was on the candidate list for their party in their respective county, but failed to be elected because the party did not garner enough votes. Ters describes it a lot better than I do in this discussion about vara at WikiProject Norway. I will quote them here: "they are simply the next person on the list of candidates for the same party in the same county that didn't get elected or is already serving as vararepresentant. If the party had just gotten more votes in that county, they would have been proper representatives." The function of the vara is to step in for their regular representative when that person is away or unavailable. There are two types of cases where that occurs: temporary cases where their regular rep is sick or on vacation, and long-term cases where their regular rep is appointed to the Norwegian cabinet and the vara steps in to take their place.
My question is, does functioning as a vararepresentant give someone presumed notability per WP:NPOL?
It seems reasonably clear to me that a vara who substituted for their representative in the long term should probably be considered notable per WP:NPOL, because they participate in discussion and voting like regular representatives, indicating that they are "members" of the legislature, per criteria 1 of WP:NPOL. However, I am not sure if a vara who only ever substitutes short-term (or indeed, never at all) would be considered a "member" of the legislature, per criteria 1. They don't participate in the legislation process, and they are distinctly not elected officials.
Keep Considering members of sub-national legislative bodies, at least in countries that are Federal like the US, India and such (I am not sure how it applies to more unitary countries like France) are considered default notable according to notability of politician rules, I think this position is enough to be considered notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National-level representative who actually sat in parliamentary meetings, even if only briefly. If the nominator wanted a test case for this type of deputy who are never pressed into service, that might have a different result. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)17:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't claim to have any special expertise on how the Norwegian political system works, but I have to agree with the commenters on this. A candidate who holds the distinction of being a potential vara only on paper, and has not actually performed any of the duties of the position as of yet, would not qualify for a Wikipedia article — but if he has sat in parliamentary sessions, and participated in committees and on and so forth, then the same public interest reasoning that applies to the "official" representatives should also apply to him. The article needs improvement, certainly, but for all intents and purposes he has served in the Storting even if he hasn't been a permanent member of it yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 20 March 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.
I think the newbie is trying to construct an article, but is unsure how to do so; see Talk:Dress Like a Woman. Perhaps we can consider the userfy option? I alerted the relevant Wikiproject. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No problem with userfying if that's less bitey, but I don't hold out hope that this will make any kind of substantial article. Also consider writing a WP:NOT about how Wikipedia is not a collection of the most popular hashtags of the week. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability and that's exactly what this is. TimothyJosephWood15:08, 7 March 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. It might be more effective to raise talk page discussions at the articles involved (including tagging for a proposed merge) due to subject-specific knowledge involved; merges don't have to happen at AfD. Check out WP:MERGE and consider making use of proposed mergers. slakr\ talk /08:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Nader et. al make a separate distinction between pragmatists and principlists. Thaler et. al support this notion when he considers pragmatists and principlists as distinct "ideological factions." The Council of Foreign Relationssupports this distinctiveness as well when recalling, "the rise of a pragmatic wing among Iranian conservatives, sometimes known as the new Right", that "pragmatic conservatives have been critical both of reformers and hardliners," and that "the pragmatic conservatives make the compelling case that the regime must address the economic demands of its hard-pressed constituents, , an action that requires not only structural domestic economic reforms but also a rational foreign policy [...]" Since pragmatists advocate for domestic reforms, this makes the argument of realpolitik as moot as pragmatism is not concerned with foreign policies only. Bloomberg Marc Champion in an op-ed published by Bloomberg agrees with this distinctiveness as well when explaining how Iranian politics are divided into "four messy camps" of which pragmatists are one of them. STRATFORmakes this distinctiveness as well. So, all in all, we have plenty of reliable sources that show that (1) pragmatic conservatives are a political faction in Iran and that (2) pragmatists are distinct of principlists. IdlePheasant (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I can read, bellow the cited Bloomberg article it says: This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. All other links provided, including Stratfor, do use the term "pragmatic conservatives", which means they are considered to be part of the conservative camp. Pahlevun (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. And you are correct, pragmatists are considered part of the conservative bloc. But as shown above, they are also described distinctively than the other factions that compose the bloc. Reliable sources show they merit their own article. IdlePheasant (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, notice that the nominator suggests to merge the article with Iranian Principlists but Nader et. al and Thaler et. al make a distinction between pragmatists and principlists. Therefore, we have reliable sources that show that pragmatists are not principlists. IdlePheasant (talk) 18:40, 26 February 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.
Weak keep Being well known according to a RS (Cooper 2008 [50]) and held in museums of the history of science and technology, seems enough for GNG to me. Smmurphy(Talk)17:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I'm not sold that the subject passes GNG with these passing mentions. This article should not have been written. Still, if the consensus is delete I'd like the closing admin to put this into my userspace so I can rehab this and perhaps republish someday. Chris Troutman (talk)00:16, 6 March 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 record label has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. None of the sources in the article are reliable. A search of the record label doesn't bring up nothing of relevance. The page creator created an AFC draft of the page, which was declined. Despite their submission being declined, the creator decided to move the draft to mainspace. Versace1608Wanna Talk?00:49, 15 March 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 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 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.
(Conclusion) "Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media."
(Summary) "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD."
The summary has four points. However, nobody has attempted to apply WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES here, and neither do I see a flood of indiscriminate or excessive nominations. As for "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist," I don't see any presumption that this school is notable (except the presumption implied by the creation of the article).
That leaves us with "references to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD." That's the only part of the conclusion that I can't address. I searched online for references to Basic Education High School No. 1 Kamayut, found some for Basic Education High School No. 2 Kamayut, but not much for Basic Education High School No. 1 Kamayut. There was a little interesting information about educational innovations in Myanmar in a general search, and no hits in Gnews. The problem with this is that I didn't search in the local language. It's kind of like searching for information written in Burmese about a US high school.
The article itself doesn't claim any particular notability for the school. I'd like to see something more. As it is, I understand why the article was nominated for deletion. Maybe articles that include no claim to notability could be deleted, but that seems to be precluded by WP:BEFORE. On the other hand, is a search of offline, local print media required as "reasonable steps to search for reliable sources"?
Comment I lean toward delete because the content of the article, beyond the name of the school & it's location, can not be verified by the source provided. Gab4gab (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose Too soon. The whole coverage of schools in this part of the world is underdeveloped and as we rely on volunteers that have access to the secondary paper documents- written in a script that is difficult to access- I think the failing is ours not one of notability. There is a full category of Basic Education Schools in a single province in MyanMar that in my opinion would be better represented as a list- but if the editor who has developed them prefers to do it as individual articles we should give him space, watch his pages and offer support. ClemRutter (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of concerns about verifiability, let alone notability. If significant coverage in offline sources is found, then the article can be recreated. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 20 March 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.
Non-notable film festival. Google News Archive search returns no results to establish independnet notability. Some references include an article about film(s) that earned a place, or mostly about Om Puri and Sagar Sarhadi who were felicitated Lifetime Achievement Award but none of the source is explicitly talking about the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:57, 27 February 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 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. fails WP:GNG, and I assume the WP:KICK people know what they're talking about when they say that being the SUPERKOMBAT champion does not suffice. ♠PMC♠ (talk)06:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His WAKO silver medal was in an amateur event, which is not considered to show notability, nor is being SUPERKOMBAT champion currently considered sufficient. Papaursa (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all due respect, I already talked with Peter Rehse about changing the kickboxing rules and he is not allowing me or anyone to do it. I registered now to tell him and you. Many users reported that this is wrong. Superkombat Fighting Championship is probably the largest kickboxing promotion in Europe. Our mate Peter is confusing kickboxing with boxing. ISKA, WAKO-Pro, WKN and PKA are not like WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO in boxing. Sometimes, you can be 100th in the world and to hold an ISKA title. The major promotions in kickboxing created own titles, such as Glory, K-1, Superkombat and others. ISKA, WKN and WAKO-Pro are usually giving their titles in minor promotions of kickboxing. They are like bodies, but in kickboxing the promotions are not obliged to use them as titles. Kickboxing promotions are like UFC, Bellator and others of MMA. Do you understand that or not? Right now Superkombat Fighting Championship is the only European promotion that is available since 2017 in the United States of America with a CBS contract. Peter Rehse, please understand we need to change them, the rules should also include Superkombat Fighting Championship and Kunlun Fight (the largest promotions in Europe, respectively Asia). Do you help, Peter? Because there are no users anymore that usually participate on the Kickboxing Project of Wikipedia. So Cristian Spetcu is notable, all the champions of Superkombat are solid. It is pathetic for instance to have a bum holding an ISKA/WKN/WAKO-Pro title instead of a Superkombat/Kunlun champion. Do you want to give you examples? Lukasz Plawecki and Pawel Jedrzejczyk, newly created pages. They both fought in Glory at the last event Glory 38: Chicago on the undercard but really bad. They would probably never hold a title in Kunlun, and even Superkombat. You need to understand that things changed since many years ago when Wikipedia had a lot of kickboxing fans as users, and promotions like Superkombat and Kunlun Fight grew up. They are highly comparable with current K-1. At the moment, in the US we have Glory, Bellator Kickboxing and Superkombat (broadcasting contracts). And Kunlun Fight is almost investing as much as Glory, in Asia. -hooyoo- (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are kickboxers ranked 60th in the world that fought for ISKA, WKN or WAKO-Pro that are allowed to have pages (even 300th in the world). Spetcu is not top 10 but some other SUPERKOMBAT champions were (Londt, Zhuravlev, Adegbuyi, Stoica brothers and more). It's more important to hold a SUPERKOMBAT title than fighting for less major titles such as ISKA, WKN and WAKO-Pro. We are telling you all to edit the kickboxing rules, and to add also SUPERKOMBAT and Kunlun. Moreover usually those from top 10 belong to GLORY, it's harder to penetrate. But holding the most important titles in Europe and Asia isn't notable enough? ISKA, WKN, and WAKO-Pro are just shit. They are not promotions, they are giving titles in promotions in Zaire, Slovenia or Bosnia.
Delete There is insufficient coverage to show he meets WP:GNG and he also fails to meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONOTLIKETHECURRENTCRITERIA are not good enough reasons to keep this article. The current list of organizations was arrived at through long and sometimes contentious discussions and should not be changed capriciously. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Because Superkombat Fighting Championship got nominated for the Best Kickoxing Promotion In The World in 2016 (with K-1 which won, GLORY or Kunlun Fight). I suppose that the Superkombat championships must be included as notable. Please fix this. Spetcu is current lightweight champion of the promotion. Setdany (talk) 01:00, 23 March 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.
One of the main concerns with this article is that it is prone to original research and primary source synthesis, and from a larger systemic point of view, a lack of a definition of what "white people" is defined to mean. Currently it has a bunch of random numbers, some cited to material that agrees with it, others that have numbers that contain no citations, and others cited to sources that don't use the word "white" at all. While AfD is not cleanup, this article poses major issues to our verifiability and original research policies to a point where it would be very difficult to bring it into line with policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate - Initially upon seeing the article I was "strong delete," although now it has been improved since then (source wise). I do feel the name of the article is problematic, but many of the sources under "Ethnic groups:" refer to simply "white: __%". So I feel that there's not a lot of OR in that term. I agree the article has some serious issues but looking at the edit history this seems to be a work in progress going in the right direction. For what it's worth, this started as a direct copy paste from Islam by country at which time I would have agreed with "delete". Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Sorry, Drewmutt, but you're drawing parallels with articles of a different calibre. We've just gone through the same issues for the European diaspora which has had to be redefined and retitled... and it still isn't clear whether the article will stand up once it's been further cleaned up. What next? Black people by country; Asian people by country; Mulatto people by country; Quadriplegic people by country? Yes, there is common use of various terminology, but the fact that a definition (which also varies dependent on the discipline) does not make for a broad scope article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - by its nature this article can only be WP:OR. Are the Irish "white"? (go see How the Irish Became White and then form your own view). Are Turkish people "white"? Egyptians? @Drewmutt's point that the article follows the form of Islam by country is helpful because with a religious group one can objectively agree on who are to be considered members of the group and who are not. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR (the entry for Sweden lists ~94% whites in spite of the Swedish authorities not registering peoples' ethnicity, skin colour or anything else that anyone could go by when deciding if someone is "white" or not...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk20:33, 17 March 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.
Blatant spam - all substantial edits have been carried out by single purpose accounts. The citations provided are mostly from promotional material and the few that aren't do not prove anything other than the company exists and is enthusiastic about promoting itself, something we can already ascertain by reading this article. I'd also recommend that the following accounts are blocked by administrators - none of them have contributed anything other than spamming this company on various pages - Sircharlie69, Escape_Hunt_France, Creativechili, Simonasia. Note: I'm unlikely to appear on this IP address again so will not respond to any messages left on my talkpage. 79.65.126.212 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. Accounts are all at least 3 months stale, so blocking doesn't seem necessary even if one has an obvious COI username. ansh66608:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. I can't help but feel that the statement in the article On 18 November 2016, it was announced that Escape Hunt Group Limited and its shareholders had entered into an exclusivity agreement with AIM-quoted Dorcaster plc providing Dorcaster with an exclusive right to negotiate for the acquisition by it of the entire issued share capital of Escape Hunt Group Limited. has a lot to do with it. Total spam. -- HighKing++ 17:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. HighKing has removed most promotional content from the article, so I'd regard the spam issue as mostly resolved (for now). The subject is mentioned in lots and lots of news articles, but most of them are general coverage of escape room games, of which Escape Hunt is one brand among many others. Escape Hunt is the focus of reporting in these articles from CNBC and the Bangkok Post, among others, so it might just pass the WP:GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that it fails WP:CORP. It should be noted that the company is headquartered in Bangkok, so in my opinion the Bangkok Post article referenced above by Paul 012 doesn't suffice to show notability (it's routine coverage of a local company IMO). ♠PMC♠ (talk)06:16, 23 March 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.
It scares me this article has survived so long. There is no indication of notability. Beyond this all the sources are to a blogspot blog that is a fan site for the subject. This is some of the worst sourcing I have seen for an article, and it has been around since at least 2012. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 26 February 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.
Wikipedia is not IMDb, and is not meant to be a directory of everyone who has ever appeared in film and TV. IMDb is the only source, and that is not a reliable source. At best he has had one maybe significant role in a notable production. The guidelines say multiple significant roles in multiple notable productions. This is not met. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 26 February 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.
Delete: The article references the immediate post-death notices in The Scotsman and in The Guardian's "Other Lives" user-submitted-content feature (which was also featured in the Glasgow Herald). However, while these indicate an interesting lived life, they fall short of demonstrating encyclopaedic notability and my searches are finding nothing better. WP:NOTMEMORIAL #4 seems applicable. A brief mention of the subject's donation of the Glenlude estate could be be appropriate at John_Muir_Trust#Properties though. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 15 March 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.