The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The references seem thin but there is possibility of notability so AfD is better. Others may pitch in to evaluate. Creator is blocked now. This is my first AfD so correct me if I did it wrong --203.175.67.197 (talk) 05:42, 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.
Delete. Poorly referenced article about a filmmaker and musician, with no strong claim of notability per either WP:CREATIVE or WP:NMUSIC. His notability as a filmmaker boils down to winning a short film award at a small film festival whose awards don't confer an automatic ANYBIO pass, and his notability as a musician seems to hinge on self-released music that was never released beyond his own social networking profile on MySpace. And for sourcing, all we have here is the MySpace profile, a brief namecheck of his existence in a non-notable directory entry for a non-notable band he was in as a teenager, and unspecified content in the "archives" of the film festival itself. Which means that we have zero sources here that could count toward getting him over WP:GNG for anything, and no notability claims compelling enough to grant him an exemption from having to be referenced better than this. And there's a possible conflict of interest here as well, because the article was created by a user named "TheNic" and the content includes a testimonial quote from somebody named Nic D'ea (with no explanation given of who Nic D'ea is or why we should care about his personal opinion of Williams). Wikipedia is not a place for people to eulogize their own friends and family — but there's just no substance or sourcing here on which to hang a proper Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An anon IP blanked the page and the Afd tag. Since it's unclear whether that was the article creator, neglecting to log in, I've restored the page content. If it is the same person, we could speedy this. I've raised the question on the article creator's user talk page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 no where near meeting the requirements for biographies of living people. Beyond that, a mention in an article on six recognized people in a local paper is not really enough to add towards GNG, and even if it was, GNG requires "multiple" sources, which means more than 1, and probably at least 3. Articles on living people need to meet GNG with the sources there, not just existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP She does have more articles written about her. I think the article should be improved with citations and when that is done, we will see that the article meets the criteria.--Sue Maberry (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only mentions of her in the news/books/web are routine promotional mentions in the course of performing her various jobs: "Anne Dugan, director of the ....". These sources talk about the galleries, not Anne Dugan. The article is also unfortunately written like a job resume to be handed out at the mall. I removed the long uncited "selected exhibitions section". 104.163.152.90 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with 104.163.152.90. Being mentioned as part of an article about something other than the person does not make one notable. Is she visible in the press? Yes. Does the press focus on her? No. Getting recognition from a relatively small town newspaper doesn't cut it either. There's just not enough to go on here, and a cursory review of news outlets does not show any promise of there being coverage available that can be tapped. WP:GNG isn't satisfied here. She might be notable by our standards some day, but not now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 10 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. WP:BLP of a bit part actor and community activist, whose only evident notability is that he was given the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal in 2002. That does not represent an automatic pass of our notability standards in and of itself, however -- the award was presented to 46,000 people across Canada to honour voluntarism and community involvement, so while a winner might sometimes get over GNG on the notability and sourceability of the things they did to get one, the award itself does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on all 46,000 of them. And the only reference here is a deadlinked directory profile on Northern Stars, which is basically an IMDb for Canadian actors and not a source that confers notability in and of itself. There'd be a case for inclusion if he could be sourced over GNG for the acting or the community work, but all I can find on Google News or ProQuest is a few glancing acknowledgements of his existence in articles about other things -- and nothing here is an automatic notability freebie that would entitle him to keep a virtually unsourced article. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 5 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 - It's a fledgling website competing with a massive commercial market leader (IMDb), so it's hardly going to command an international news following, is it, given it's a db that aggregates data used by non-mainstream smaller operations. The links given clearly summate it's presence regardless of this. Jimthing (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim - all of the references are clearly not WP:RS, I'm sure you know that. The only one is (The Guardian), does not mention the subject. I wasn't able to find anything at all when searching, but that may be attributable to the fairly generic title of the site. Do you have anything at all that would meet our criteria? Kuru(talk)22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the article history is a little complex. Travisbell wrote a fairly neutral userspace draft which he did not move to mainspace. It looks like it was copied, to some extent, by Jimthing into mainspace without attribution. Amortias then did a histmerge to set the attribution. Kuru(talk)22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm actually on Imdb and Tmdb and I find its more notable than most of the sites listed here including BMDb and Christian Film Database. If anything, it needs improvement and Travis Bell is the creator of the site but the article is very neutral and not at all promotional and its Alexa Ranking is way better than most listed in the category mentioned above. I'll put it on the same level as Douban (which i also contribute too) even though i do not understand a single word of mandarin or cantonese :P . The site has been mentioned in the media but because its non-commerical (like us), it gets a lesser mention than a site like, Imdb.COM so you can't really claim a site fails WP:WEBCRIT just because it does not promote itself well or at all.--Stemoc02:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"it does not promote itself well or at all", you do realise that Travis Bell, the site owner, created the article himself, right? It indeed needs improvement, by addition of sources that show that it is notable enough. --Dirk BeetstraTC03:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse the owner of the site created it but was it promotion? does the site sell stuff?, does the site gain monetarily from being on wikipedia? does the owner of the site gain something from listing the site here? he could have paid someone to add an article here but he did it himself and it was indeed written well without a hint of it being promotional. I bet Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger never edited the Wikipedia article either..oh wait!, Larry (the so-called co-founder of wikipedia) created the article of "his" project on "his" project (lol)..There are many many others like this (where the owner of a site or product created an article on the said product/site here) and as i said above, the article needs improvement and a few more source information/citings and yes the site was definitely not eligible for inclusion back in 2008, it is now...Notability is gained through time and I can honestly say, compared to other similar articles linked above in that other category, the site is indeed notable.--Stemoc04:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stemoc: You mentioned "the site has been mentioned in the media", could you link to some of those mentions? As noted above, I'm simply coming up blank in searches, but that may be due to the site's common name. Kuru(talk)00:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc, promotion can be achieved whether there is a product being sold or not. Non-profit groups can still promote. An individual can promote him/herself for the purpose of gaining attention. And those of us who have been alive long enough know that there have been many free internet services that achieved multi-million dollar appraisals, so the lack of a specific product for sale does not mean that promotion was not occurring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not gained through time or Alexa rating. Notability is gained through being noted in reliable sources, and so far this article has none. - MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted in my requests, I can't find any reliable sourcing. The references given in the article now are terrible: forum posts, directories, and a reddit discussion? The BBC and Guardian refs are to support the claim that the IMDB is dropping its forums, and do nto mention TMDB at all. I wasn't able to find anything else, and queries above were not answered. I don't see how this meets WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, and no policy based argument has been made. I'm glad that some people like the site; it is a nice endeavor. Kuru(talk)03:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a daily user of this site and a big OSS proponent, I can't believe Wikipedia has become so intertwined in its' policies that it would try to exclude a free solution like TMDb for such trivialities. Vmavra (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC) — Vmavra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
So I gather a user's opinion is not worth a cent unless he has a certain status or privileges on this site. I was honestly thinking of contributing in the future, but if this is your general attitude towards new users I might have to reconsider. Also, you didn't even bother signing "your contribution". Vmavra (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offense is intended, the SPA tag is standard in situations such as this one where external web forums are discussing an article's deletion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vmavra: 'such trivialities' .. Vmavra, we have policies and guidelines that guide us to decide what is notable enough for inclusion. People saying that they are daily users is not enough. A bar has to be put somewhere, and our bar is that significant, reliable, independent sources must have noticed the existence and written about the subject. People with close contact with the owners of the site have not been able to provide us with those, nor have others who have commented here. The subject is not notable (yet). --Dirk BeetstraTC03:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft in the hope that additional references will become available. It's not a viable article at present--the references are simply too weak. Some are not in reliable sources, and others don't talk about the db at all. (And we have always defined "promotion" to mean advocacy ,commercial or non commercial, or any thing at all, even free projects) DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, there's German and Portuguese WP articles for TMDb, but potentially none for English-language speakers. While we understand the sources argument, I think some probation period is justifiable, as clearly the site exists and there are at least direct links to it that show it exists, its history/stats, and what it does. Jimthing (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITEXISTS. Jim, one of the other editors at TMDB hit the nail on the head: "Rather than a specific focus on SEO, it would probably be best to just keep focusing on improving the quality of data." At this point, more attempts at promotion are likely to be counterproductive, as will works of "commissioned" PR. If you're really trying to improve the site, focus inward and let the recognition happen organically. Kuru(talk)18:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It sounds really interesting, and the flap over IMDB suddenly deleting their comments raises the ever-interesting censorship issue. These days, anything having to do with the rich of powerful keeping anyone else from having their say is in the headlines (fake news, anybody?). I can help repair the article, and if there's a rush (i.e., a deadline, then move it into userspace). Check out my user page for a few dozen of the hundreds of article I've started - and then had to rescue from the deletionists. Anything can be fixed. Don't delete it, unless editing has ceased and everyone's simply given up on whipping it into shape. Thanks for listening. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEBCRIT. There does not seem to be any significant coverage in reliable sources so the only other criteria that can potentially mitigate its existence is if it has received independent recognition per WP:WEBCRIT. Also, please note that it is policy bases rationales that count, not votes. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with regret. I want an open competitor to IMDb, and wish TMDB success; but I don't see this fledgling website as getting sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. I hope to see the site is successful, and therefore gets coverage and merits an article, but it's too soon. TJRC (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft so this article can continue to be worked on as independent, significant, and reliable sources become available. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP - there is some good, eventually source-able, content in this article which could be developed and improved. Also, there is not currently consensus on either side of this discussion, which has already continued for an extended period. - tucoxn\talk17:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my previous comments. Sure, maybe a lack of high-end sources in relation to its use purely as a website a la IMDb-type usage, but the information that is gathered via the site does nonetheless form a major component as part of both media management software (e.g. Plex, Kodi, et al.), and as a component of other online sites data (e.g. Letterboxd et al.) and software management (themoviedb.org/apps ). There are a great many things both on and off WP that won't/haven't received massive press attention, because they are technical things that do not necessarily make for great reporting subject matter. To reiterate, it's been around a decent amount of time, since 2008, and has been running successfully ever since, as evidenced by its continued usage on said other platforms for their data usage. And there are quotes in there from some of these sites, evidencing its existence and usage as a data source. Jimthing (talk) 01:14, 11 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.
Appears to be the subject's CV. None of the article's "references" are independent. Fails WP:PROF/WP:GNG as there are no apparent reliable sources (at least, not online) that establish the subject's notability in general or as an academic. Brycehughes (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She clearly passes WP:CREATIVE by exhibiting in known museums and major galleries in Israel. The article definitely is copy paste of here CV and need significant rework and improvement, but no doubt she is notable. I am trying to remove CV look and promotional tone at least Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In order to meet WP:CREATIVE they need to either have a permanent exhibit or be a major part of the temporary display at a main stream museum. Since the article gives no indication that either is true, I do not believe they meet the minimum requirements. - GalatzTalk14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And she exhibited in mainstream museums, which is indicated in the article: Haifa Museum of Art, Janco Dada Museum in Ein Hod, The Artist House in Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum, Ashdod Museum of Art. So, why delete? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only part of WP:CREATIVE that I feel is applicable is #4 which states The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (a) I see no significant monument, (b) which of those exhibits were significant they a substantial part of? I see no mention of that in the article, (c) I see no RS showing significant critical attention, (d) what are the permanent collections within a notable gallery or museum? Being as none of this has been clearly stated in the article I have no reason to believe any of it is true. - GalatzTalk15:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This part says either - it does not require all of them to be satisfied. And you don't see this part in list of group and solo exhibitions? It's clearly there. Museums where she was part of group exhibitions and the solo exhibitions in the Open Museum. Also, I just noticed the The Ann and Ari Rosenblatt Prize for Visual Art, she received in 2016 makes her pass 4c as well as 4b Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that WP:ARTIST requires that they need to either have a permanent exhibit. That would be an extraordinary hurdle to overcome. As far as I'm concerned, 4b, 4c and 4d are met. Keep. Mduvekot (talk) 01:55, 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.
Keep Satisfies WP:BAND with significant coverage in numerous RSes, has won or placed 2nd or 3d in numerous competitions. This was kept in the previous AfD and it appears there is nothing new to suggest a different outcome. Gab4gab (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:BAND is not the applicable guideline here. As a high school music group, the primary goal is education, not performing. WP:ORG is clearly the applicable guideline, and there is no indication this group has been recognized outside Metro Detroit. And yes there has been significant change in the community's view on notability since 2007. ORG didn't even exist in 2007. This is a bloated article, filled with intricate detail most likely of little interest outside of people already connected with the subject, and largely meaningless outside the US. John from Idegon (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A review of past AfDs regarding marching bands indicates there is no consensus regarding the applicable guideline. Consensus has been reached based on GNG, ORG and BAND (& probably others). ORG did in fact exist back on 2007. At the time of the previous nom of this band it was an English Wikipedia notability criteria. Notability is based on existing sources, not the current state of an article. Gab4gab (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. there may be little consensus on the notability of marching bands, but this one is clear enough. No first place in a national competition; any number of runner up positions are not the same as coming in first. No apparent influence on the field in general.Absurd article, of no interest to anyone outside of the school. Extensive uncited material, most of it based upon mere opinion, such as: " however, the inclusion of this controversial pocket had gained widespread use as a holder of loose change". No notable alumni. No visible references outside the immediate area. No reason to expect there would be any. An opinion saying keep, because there's no consensus of standards is not an argument for keep, as it gives no reason that applies to the article in question. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way back when, I was in my award-winning high school marching band (which I see is still winning awards, Go Cardinals!). But, really, it's a high school band. I don't see anything in the article that makes me think it's anything more than that. I agree that WP:BAND does not apply here. -- RoySmith(talk)14:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting WP:GNG is sufficient even if it doesn't meet a specific, more narrow guideline. The WP:ORG page even notes that pages can meet the general notability criteria instead. So I'm not sure what your point is. Smartyllama (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, SL, but you are mistaken. The only mention of GNG under ORG is that schools can be notable by simply meeting GNG. This is not a school, it is an organization within a school. Clearly GNG does not apply. John from Idegon (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is the "general notability guideline". It does not apply only to organizations, companies, schools or bands. It applies to every article. There are many cases where a given thing X fails the notability guideline for that subject area yet passes GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at WP:BAND we see that the guideline applies to "orchestras". Ok, this marching band is not an orchestra. But, it is every bit as large. I fail to see how an instrumental group of the same size as a typical orchestra doesn't qualify under WP:BAND simply because it uses instrumentation that is different than a typical orchestra. Reading WP:BAND, we see it says such ensembles may be notable if the ensemble "has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." The Grand National Championship run by Bands of America is "most prestigious national marching band event available to high school marching bands". I can't see any reason for doubt that this championship would not qualify. The band for discussion here has won this national level competition not once, not twice, but THREE times, tied for second most ever. They've been 2nd twice, and 3rd twice. Any one of these 7 national level placings would have them qualify under WP:BAND. Yet, they've done it _7_ times. How many times does a band have to do this before they are notable? I was concerned about WP:AUD, but note coverage outside of their region with this, and others. I also note that finding a massive number of results is likely complicated by the band's last top three placing being in 2001...a decade and a half ago. I believe with the sources provided and available that WP:GNG is readily met (and yes, WP:GNG applies), as well as WP:BAND and WP:AUD. This article is badly, badly in need of a rewrite. There's a serious amount of puffery and fluff here. I mean seriously, discussing a third pocket being removed from the uniform and noting very little media attention over the event? Really? Regardless, the sad state of an article is NOT a reason to delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 10 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.
Strong delete She comes no where close to meeting any of the notability requirements for artists. No indication that any institution has included her work in a permanent collection. The people's choice award she won is no where near notable. She is a non-notable local artist whose bio may well be the result of an edit a thon conducted by people who really should have spent more time trying to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to engage in boosterism to try and make your town seem the next major up and coming art hub.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 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.
Keep. I've expanded the article a bit and think there is enough sourcing for this to meet GNG. Some of the sourcing is regional and/or paywalled, but there are several non-regional articles from reliable sources that address the organization in depth. Its history goes back to the 19th century and there look to be plenty of articles in newspaper archives. The organization was previously known under a couple of different names, which helps to find historical articles. The University of Minnesota also holds material in its archives and special collections that can be used as an additional source. gobonobo+c02:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources going back several decades are available, in both news and Google books. Since it is over a hundred years old, print sourcees are very likely to exist as well. Meets GNG easily just on the Google books and Newspaper refs. It would be pretty hard to be a public institution for over century and not have a decent amount publicity.96.127.243.41 (talk) 09:21, 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.
Lots of sources, but most are to the subject's books. I have been unable to find much independent coverage; lots of Google hits but all are to sources connected to the subject, or blogs. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention to the entry on me. I would like to provide the sources that the article needs, but as the subject of the article my understanding is that I should not be the one to do such edits.
“I dream of horses” indicated that a citation was needed for the statement that the Warshak dissertation “was the first study to directly compare children growing up in father-custody homes to children growing up in mother-custody homes.”
A source for this statement can be found if you Google: santrock warshak journal social issues. The first hit is to an article cited by 392. This journal article was based on my dissertation. The beginning of the journal article reviews the literature at that time and demonstrates that my dissertation study was the first study to directly compare children growing up in father-custody homes to children growing up in mother-custody homes. Thus, the reference for this statement in the paragraph under Career is that 1979 article. The full reference for that article can be found as the first reference in the section: Selected publications: Scientific articles.
The instructions on this page indicate the need for “Find sources” and includes NYT. I authored an amicus brief that was influential in the decision made by the California Supreme Court. The New York Times published an article mentioning my work and quoting me in their Sunday, Front page of Section 1 article on the landmark case. Here is a link to this article:
Footnotes 46-48 include links to three Time magazine articles that quoted me.
Footnote 28 links to an article by the Hague Conference on Private International Law that refers to one of my journal articles as one of the “three most cited articles” on the subject. The link is still active and footnote 72 of the article on page 13 includes the quote about “three most cited articles.”
I would be glad for any part of the entry on me that does not reflect a neutral point of view to be amended, and I would also be glad to provide any sources that you think would improve the entry.
For instance, Melcous made a number of improvements to the page. He or she also removed the statement that I served as a White House consultant on family law reform. This is fine with me, although I do think this information is relevant to the entry. For a source, see page 86, paragraph 3 of the pdf file accessed on this page http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED386269.pdf
The document mentions my name as meeting with White House Assistant Domestic Policy advisor Bill Galston. At that meeting I was one of only three participants who were invited to deliver summaries of the scientific literature to guide family law reform. If it would help, I may be able to locate the letter in my files from the White House thanking me for the consultation.
I apologize if my comments above do not fit proper Wiki style and, again, I appreciate that you have taken the time to review the article. Naturally I hope that you will decide to keep the article and I will be glad to provide any needed sources.Rawars (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Book Review Divorce Poison: Protecting the Parent-Child Bond from a Vindictive Ex. by Richard A. Warshak, New York: Regan Books/Harper Collins, 2002, ...
Goldin, Eugene;Murphey, Joann
American Journal of Family Therapy, Oct 01, 2003; Vol. 31, No. 5, p. 445-449
Reviews the book "Divorce Poison: Protecting the Parent-Child Bond From a Vindictive E... more
A Review of 'Divorce Poison: How to Protect Your Family from Bad-Mouthing and Brainwashing'.
Worenklein, Abe
American Journal of Family Therapy, Oct 01, 2010; Vol. 38, No. 5, p. 440-441
The article reviews the book "Divorce Poison: How to Protect Your Family from Bad-Mout... more
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only references are 'self-published' either on their site, or youtube. No GNews hits for 'World fasting Day', and the prose itself states it was founded by a high school student, but no other assertion of notability. - Happysailor(Talk)22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Lousy sourcing. Same article was first created by User:Worldfastingday (talk ·contribs) (probably the high school student), then speedy deleted. That account was blocked as promotional. Then very shortly thereafter the article was created again by Thebookworm24 (talk·contribs), whose account was created (surprise!!) minutes before creating the article. Then (surprise again!!) Mz.Wiz (talk·contribs) and Kingrogeres (talk·contribs) accounts were created just in time to oppose deletion. Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 5 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 per the above; reliable sources have been found and incorporated into the article. Due to the pages' size, however, I would not be against merging the links in Template:Stock sound effects into one article, but all of their content must be kept. Modernponderer (talk) 14:19, 11 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 keep. Unlike with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016, there are no editors here advocating deletion. Since Cunard makes a good point (without opposition) that the proposed merge target is not suitable (or rather a merge at all is not the correct way to go), there is no consensus whether to merge at all and if so, where to. But a merge can be discussed at any time and this AfD does not create a precedent to keep this article in the current form. SoWhy10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This speech is not notable on its own. The election victory was notable. There is incredibly little in this article in terms of actual analysis of what was said, or that wouldn't be better off discussed at the appropriate articles, such as United States presidential election, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.
Keep I don't understand why this is even an issue. There are 25 sources on the article, most of them from top news sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, ABC, CNN, and so on. It was obviously covered everywhere, and the fact that this was the first time a person of African descent had been elected the leader of the US (or, indeed, any major majority-white nation) is significant. Perhaps the article doesn't have in-depth analysis, but why does it need to? It covers what was deemed worth reporting at the time, such as the references made and the context. When the lack of articles for other speeches is brought up, it just makes me think that, yeah, there should be a page for the "I am not a crook" speech and such. Brettalan (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the speech received widespread coverage, so it meets notability criteria. The article is a non-stub, with 24 cited references from good quality sources. This article cannot be merged without losing material. Maintaining a low-level detailed article on the speech as well as higher-level articles on the 2008 election and Obama's speeches is in keep with Wikipedia's summary style. I don't see a rationale for deletion other than deletion for deletion's sake.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When CNN flashed the news over giant video screens in Grant Park, the crowd erupted in cheers. A television camera caught a glimpse of Oprah Winfrey and Jesse Jackson; both had tears running down their cheeks. Within minutes, at around eleven, Obama received congratulatory calls from Senator McCain and President George W. Bush. In the New York Times, Adam Nagourney wrote, "People rolled spontaneously into the streets to celebrate what many described as ... a new era in a country where just 143 years ago, Mr. Obama, a black man, could have been owned as a slave." He called Obama a "phenomenon" and referred to his election as "a national catharsis".
Obama's acceptance speech was a stem-winder. The Obama writers had outdone themselves—and they'd done it as a team. Favreau penned the first half, and the entire group, including Adam Frankel, Sarah Hurwitz, and Ben Rhodes, wrote the remainder together.
It was a sober statement. Given the grave economic crisis, Obama did not want pageantry and bombast. He didn't want to spend those sacred minutes crowing. So, despite the evening's $2 million price tag, there were no fireworks, as some had hoped for, and no recount of the landslide. Instead, Obama framed the moment and discussed its significance. He reached out to those who hadn't voted for him—and let them know that he would be their president, too. Obama knew that would be the key to his success as commander in chief; he was now the president of all Americans.
Obama declared, "It's been a long time coming, but ... change has come to America"—an allusion to the Sam Cooke song "A Change Is Gonna Come." He spoke about Ann Nixon Cooper, a 106-year-old African American woman, who voted that day in Atlanta, as representative of that change. In her lifetime, Cooper had seen Pearl Harbor and Selma, but she never thought she'd see a black president. Just minutes before Obama declared victory, Favreau hid underneath his desk to find a quiet spot and called Cooper. She couldn't believe her ears when he told her that the president-elect would talk about her experience in his victory speech. Change had come.
Obama also spoke of the travails ahead, acknowledging the onerous challenges he was inheriting. Too many Americans had lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes; millions more were without health care. Brave soldiers were risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama knew that "our union [could] be perfected." But it wouldn't be easy. Echoing Martin Luther King's "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, Obama insisted, "The road ahead will be long, our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even in one term—but America, I have never been more helpful than I am tonight that we will get there."
It was time to give his speech. Barack Obama summoned Axelrod, who jogged to catch up to him in the tunnel as he strode toward the stage. "I just wanted you to know," Obama said, "there was a good fireworks display planned, but I killed it. Too frivolous for the times."
Within minutes he and his family stepped forward, separated from the entire world by two-inch-thick bullet-proof glass. He began by savoring the historic "defining moment":
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founds is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. ...
It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.
But he made a point of emphasizing the long struggle to come:
I know you didn't just do this to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime—two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.
Out in Grant Park 250,000 people were more interested in the history than the challenges ahead. They celebrated with no arrests, which was almost unheard-of on festive occasions in the city. For older Chicagoans the location had a special resonance. In 1968 police had clubbed antiwar demonstrators across Michigan Avenue from the Conrad Hilton Hotel, the same area of Grant Park where Obama now gave his victory speech. The violence at that year's Democratic National Convention split the Democratic Party and helped elect Richard Nixon, who came to personify an ugly chapter in the American story. Forty years later the party's wounds seemed finally healed and some of Chicago's tortured racial history joyously transcended, at least for one night. Retired cops and long-ago hippies and their children and grandchildren all gathered in the park, this time on the same side of the barricades.
The article contains numerous 2008 news sources already in the article. I have provided news articles from 2016 and 2017 that discuss Obama's 2008 victory speech. I have also provided two 2010 book sources that discuss it.
Speedy keep, in my opinion, an undisputedly notable, speech of the first African American President's election victory. Sources do in fact highlight this as a specific speech. It is independently notable of his election campaign. The speech has been analyzed by academics and is therefore notable as well. Valoemtalkcontrib19:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is my opinion. AfD votes are opinions based on the guidelines created to determine whether or not a subject is notable for independent coverage. I believe speeches which have been analyzed by linguists and academics are notable. When specific segments of a speech are compared to others it may by notable. I believe that the first victory speech of the first African American president should be clearly notable for independent coverage. I hope that clarifies any misunderstanding. Valoemtalkcontrib20:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's verifiably false this is "undisputed" as I and others have disputed it. But this is a digression I will not continue. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 12 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, WP:TOOSOON. Citations in Google Scholar [2] far too low (in a high-citation area of CS, itself a high-citation field) for WP:PROF#C1, and a best-paper award, while praiseworthy, is too commonplace to count as the kind of "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" asked for in #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 5 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. the page has been significantly extended - coverage in Nature, Scientific American, and in the news. Gfxnut (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Google scholar [3] lists him as fourth most highly cited among the researchers who list "procedural modeling" as one of their specialties, although he is much lower down on the lists for computer graphics or geometric modeling. He's a full professor at a good research university. And he has five publications with over 100 citations each, probably enough for WP:PROF#C1. And Eurographics chair, although not enough for notability by itself, does indicate some confidence in him by his peers in the same research area. But although I think it's above threshold, it's a pretty marginal case. Except for one Scientific American blog post apparently on his "Stress Relief" paper (in which he is in a middle positition among five non-alphabetical authors) I didn't find much in the way of independent sources describing him or his works in any significant depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)(27.97.181.147 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The news and Sources clearly stated the importance.31.Björklinge is previously deleted article,but now added reliable sources Sjorford (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.
The result was delete. For whatever it's worth (probably little), I don't think the A7 decline was unreasonable. However there is a clear consensus here that Holcombe does not meet our notability guidelines. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to have dropped out of academia to become a middle school teacher [4]. And before then he taught at the university level with a master's degree for ten years rather than making even the minimal mark on scholarship that it would take to produce a PhD. So academic notability seems out of reach. And while it is not impossible to become notable as a middle school teacher, it would take extraordinary accomplishments that aren't visible here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, did you see the A7 removal by Adam9007? I believe that user doesn't know what A7 is (and thus we are wasting our time here). Anyway, this is an obvious delete for all the reasons mentioned above--basically, doesn't pass PROF, doesn't pass GNG. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the ignorance of some editors, we owe the subject the respect of giving actual explanations for why he is not worthy of an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will continue to update the page. as stated by Adam9007 A7 doesn't apply. Additionally, Authorship of a paper published by The Office of Research Integrity further substantiates the claim. This should never have been marked for speedy deletion. Also - shouldn't have to be stated, but - there's no need for insults or name calling. Trailmixers (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trailmixers, that paper--you linked a PDF without any publication information. I assume this is in reference to United States Office of Research Integrity? Since this is not a peer-reviewed publication (it seems), and since there is no secondary information that argues that somehow this paper is important, there is no way in which it can help notability per WP:PROF. In addition, a bit of poking around brings me to this, which makes me think that this is a UAB-run project, not the national club, even further diminishing its worth in regards to notability. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me that the article requires further development. Notability tag was completely reasonable. Deletion proceedings were premature. Article still under development. Trailmixers (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailmixers: Considering the fact that this article originally was about a completely different person whose surname you mis-spelled when you created it, I'm not sure how much development this article needs - after all, you've only created it to over-ride the redirect that was put in place when you created an article about a non-notable musician. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another baffling CSD decline from Adam9007, with the rationale "Teaching at a notable university is an indication of importance/significance" - no it bloody well isn't. The GNG isn't met, WP:PROF isn't met. Once again, editors' time is being wasted when an A7 Speedy would have been appropriate. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. Speedy Deletion isn't an extreme measure, it's a routine part of Wikipedia's integrity procedures and it's not something to take personally. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adam9007 we don't have the time to do the research needed to prove this person is notable. What I would suggest is that you put this in your sandbox and work on it until it is completely done, then ask for someone more senior to review it and try again. IMO don't publish the page live and attempt to work on it, that's the quickest way to get the page deleted. Finish, Review then Publish. Good luck to you, keep trying, but for the moment, there isn't evidence that it is ready.Sgerbic (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All Adam9007 did was to remove an A7 speedy tag because he felt that being a university instructor was a sufficient claim of significance to skate by on that criterion. That looks like a completely normal piece of the deletion process to me. In what way is it disruptive? Exemplo347, Drmies, Trailmixers, and others should note that judging something to not be eligible for A7 speedy is not the same as (and not supposed to be the same as) a judgement that the subject is actually notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might have got my wires crossed actually, and misread Adam's comment of "I'm not the article's creator" as trying to brush off any concerns about notability as not his problem, as opposed to just saying they were responding to the wrong editor. I decline A7s all the time with a summary of "decline speedy, try PROD / AfD" and many do indeed end up there, so to complain specifically about that would be the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry about that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, I would probably have declined A7 too with a rationale of "decline A7, some sources, vague claim to PROF, try AfD". Might have even started the AfD. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm the article creator. I have added sources, a few other updates, and will continue to do so. Happy to discuss any/all feedback to improve the article, but this discussion has been largely unapproachable from my position. All of which could have been avoided if someone could have simply used the talk page..... Trailmixers (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you confirm which specific numbered criteria under WP:NACADEMICS you believe has been met? The Admin who will close this discussion after the specified period will need to see this. Exemplo347 (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This particular discussion will be closed by an uninvolved Admin, when they personally feel the discussion has gone on long enough for a consensus to be reached - it'll be a minimum of 7 days, and I've known them to go on for a few weeks if necessary. A request for early closure will probably be ignored - it's important that as many people as possible have a chance to participate. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:59, 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.
Still unchanged company advertising as the history shows, which also shows 1 suspiciously active IP, 92.20.196.186, adding only what the company would advertise to its clients and it happens to be geolocated near the company, so that itself shows no one has successfully improved the article beyond despite assurances about it, and also considering the past attempts; joining the past SPAs, the forementioned IP, Ymd2014, Nicoleblanckenberg, Eyaladam0 and Yofisimon, all suggestively showing employee accounts. To analyze the current sources: 1-5 are all clearly labeled company-POV announcements (including the supposedly best coverage), 6 is an empty link, 12 is actually the same link as #2 before and 7-11 & 13-17 and 19-22 are all labeled funding achievements and advertised columns. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH which states: [Unacceptable sources are] Brief announcements, simple statements, press releases, anything by or for the company, or where it talks about itself, wherever published", and although searches here and here found links, the majority of them are simply fitting the above "unacceptable" criteria, even when considering the few stories about the CEO's imprisonment; closely analyzing each page simply found immediate changing to 2012, showing the in-depth bareness. WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid have always taken importance when evaluating Wikipedia and its purposes, because No Advertising has always been one of them. Also examining the article closely again shows the separated timing: March, August and December 2014, April, May and November 2015 and January and July 2016. SwisterTwistertalk20:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting, but the process is still somewhat clumsy. This is due to the fact that the retailers refuse to accept physical or digital copies of store credit, only originals.
...
Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear, and the two founders are in talks on the matter with the retail chains, but they emphasize that no matter what, for users, the buyers and sellers, there will be no charge for use of the app or transaction fees of any sort.
The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future. The US is irrelevant, because store credit is very rarely used there.
For the time being it only has a Hebrew website.
The first investor in the company was Uri Levine, former president and co-founder of traffic app Waze , who today is chairman and co-founder of financial fees comparison site Feex. He is also an angel investor.
In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are. According to Zeek CEO Daniel Zelkind, retailers are cleaning up on this system, to the detriment of consumers. As much as NIS 600 million ($175 million) in store credits go unused every year.
The Zeek app, available for Android and iOS, allows users to scan a copy of their credit and upload details to Zeek’s cloud. Users name their asking price. Zeek categorizes and tags the credit by store, product, style, gender and age appropriateness, and any other criteria users potential buyers would search for. Buyers pay no commission, and depending on store policies, sellers can often sell different chunks of their credit to different customers, allowing them to maximize their sale coverage.
While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”
Zeek looks to combat this age-old frustration by setting up a digital marketplace where unloved gift cards can be bought and sold with ease.
It’s simple really - Agatha’s ungrateful sod of a nephew uploads a picture of his gift card and sets a price, all via his smartphone.
The app then lets willing buyers pick up the gift card at the discounted value – Zeek reckons it sees an average 20 per cent skimmed off – and find it in their postbox shortly thereafter.
Money goes direct to into the seller’s bank account or PayPal, and the buyer is now free to spend his or her new gift card as he or she pleases.
Zeek is a mobile app and website that allows users to buy gift cards and vouchers from their favorite brands at a discount and sell unwanted gift vouchers for cash, providing a solution to the estimated $100 billion of unused gift cards globally.
...
Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, VP Marketing Itay Erel and CTO Ziv Isaiah and has 35 employees in Israel and London. The company has raised $12.5 million to date including the latest financing round.
If you thought gift cards didn’t have traction, think again. Israel-based Zeek announced a $9.5 million Series B funding round led by Scale-Up Venture Capital on Wednesday. That financing includes contributions from major players like Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Ventures.
The company’s site and app sells gift cards to major brands, as well as resells unused or unwanted gift cards. Reselling would presumably put a dent in what Zeek‘s press release says is a staggering $100 billion in unused gift cards, up from an estimated $41 billion in unclaimed gift cards between 2005 and 2011.
...
Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, Itay Erel and Ziv Isaiah. Zeek will direct a chunk of the new round toward expansion in the UK market.
Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion worth of unused gift cards and vouchers for users. Zeek is a web-based and app marketplace platform that allows users to buy gift vouchers for over 350 leading UK brands at discounted rates as well as sell their unwanted gift vouchers quickly and easily. zeek.me
If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say.
Today the Tel Aviv-headquarted company is disclosing that it’s closed a $3 million Series A round from Blumberg Capital, Qualcomm Ventures (the chip maker’s venture arm), and Waze founder and existing Zeek investor Uri Levin. Originally launched in Israel before expanding to the U.K. in December 2014, the startup plans to use the new funding to “expedite” further European expansion.
Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth.
The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount.
In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast.
With that said, in a statement Alex Lazovsky, General Partner of Scale-Up VC, is talking up Zeek’s unicorn potential, although I tellingly failed to get the startup’s current valuation.
Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons.
Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million in Series A funding from Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Inc. through its venture investment group, Qualcomm Ventures and Waze founder Uri Levin.
Zeek said it will use this new funding to facilitate its expansion into Europe this year.
Comment@Cunard: I was impressed that you put so much effort into looking for references that would establish notability. Unfortunately it appears you have a different interpretation to WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH than others including me. Sources must be secondary - that means they shouldn't parrot PR releases or extensively quote from corporate officers or investors. Also, funding rounds or investor participation is not considered useful for establishing notability. Looking at the 11 references you provided:
1. Classic advertorial. Describes the problem (straight off the corporate data sheets and website) and then the flash of insight by the founders and the solution including selected quotes from the CEO and a mention of investors. It's not intellectually separate, relies on Primary sources and fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS.
2. Just to save myself typing the same things over and over ... please refer to what I said in 1. above. Same thing applies here.
3. And again.
4. Fund raising does not establish notability. It's also another advertorial. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
5. Same as 4. above.
6. Same as 4. above.
7. Same as 4. above. Also being on a list of similar companies also fails WP:COPRPDEPTH.
8: Same as 1. and 4. above. Also, just be aware, Techcrunch is just about never an independent source.
9. See 8. above
10. See 1. and 4. above
11. See 1. above but mainly see 4. above.
It's a shame that for so much effort I don't agree with any of your choices for sources that establish notability. If you've any questions about the interpretation of sources above, fire ahead and I'll do my best to answer them. -- HighKing++ 16:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider bylined articles published in reputable Israeli newspapers to be advertisements. The assertion that the journalists are publishing advertorials is a vicious attack on the journalists' integrity. Such attacks should not be made without clear evidence that the journalists' independence has in fact been compromised by payment from the subject, for example.
That a journalist has asked for and included quotes from the subjects of the articles is proper journalistic practice. That you disagree with the newspapers' journalistic and editorial judgment about what should be included in their articles does not render the sources unreliable.
Fundraising articles do establish notability when the articles provide deep coverage of the subject. From WP:CORPDEPTH, "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." The articles I listed here clearly "extends beyond routine announcements" by discussing the products and history in detail.
Well that explains why we have different opinions. I'm wasn't sure why you highlighted "reputable Israeli newspapers" - what about others like Digital Trends and Techcrunch which are mainly North American? Anyway, the articles speak for themselves. An article that follows the well known formula of "problem, lightbulb moment by entrepeneur, company solution, funding, selected PR quotes from a founder or CEO or other company officer" is a Primary source with no evidence of independent fact checking. You'll find that when a company has established real notability, this formula tends to disappear very quickly. You say that fundtaising articles do establish notability - which is true, but only if those articles are independent. If you read a little more from WP:CORPDEPTH you'll come across Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. You'll also find that acceptable sources include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. You'll find that a primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon itexcept for press releases, press kits, or similar works which is where that "formula" for the articles come from. The bottom line is that none of the *facts* can be verified by an independent secondary source, since the sources are getting their facts directly from the company. -- HighKing++ 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that explains why we have different opinions. – I don't consider journalists to become non-independent when they interview their articles' subjects. I don't attack journalists' reputation by saying they are writing advertorials when they are following the standard journalistic practice of including quotations from their subjects, have a writing style I don't like, or include content I consider unimportant.
I'm wasn't sure why you highlighted "reputable Israeli newspapers" - what about others like Digital Trends and Techcrunch which are mainly North American? – the Israeli newspapers have covered Zeek in substantial detail so are the strongest sources about the company.
The bottom line is that none of the *facts* can be verified by an independent secondary source, since the sources are getting their facts directly from the company. – you are making an assertion unsupported by evidence. The sources could have independently verified the information in their articles during fact-checking by the sources' editors. Since no evidence has been provided to show otherwise and exceptional claims require exceptional sources, I will assume good faith that these sources, which have a reputation for fact-checking, did in fact do their due diligence and are not blindly publishing advertorials masquerading as actual news articles.
When you say journalists writing news articles are not producing independent articles, you are claiming that the journalists are committing journalistic malpractice. Reputable publications that have determined a journalist has committed journalistic malpractice will fire the journalist for failing to do his or her job. Journalistic malpractice is a serious charge to make and should not be made without clear evidence.
These are the same exact sources that were analyzed in the first AfD: "Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting"...."The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future"...."In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are"...."While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”...."If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say"...."Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth"...."The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount"....In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast"...."Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons"....Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million from....". None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH because the sources contained clear pricing information, costs, servicing information, etc. (certainly not satisfying WP:GNG, since anything with pricing information is sure to not be independent), and it wouldn't even satisfy WP:What Wikipedia is not, our main policy. Even if the sources were acceptable, the violations of WP:Paid, alone are non-negotiable. SwisterTwistertalk00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. Fails WP:CORP. Article has been "reference bombed" mostly by IP 92.20.196.186 (37 sources are referenced in 6 sentence lede!) which do nothing to establish notability as they are either direct press releases or derived from company press releases or articles where over half the article is quotes from a company executive which are not independent sources per policy WP:PROMOTION and guideline "Non-independent sources - Press Releases".. WP:GNG requires a topic to meet all 3 requirements of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Strangely, the article has 22 sources listed and, with the possible exception of the CNN Money article, none seem to meet the "independent" requirement. CBS527Talk03:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the majority of the content about the company in both articles is coming from a primary source, either a company press release or from a company executive. Since the references are derived from primary sources they are not sufficient to establish notability. CBS527Talk01:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Significant portions from the two articles are not attributed to the company executives. What specific company press releases is the material from The Times of Israel and Globes articles reliant on? Cunard (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and lack of notability; the company is not yet encyclopedically relevant. The coverage presented at this AfD is about company plans, aspirations and funding, with the news of its funding repeated multiple times, such as "A gift card startup just raised $9.5 million to solve the unclaimed gift card problem". This is insufficiently independent coverage, and strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." It is permissible for Wikipedia articles to be sourced to reputable secondary sources that have obtained information from primary sources and then validated that the information is accurate through fact-checking.
Keep, sources highlighted by Cunard are reliable independent sources giving the company and its history significant coverage. Sources such as Times of Israel and Digital Trends pass WP:RS, it really is that simple. If that's not enough here is a source from CNN giving the subject significant coverage. Valoemtalkcontrib19:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN coverage has the same issue as all of the above -- it's not fully independent. For example, the article states:
"Zeek co-founder and CEO Daniel Zelkind said his app has been downloaded 200,000 times and has helped people buy and sell over $200,000 in gift cards since launching earlier this year."
Are you suggesting the entire CNN article is a promotion written by the company, or that one quote used from the company invalidates CNN as a source. Regardless, I fail to see how WP:TOOSOON applies. Valoemtalkcontrib01:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The remarkable similarity between most of the references indicates their common origin as a press release. One or two are more extensive interviews by the founder, in which they say whatever the choose to say. This is firmly established as unusable for the purposes of establish notability--and for almost anything else except what they choose to give as their opinions. It is highly unlikely that a company of this minute size would be notable--almost no firm in the A or B rounds of financing is, though there are exceptions. At that stage these ae firms that are in great need of advertising and publicity, as they usually have very little else to offer. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to help them establish their business. The elaborate defense above of some of the references loss its point, when one reads what they actually say. Some such presentations in detail do succeed in establishing some degree of notability, and can be a perfectly valid way of arguing. In this case, it just confirm the lack of notability . As just one example "Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion "; considering their total funding is under $30 million, this extravagent goal clearly shows how far they are from having actual significance. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly unlikely that a company of this minute size would be notable--almost no firm in the A or B rounds of financing is, though there are exceptions. – firms of any size or any round of financing are notable if they pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It is an unbelievable claim to say that The Times of Israel, Globes, and CNN are not reliable sources or to say that The Times of Israel, Globes, and CNN are not independent of the subject.
That an Israeli company received significant coverage in the American news station CNN and in the UK publication TrustedReviews strongly establishes it is notable. A non-notable firm would not receive international significant coverage in respected publications.
Keep - coverage from CNN, Times of Israel, and Globes is non-trivial. A quick search also brought up mentions in the guardian, MarketWatch, and the economist (a short data piece - but actually quite interesting (from a finance perspective) - they compared discount-rates by chain on Zeek's website - by scraping data from Zeek - would seem this is independent research) - which I'm placing in the article. As this is a consumer-facing business dealing with a common consumer problem (in some markets) - it is receiving more coverage than a typical series-B startup.[5][6][7]. These are not promotional pieces - they are covering a few companies in this "gift card resale market" Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note - looking at the press, it seems "gift card coverage" is an annual recurring staple around Christmas. And it seems Zeek (and 2-3 other startups) have worked themselves into this recurring coverage - so whomever is covering the "gift card angle" on the yearly piece at various outlets - is working them in - which shows notability.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 13 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.
While the existence of this artist project/hoax website seems established, there's very little to establish notability. Notability question was raised on Talk page in 2010. No coverage found in the sorts of sources usually considered reliable and very little else, jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)07:58, 17 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.
Speedy delete: Meets CSD Criteria for a non noteworthy person. I have co-CSD tagged if it does not fall under CSD (an admin drops it) I will explain why it should be deleted per other policy. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xb2u7Zjzc32: Which of the references that you have provided above give evidence for the assertion that this individual subject to the article is notable? As KAP03 rightly said there are guidelines like WP:ONEEVENT which suggest against judging notability on the back of single events which are reported about by the media. Furthermore, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, you might be very right Xb that this person is reported about by the media on a short term basis however this does not automatically make someone notable. Furthermore, you have provided "go fund me links" which is rather strange when you are trying to assert notability. Are you sure you are trying to convince me of this person’s notability or are you trying to get me to donate to someone? Wikipedia can be an awesome place for people to get knowledge on those who have had a great amount of impact on the world, and while the subject of this article is probably a great guy (sarcasm heavily implied) that does not justify a Wikipedia biography, nor does temporary "one event" speculative news sorties support a claim for notability. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)19:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xb2u7Zjzc32: As you have mentioned yourself, this person is a suspect in a hideous crime. They are reported about by the media for supposedly making bomb threats and other terrorist threats. Are you arguing that because this man is said to have made these threats and a non-wide coverage of those threats has been made by a very few small and unchecked news outlets that thus this person is notable? Suspected paedophiles are often reported about by my local media, does that on its own give them the notability to have a Wikipedia article made about them?. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)20:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources specifically about Thompson. His notability isn't really for a single event - there's coverage about his association with The Intercept, and he's only a minor player in the Jewish community center bombing threats, it appears. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable for at least two events - fake coverage in The Intercept (made up quotes, including one about Dylan Roof motive because a former girlfriend dated black men - see The_Intercept#Juan_Thompson_scandal) + threats against the Jewish community centers. He has been subject of quite intense media coverage due to these two incidents - the first one (the intercept), by itself, one quite notable in its notoriety in the national media, and was a major scandal for "The Intercept". Beyond this - his own reporting and views also have some weight. This isn't a low-profile individual - to the contrary, his name is out there and has been out there for a while.Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
planting fake news, including fake news that got very wide publication (the Dylan Roof piece - which was repeated elsewhere) in a major publication and which caused great embarrassment to that publication - is noteworthy. Being involved a major national terror/intimidation campaign which got widespread media coverage (also outside of the US) - is noteworthy. There is BLPCrime to consider here - but he is definitely noteworthy.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
notable enough that his firing from another news organization (Media Blackout USA) was covered between "The Intercept" affair and the JCC bomb threats - in sep 2016 [8]Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alamis partitioned the wise men: “Please hear my case for why the notorious horse thief, Cain, should be in the Alamac of criminals.”
The wise men remained silent, Alamis became angry and exclaimed “why is it that I must ask you to write the horse thieves name in the Alamac anyway! You men are called wise yet you do not see fit to put a name of a famous horse thief in a book for documenting criminals!”
Again, the wise men remained silent. Alamis became more frustrated as he sensed the wise men would rather not answer his pleas.
“Which of you is the wisest!” Alamis exclaimed.
“We are all equally as wise” the wise men replied.
“Why is this man not to be in the Alamac of criminals?!” Alamis retorted.
“Should a horse thief be remembered?” asked the wise men.
“No.” replied Alamis.
“Then surely it is not for you to have him remembered” the wise men responded.
Keep Not merely notable for the one event - that might be the case if he were only some guy who tried to frame his girlfriend. But he's also notable as a Jayson Blair-type, for fraudulent articles he wrote before the more prominent incident. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's already been noted in the Intercept article. It's a huge problem on Wikipedia whenever a public figure is accused of or looks like an obvious terrorist, there is always an effort to delete any article on the subject. The writer is also associated with dubious anti-American news outlets like the Intercept and Raw Story, and he called in the threats to his friends at CAIR. There are allegations that he is also a muslim convert, and that his work as an anti-American propagandist might have something to do with his real motive for harming Jewish institutions. Bachcell (talk) 17:12, 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.
Okay, this article has coverage in newspapers or other sources all of which only mention this school passively and as part of an event centred around another subject. Subjects do not inherit the notability of other subjects (see WP:INHERIT.) Given that sources which can be found do not give notability to the school itself, but rather another event entirely, then these are not sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:GEO. As subjects on Wikipedia do not inherit notability from others, this article documents a non-notable organization and thus should be deleted. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)18:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[nominator has withdrawn nomination][reply]
Keep. [Note to closing admin: This vote is made by the creator of the article] Shaare Torah is a school that in its decades of existance has had thousands of students. It's inherently notable, as all such educational insitutions serving thousands of people would be. Ezzi386 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ezzi386: So essentially your claim is that this school is worthy of attention or notice; That it is striking? One would notice no great quantity of modesty here. You have given me some information which can help build this article if it is indeed notable. That is it has "thousands of students." Has the school had any notable graduates of those thousands of people? Furthermore, you mentioned that the school is old so perhaps the article can go into its history therefore establishing more reason for it to be considered worthy of attention. If you are able to expand this article into something informative about how it is notable rather than just assuming its notable because it is a school then it would be a greater part of making Wikipedia more informative for everyone. I am quite interested to read about this schools striking history and would be very happy to rescind my nomination once the article itself demonstrates notability. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)23:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've cited that so many times I didn't realize the Rfc had closed with it being revised (albeit clumsily: why leave criterion 2 intact and then add a 4th criterion at the end, negating it?). Anyway, thanks for the head's up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I'm actually glad WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES no longer grants high schools automatic notability. But I guess we should prepare for a land rush of high school nominations? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: I guess that means a lot of category adding for you :-O. I do not even remember how I came across this article to be honest. I have no interest in schools but I guess we can compare Wikipedia to Youtube here. You can go from a video about how to plant a tree to a video with someone eating a squid alive (usually accompanied by a warning "graphic video" introduction for those who would not assume such information from the title of the video.) →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it does. That wasn't the wording of the RfC: it was to adopt a new notability guideline ("...the proposed change will not be adopted", to quote the closers). And note that I do not cite and never have cited SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The intention of the RfC closers was clearly not to open the floodgates to deletion of secondary school articles, as they clearly stated ("Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations"), and neither was it to destroy an existing consensus or give some sort of victory to the deletionists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy reply. I'm confused, then. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should not be cited even though the proposed change won't be adopted -- and the practice therefore remains in place for high schools, even though we can't cite why? I know that's not what you're saying -- but it's how it sounds to me. If WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot be cited at Afd then imo the precedence, based upon it, has expired. From what I can see, this school falls fails GNG. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent is that established over hundreds of AfDs. In what possible way does one discussion destroy all that precedent? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because the result states now that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist," which is what SCHOOLOUTCOMES often boiled down to, for secondary schools? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't know what you're after but the Rfc closure seems clear. Thank you for your initial reply. As far as I'm concerned, this is a sea change for high school notability, going forward. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree. Let's leave it at that. Deletionists, fill your boots! Have a field day! Destroy the project! Frankly, what's the point? I'm seeing less and less reason to be here, sadly. Petty "rules", petty "enforcers". Very sad to see where Wikipedia is going. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean someone (and there are sadly too many on Wikipedia) who delights more in deleting existing content (citing some non-existent "rule" to justify their behaviour) than in creating new content. Someone who comes to the project for the joy of destroying others' work rather than to create their own and to look down their nose at anyone who disagrees. The sort of people who actually come to an encyclopaedia and say that their main reason in being here is to delete content and reduce the size of Wikipedia (yes, I've actually seen that written). Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Wikipedia should be full of rubbish and I've deleted plenty of it in my time here, but neither do I believe that valid articles should be deleted just because they don't meet the letter of some rigid, monolithic "rule". I do not see how that is benefiting the incredible project that most of us are surely here to further. Over the years I have seen a massive increase in these "rules" and the number of editors who only seem to come here to "enforce" them and it's really not an edifying experience. This is not, incidentally, an attack on anyone who has posted here, in case it is mistakenly taken to be so. But there are certainly editors out there who will be crowing over the "deletionists' charter" that the RfD may be taken to be and will take full advantage of it to attempt to destroy others' work. It is sometimes hard to assume good faith after reading some comments posted on AfDs and easy to lose faith in what we are doing here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain that, I understand the term better now. With specific regard to this article. Have you noticed that this is a private school which students pay to be enrolled? And that the articles tone seems to be geared towards advertising its mere presence rather than quantify any encyclopaedic content? I would say that sometimes, it is human nature to personify an issue such as an AfD beyond the situational facts. When one examines this article, there is a single issue which I think would be worth considering; Is the article representative of content which ought to be on an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit. The boldened writing brings attention to a major factor here and that is Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and thus, theoretically, anything anyone could ever want to inform people about could be included. However, there are practical implications of allowing anything anyone wants to be written on this platform, mainly that it would become an indiscriminate compilation of informative text. Some of that indiscriminate text would be information designed to mislead or act as propaganda for certain causes. If this was to take hold Wikipedia would go from being a platform of knowledge to a platform of indoctrination.
Now there are two central viewpoints which are shown by my notion. Those who want Wikipedia to be a platform for indoctrination and those who want Wikipedia to be a platform for knowledge. Those who edit with a certain cause such as shown in this article wish it to become a platform for indiscriminate information which acts merely to show something exists and promote its existence rather than provide any useful knowledge about it. That in my mind is a step into the direction of Wikipedia becoming a platform for indoctrination and not knowledge, thus it is my belief it should be removed from Wikipedia.
There is a simple criterion which I followed when reading this article in its entirety; Did the article teach me anything? The simple answer was “no.” It showed me something, that is that the institution it speaks of is a private Jewish school which occupies a certain address in New York. Being shown something is invariably different from being taught something, some things both show and teach you things but this merely shows. Now I do not think Wikipedia is a mere stage, billboard or theatre and that is why I have nominated this article for deletion.
Note that we have never considered state schools to be more worthy than private schools and I see no good reason to start now. I also have to say that I see little in the way of advertising in the article. It is in no way attempting to "indoctrinate" anyone. It is, to my mind, an article entirely appropriate for an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you have understood the point which I was trying to put across here. “Note that we have never considered state schools to be more worthy than private schools and I see no good reason to start now” inferences that I made an argument as to why private schools are less notable than non-private schools. This is no way relevant to the points I made.
I’m going to try and simplify this. What makes schools exempt from WP:GNG This school is not covered by any coverage in any sources other than its own self-published sources which are not deemed reliable per WP:SOURCE.
A recent RfC closed with the summery that a school’s mere existence should not establish notability, which de facto is a reaffirmation of Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. It is not a debate about “deletionist” or “creationist” as Wikipedia is not a social experiment, it’s using rules and guidelines set in place by consensus built on experience from editors with a vast array of experiences on Wikipedia.
There is no debate as to if or not this article passes WP:GNG – it does not – and it is not likely to given that I can find no sources about this school other than self-published, however, I might be wrong and am open to being wrong. I am quite perplexed as to why an administrator is arguing against Wikipedia core policies, it does not make sense to me. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)01:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. "Have you noticed that this is a private school which students pay to be enrolled?", you asked. Sorry, but how could I take that as anything other than an argument that it was a special case because it was a fee-paying private school? If you weren't making that case then why did you ask the question in the first place? Since it would be utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator states "This school is not covered by any coverage in any sources other than its own self-published sources which are not deemed reliable per WP:SOURCE." This statement is false. It took me only a minute on my smartphone to see that this school has received coverage in reliable, independent sources such as The New York Times, The Gothamist, another New York Times article, Community magazine, Guidestar, and Charity Navigator. The school is also discussed in a book called "The Daily Halacha: A Compendium of Practical Halachot and Illuminating Insights from the Weekly Parasha", and in one Hebrew language book. Given that this is an Orthodox Jewish topic, a search of Hebrew language newspapers should be completed as well, many of which are not available online. There is a broader philosophical issue here as well. Wikipedia's Five Pillars are the philosophical underpinning of this project, and at the beginning of that document, you will find these sentences:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."
Consider the 1901 edition of the World Almanac, now in the public domain. This single volume reference work contained nineteen pages about U.S. universities. Wikipedia is not confined to a single volume, we do not need to purchase barrels of ink or railroad cars full of paper, and we currently have well over five million English articles. We can easily and appropriately expand our coverage from U. S. universities to all verifiable degree awarding schools worldwide. Arguments that this content is "indiscriminate" are invalid, since this is precisely the sort of content historically included in specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. Arguments that make a distinction between public and private schools are also unpersuasive. This is not "Public-institution-pedia". We should keep articles about degree awarding schools if these articles comply with our three core content policies: Such articles must be verifiable, written from the neutral point of view, and include no original research. No school is inherently notable, but we should not be deleting articles based on a nominator's failure to find sources which exist. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Hello, Cullen I have found what you have written extremely interesting. In fact, I understand your philosophy but find myself unable to agree in this case. My first point is based on an argument that coverage by the media does not give inherent notability on its own and especially in the case of for-profit companies like this one.
I further argue that there is a definitive difference between coverage and notability. This is based on the logical deduction that news-papers and other news sources write stories about people and issues of interest all the time and often do so indiscriminately, they are not required to establish the notability of their stories and the interest in publishing is with the publisher alone. Small so called “one hit headlines” are common with the inclusion of otherwise non-noteworthy subjects which assert the importance of an event over the importance of the subject itself be it an organization or a person. In these situations, as shown in the sources you have provided, the events themselves would be notable as articles whereas this does not give intrinsic notability to those involved in the event. Surely it would be an idiocy to include organizations or people on Wikipedia simply because they attended an event are have been mentioned passively by a reporter or that the organization happened to be involved in a circumstantial event centred principally around other subjects. This is that argument that notability is not inherited.→ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)10:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-Coffee, your assertion that this is a for profit organization is utterly false as shown by two reliable sources I provided showing that this school is a registered non-profit. You failed to address my argument about almanacs. Have you searched New York's Hebrew language newspapers? Cullen328Let's discuss it15:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to sigh at me, Wiki-Coffee. There is also no requirement that reliable sources be in the article at this time. I have shown that some sources exist. You failed to find those sources. Instead of sighing, try answering my questions, dealing with the profit/nonprofit issue, the almanac issue, the Hebrew language source issue, and so on. I will expand and reference the article later today Cullen328Let's discuss it17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Firstly, my name is Solomon, pleased to e-meet you. Secondly there is a reason I am not addressing your issue with regard to almanacs and that is because you are drawing parallel to another book which is not Wikipedia and does not have the same editing guidelines as Wikipedia. Furthermore, there does need to be reliable sources which back up each and every word in a Wikipedia article otherwise said content can be removed. The sources you have provided would give this school inherited notability which is not permitted per WP:INHERIT. Your arguments are non objective and you seem hell bent on wanting to keep this article whatever Wikipedia policy has to say about it. Your arguments thus far are not at all based on Wikipedia's inclusion policies and are instead, on the face of it, based on your own personal opinions. If you have anything other than personal opinions to tell me I would like to hear it, especially if its qualified by a Wikipedia policy. The personal views are usually disregarded in AfD debates by closing administrators in favour of those views expressed which are grounded on some Wikipedia policy. If you can provide me a solid argument which is supported by Wikipedia's inclusion policies as to why this article should continue to exist then I will rescind my nomination. I have zero interest in this article remaining or being deleted either way so my mind is yet still to be changed. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)19:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you have provided are focused on an event or subject other than the subject of this article. They passively mention this school in the way of validating its existence as a part of an event, but not the focus of the event itself. The sources do not confer notability directly to this subject therefore for them to be used as sources would be using another subjects notability thus in contrary to WP:INHERIT.
Your argument that because the 1901 edition of the World Almanac contains schools that this means schools are automatically notable on Wikipedia is not supported by Wikipedia's current guidelines for notability.
There is currently not a single sentence in this article which is supported by reliable sources. Self-published sources are not deemed reliable sources.
Wiki-Coffee, the article now has eight references and is in full compliance with our core content policies of verifiability, no original research and the neutral point of view. It is you, not I, who have brought falsehoods to this debate, such as the size of the student body, the false claim that the school is profit making, and the claim that no independent sources exist.Cullen328Let's discuss it16:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added the information and citation that the school is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. I'll leave it for others to add further citations, and withhold judgement. It's important that we avoid false premises in these discussions. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, Smartyllama, SCHOOLOUTCOMES is now on the list of "arguments to avoid at AFD". It's still a valid statement about the result of AFDs, but creates a catch-22 and thus should not be used as a reason for deletion. Happy to discuss it further on a separate venue.
Comment In my opinion, this discussion has been badly contaminated by a series of falsehoods that Wiki-Coffee has been spreading about Yeshivat Shaare Torah, both here and at WP:Village pump (policy). This editor has stated the school's enrollment is 60 half day students. That is false. The fact is that this organization operates a preschool program, a boys elementary school, a girls elementary school, a boys high school and a girls high school, with a combined enrollment of well over 1000 students. The editor claims that it is a profit making business. That is false. The organization is a registered tax exempt non-profit educational group. The editor claims that the only sources available about the organization are self published. That is false. I have added eleven independent references which verify the claims made in the article. Anyone who wants to cite Yeshivat Shaare Torah as an example of why we need to delete articles about secondary schools should rethink their position. Instead, it is an example of failure to properly research the topic before nominating an article for deletion, and a willingness to rely on falsehoods in an enthusiastic drive to delete. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided here says it's name is YESHIVA SHAARE TORAH INC. In the United Kingdom Incorporated companies are different from charities and have a completely separate registration process and are separate legal entities. I am from the UK so I go by that, If I am wrong about this and in the USA Incorporated companies can still be charities then I apologise.
Look at your source, Wiki-Coffee. Look at the grade range, where it says "PK". That is the abbreviation for "pre-kindergarten". You are looking at a listing for one of the five schools this organization operates, the one that provides half day programs for 2 to 5 year old children, and you are applying those attendance figures to all five schools. Careless and false.
It is routine that non-profit charitable 501(c)(3) educational institutions in the United States charge tuition. I graduated from one such school, the University of San Francisco, and I assure you that they charged tuition. Your observation that this religious school charges tuition is neither surprising nor in any way relevant to whether or not this article should be kept.
Your attempt to apply UK law to US charitable institutions is evidence that you lack competence to evaluate the notability of US nonprofit schools and charitable institutions, at least until you do some serious reading about how charities are organized in the US. Non-profit corporations are common in the US. I look forward to the apology you promised.
Yes, I read your original nominating statement and also your refactored version after I pointed out that your original statement was based on falsehoods. Both versions of your deletion argument are stunningly unpersuasive. Next time, try to do some serious research on the topic before trying to delete an article. And try really hard to ensure that you do not spread falsehoods about the topic. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiki-Coffee:, whatever your view on this article, you have done it a favor by nominating for deletion! Comparing the article prior to nomination to now, it is a transformation. There were some mistakes, but let's all assume good faith. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I did not apply UK Law to US Law, I merely assumed that a "incorporated company" was a company not a charity and that is how it is in the United Kingdom. This being a for profit institution or not is not at all relevant to the reason I nominated for AfD. It's an issue of terminology and not competence. You clearly do not like that I have nominated this article for deletion, and for that I am sorry. Furthermore, I apologise for incorrectly deeming a charity a for profit organisation as I judged by the standard of UK Terminology for what INC means. You have taught me something about US Law on charities, so I appreciate that. Conclusively, even if you disregard the notions that this school is a for-profit organisation and that it has more than 60 seats how does that at all address my points in the AfD nomination. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)03:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Much as I am reluctant (despite being long-standing coord of WP:WPSCH) to keep schools under any whim - for example the way OUTCOMES is often misused although it simply and perfectly summarises how a proven vast majority of school AfD are closed - the strengths of the arguments here are clear and Cullen328 summarises well how this particular article should be kept, while Necrothesp clearly outlines how accepted procedure should be applied. These two seasoned editors have not come here from a personal judicial background simply to argue Wikilaw for the sake of Wikilaw and turning a particular AfD into a debate that some would seem to use to turn Wikipedia policies and guidelines into inflexible fiats which even policy itself guards against.
A recent RfC mentioned OUTCOMES, which was , BTW, not even part of the RfC proposal statement, and there are many ways in which the same precedent expressed in that 'essay' can be successfully applied without mentioning the word 'OUTCOMES' which has been branded as a rude word and which Primefac elucidates: It's still a valid statement about the result of AFDs,. And on these principles alone I'm sure that learned Wikipedians such as, for example DGG, could add further valid commentary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rescind nomination - After just having re-read the article in its entirety I believe that sufficient content and sources have been added to pass WP:GNG. The nomination does not appear completely fruitless as Jacknstock has mentioned - it seems to have bought some light to the article and now has actually taught me something rather than simply showing me something. On this basis the validity of my AfD nomination no longer stands thus I move to withdraw it. Thank you. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!)(contributions)03:17, 11 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Very short article exploring a series of spats between the former and current presidents of the United States, and created by a new user in the wake of the latest claims made by Donald Trump. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS–even the media has reported on the lack of reaction to the allegations, and we can't create an article about every single thing that Trump says or does. This topic could be suitably covered in other articles. This is Paul (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created after the latest accusation by Mr. Trump because this feud has been going on for over 6 years. I cannot possibly write all of them out myself but I point major benchmarks out. This tense relationship is one of the most well-known conflicts in the world.HigginsWashtenaw (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if you think this subject deserves an article of its own, the onus is on you to demonstrate its importance. That means taking the time to do the research; it's not good enough to say "I cannot possibly write all of them out myself". At present all of these incidents are mentioned elsewhere. Bringing them together under one roof requires something a bit more substantial than you've got. This is Paul (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A drama magnet and WP:SYNTH that cobbles together a) a series of apparently baseless claims that Trump has made about Obama over the years and b) the fact that during the presidential campaign Obama publicly remarked that he believed Trump to be unsuited for the job of president into c) this made-up "feud." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's probably enough material to start an article about the phone-tap allegations, as that doesn't seem to be going away, and may or may not have repercussions. But an Obama-Trump feud article is a non-starter. This is Paul (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's really original research, sure some of the stuff can't be reliably backed up but the article didn't seem to me to be trying to present to this fact, merrily as the opinions that these two individuals were holding, and the fact that these individuals hold these opinions, is at least reliably documented, or maybe I misunderstand how the original reasearch thing works here?( how do I sign my queries/comments/votes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:21c9:6300:d468:789b:85c1:e96f (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't know why we can't just rework this article until it meets the standards of Wikipedia...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:21c9:6300:d468:789b:85c1:e96f (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 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.
Delete The article is promotional. The independent coverage in current sources is minor coverage of business deal. The remainder is self-sourced. Searches found nothing helpful to notability. Gab4gab (talk) 17:32, 5 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.
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.
Comment These accounts were misinterpreted and deliberately judged and eliminated as promotional but were not. This account has no promotional purposes nor intends to have, only information about the artist. Doug WellerTheroadislong Roumo Roumo (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have no control over any other language Wikipedias, just en.wiki. These single purpose account posts are making it more likely that the article will be deleted, as despite all their posts they haven't shown more evidence that the article meets our criteria. Doug Wellertalk06:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New references and new content on competitions were added. The page is under construction, new data will be added over time, we will continue to investigate the artist to contribute more data, collaborating on the page so that it remains visible. Doug WellerTheroadislongKGirlTrucker81Roumo (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google News. Not one hit. ProQuest Music Periodicals Database - not one hit. ProQuest all databases - not one hit. Gale Canadian Periodical Index - no hits. Gale Infotrac Newsstand - no hits. I don't think I've ever encountered such an unnotable subject! Not only does there not appear to be anything to meet WP:GNG, I can't even find a reliable source that confirms they even exist! What the heck does "Verify" even mean? Based on it's usage here, it must mean that they don't know anything about Wikipedia's notability or deletion guidelines and policies. Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've struck the posts from the confirmed socks, left Frangaspar's post and the IPs as the closing Admin/editor will likely see them as WP:DUCK editors, either socks or meatpuppets. Another sock was found after I blocked them for threatening an editor with the police, but the account didn't edit here. Doug Wellertalk09:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The librarian of Spain is in search and capture by the authorities of the police for suppressing pages of Frany Dejota. The persecution, harassment and deletion of pages in the Wikipedia of Spain that suffered the artist of this page was already denounced by the National Police and the Civil Guard the Librarian who ordered to delete the pages of the artist Frany Dejota.90.174.4.148 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment No one was saying he was a writer but it is possible to search in books for mentions of people. However, you're right, there's a total lack of coverage anywhere and Google Play is not an adequate source for establishing notability. Chrissymad❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯14:18, 12 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 mysteriously removed speedy. This is a basically promotional article for an unremarkable business; references are basically about the company operating it. TheLongTone (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from exceptional circumstances hotels are generally not notable, and this one is just another one of those WP:MILL hotel articles with little in the way of encyclopedic relevance. Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 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.
No claim to notability made, peers aren't inherently notable (especially those whose titles were officially abolished over 50 years before they were born). Wikipedia is not a genealogy website.
Redrect all to Duke of Luynes. We don't need their genealogy and details of their family, but as the title still seems to be in use it's just about relevant to include the names of the title-holders. PamD15:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect. None of the three has any vestige of a reliable source, and – at least for the more recent ones, are probably WP:BLP violations. Not even those unreliable sources claim that these people are dukes – they call them by their names. Of course their forebears are notable, some of them considerably so; but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:10, 5 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 Unsourced article. Searching found nothing helpful. With no significant coverage by RSes there's no need for this article. Gab4gab (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'KeepDelete - granted - minimal criterion to keep it, but there are few things that can connect between the history of the three stages of churchlands - teachers college, to wacae, to ece - if it gets deleted - parts of the content need to be in the ECU or Churchlands campus info - JarrahTree16:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am pointing out that the inserted content into the notes that illustrates the 'founding dates' from the refs might not be WP:RS but are useful context assuming deletion looks inevitable JarrahTree16:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is back to front - if it had dealt with the first 20 years rather than the last years - it wouldnt be up for deletion
viz. = Edith Cowan University. Student Guild (1991), Harambee, The Guild, retrieved 6 March 2017 and Western Australian College of Advanced Education. Student Guild (1980), Harambee, The Guild, retrieved 6 March 2017
Delete - I found a couple references to US student newspapers called Harambee but nothing that would qualify as reliable or notable. I don't see anything that even proves existence of this particular Australia newspaper.Glendoremus (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Added a couple of references, but still not convinced of notability. Agree that relevant text should be transferred to Edith Cowan University article. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:24, 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.
This seems to be a content fork of trans man. Apart from the lead, it only duplicates (poorly) the content of other articles related to transsexuality. It is not clear from what seems to be the only on-point source whether this is meant to describe something qualitatively different from trans man, or merely the adjectival form of the topic, in which case this is not more than a dictionary entry. If there are terminological nuances, they should be covered in the trans man article. Sandstein 13:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trans man. Most of the references are not about this term or trivial. Nothing appears to be distinct that justifies another article, indeed, some references support the synonymy of the two terms. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)04:37, 12 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.
Delete. Too early for any kind of academic notability, as the subject is just an undergraduate student right now. Too little in terms of substantive coverage by independent reliable sources for passing WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:31, 5 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.
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Current sourcing does not have the type of in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show notability, and searches did not turn up enough either. Onel5969TT me18:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the articles cited on the page already, there are many other reliable sources available through simple searches. Just focusing on RS of significant depth and length, here are a few: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. Passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 05:12, 25 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.
I did some research before deciding on this one. I found good sources and added them. There is a mention in the New Yorker. There is a review on the Oregon Public Broadcasting site. Even better, a review in Artforum. A publication called "the New Replublic" saw fit to do a feature on one of her projects. Finally, a museum in New York called The Met has her in their permanent collection. I have never been to Metropolitan Museum of Art, but I hear it is quite a big deal and I hope to visit one day. Oh, Keep. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON but having her work at MOMA and the Whitney demonstrate that she has real promise! (Joking of course - except about the keep - she also meets GNG.) JSFarman (talk) 15:35, 5 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:CORPDEPTH. Looks like it was recommended for speedy deletion in August 2016 but had the tag removed by WP:SPA prior to an admin making a speedy decision. The closest thing I can find to in-depth coverage is this from Forbes, but it is written by a contributor and not staff writer – also reads like a sponsored piece. CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:@Piotrus: - Looks like an WP:SPA removed the prod from the page in 2015 which led to the first AfD and ultimate deletion. This recreation was recommended for speedy and another SPA removed that tag. While I normally wouldn't request, I think salting would be in order as there is a definitely an issue with editors trying to skirt the deletion process. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't (yet) see the independent substantive coverage and the editing around this is suspect. For all I know there might be non-newsrelease type Latvian or Polish news refs but I don't see a case for keeping. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 5 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:NOTABILITY. This is a hype-laden article missing sourced notability; the only listed source that actually mentions the magazine is an event listing. Googling for "Emerging Kerala" magazine, I'm not finding significant sources (most of the gnews results are for an investor summit that had the same name.) Nat Gertler (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:A7. I removed unsourced promotional puffery and a paragraph that was totally unrelated to the magazine. What remains has no evidence of notability and makes no assertion of significance. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 5 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 The "News" link produces two dedicated articles (one from El Pais), which appear to be WP:RS, similar in tone and content. (The articles are in Spanish, and the google translations are readable except for the inconsistent personal pronouns!) No dedicated coffee table book, but is included in one coffee table book. Newly notable, a theme of both articles. The articles need to be incorporated into this one. Tapered (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think she does meet WP:ARTIST and find the article in El Pais convincing. There are mentions of two exhibitions, a retrospective in 1973 and a show with with Jean Dubuffet and Lucio Fontana. Mduvekot (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at Google books I see that she is included in many indexes of latin-American artists, a couple Who's Who indexes and numerous books. Clearly notable.104.163.140.193 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she appears to be listed in two reference works, of American, and of Latin American, artists. THat is surely a touchstone of notability, non? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:31, 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.
This page functionally has no sources. The one listed source is a non-working link. It appears that at best it makes a passing mention to Abebe. No sources that move anywhere near providing the indepdent, reliable 3rd party indepth coverage of her needed to pass GNG have been identified. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one dedicated article fr/ WP:RS, other sources are neither. The search links at top yield no more potential sources. Time to go. Tapered (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we've never considered location or whatever about it as a factor of notability, certainly not in modeling, and what matters is if there's independent notability, of which this article shows nothing but a mere pageant participation and its temporary involvement. WP:ANYBIO is a suggestive guideline, not policy, and that itself says there's no guarantee all subjects are notable. SwisterTwistertalk20:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Basic and WP:ANYBIO Does not appear to be anything notable about the subject. Current sources do nothing to establish notability as 2 are not independent and one doesn't even mention subject.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Commentt not sure if this should be delated: Rap-Up, Bustle and Spin magazine covered this song only. But once again that is in the composition section. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect a nomination for deletion is a great mistake, you could created a discussion inside of the article talk page. So, I really wanted the permanence of the article. But I believe that a redirect to Dangerous Woman (album) should be more acceptable and the right thing to do, and in case of future release, the article will be reopen to expansion. LikeGaga (talk) 15:30, 12 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 She is an incredibly important figure in the history of video art. She is professor emerita at Hampshire College and has been awarded some of the most prestigious grants available to artists in the United States. She has had solo screenings of her films at the Museum of Modern Art and has been in the Whitney Biennial. I've added a bunch of sources and more information. Situated (talk) 21:33, 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.
I just realized that Wikipedia notability sports, which appears to be a firm guideline, says something very different than what is posted at the basketball Wikiproject page. I made this nominarion having fully read the notability for sports guidelines for basketball. It has an explicit list of leagues that can be used. The Philippine Basketball association is not on the list at all. It then mentions getting picked in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. The last part mentions ways that one can be notable throgh the continental basketball association and the NBA development league. Which go much higher than just participating. No where in the guidelines for basketball at notability sports does it say playing on a national team makes on notable and nothing in the guidelines suggests there is any other standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced either of the spurces cited by PageantUpdater count. This statement on baseball players would seem to apply elsewhere "Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability." Akl does not meet any of the criteria set out at the notability for sports section. The first article pageant updater found is from an extremly gossipy source that I do not think meets most definitions of a reliable source. The second is not the level of "in depth" coverage that is needed to pass GNG. GNG is not met by passing one line mentions and it is the criteria at notability sports that are the actual guidelines with very tight lists of which leagues qualify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the baseball statement that applies to basketball. The basketball guideline was written knowing full well that many other players outside the relatively small number of leagues cited are also notable. That said, I agree that the player must pass GNG Anne have not had a chance to research this particular case Rikster2 (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he had competed for Lebanon in the Olympic games, that would confer notability. That's not the case. At this time, however unfortunately, the PBA does not confer notability through WP:NBASKETBALL in the English Wikipedia. Jacona (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing my delete vote as it appears this player may meet gng.
Keep. Enough sources exist to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, and it appears that there is a somewhat ragged community concensus that playing for a national team is in itself sufficient. For these reasons, I've changed my vote to keep. Jacona (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another source: [18]. I'm sure there must be something useful from Lebanese sources, too, but the content from the Philippines is the easiest to find. Zagalejo^^^03:41, 2 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 appreciate the guidance. To give a little background on why I created this article in the first place, I started by finding the OB10 page on Wikipedia, and was considering updating and improving it. Looking deeper, I found that OB10 had been acquired by Tungsten Network in 2013. I was hoping to create a page for the newer iteration of the company, and then either merge or redirect the OB10 page into the new one. With the recent improvements, this is what I see:
---- This article meets the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (companies) for "Publicly traded corporations" because it is freely traded on the London Stock Exchange as (TUNG), Tungsten Corporation Plc.
---- This article meets the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (companies) for "Publicly traded corporations" by establishing notability via third-party citations from the London Stock Exchange, Bloomberg, The Yorkshire Post, Computer Weekly, PYMNTS, Spend Matters UK/Europe, ProactiveInvestors, and (debatably) Trade and Forfaiting Review.
---- This article meets the criteria for Wikipedia:General notability guideline, as no original research was needed to extract this content, while the article makes use of reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
I'd like to do this right, and as a relatively new Wikipedian, I'm hoping for some guidance. Is this what was needed to establish notability and preserve the article, or is more needed before the Sunday deadline? Will pieces of this article need to be trimmed/culled before it can be launched?
...Notes/comments on updates since the article was flagged...
Looking into the notability guidelines you've cited, I see that along with pointing out that the company is publicly owned, it was both relevant and important to also note that they're listed on the London Stock Exchange -- I've added that piece in, which I feel does a lot to help to better establish the company's notability.
Additionally, I've added a set of better citations. The current list includes third-party citations from the London Stock Exchange, Bloomberg, The Yorkshire Post, Computer Weekly, PYMNTS, Spend Matters UK/Europe, ProactiveInvestors, and (debatably) Trade and Forfaiting Review. I'll make an effort to continue to develop this in the next few days as well, but my house is being painted, which has been disruptive to working on things like this at home, and I had originally planned further development of this article as a longer-running, ongoing process. The company, in its current form (after the acquisition of OB10 and the 2013 rebanding/transition to Tungsten Network) is still relatively new, and I've seen articles and new sources being published fairly regularly. I imagine that the company's notability will continue to develop as time goes on. MushuNeak (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only argument I find compelling is being listed on LSE. The secondary sources coverage is either in passing (see my comments on Economist/Computer Weekly below), or poor, ex. Yorkshire Post [19] "article" seems like a rewritten press release - no journalistic value whatsoever. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: Which sources? Please note that per my comment below this article has some clearly fake references (like The Economist article which has a single passing sentence on the company) or the Computer Weekly one which doesn't mention it at all. What sources convinced you, through their in-depth, reliable coverage of this company, that it is notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: I am very fond of The Economist. Unfortunately, TE article is NOT ABOUT THE company. IT just quotes one of its workers in a single short sentence ([20]). It is totally irrelevant for establishing notability. Being mentioned in passing by reliable sources is not enough for GNG/NCORP. Please, read the sources before saying they are sufficient. I also hope that the closing admin remembers this is not a vote. Regarding Bloomberg, we have three links: one seem a generic directory entry, which is not considered sufficient (since the entry criteria are not clear) and they all seem down ATM for me and not in Internet Archive, so if you can access them please review them in more detail for us; and then the Computer Weekly one - which DOES NOT MENTION THE COMPANY AT ALL: [21]. Setting aside inaccessible Bloomberg pieces, the other two sources you quote are pure red herrings - they sound reliable, but they are fakes, not establishing notability, added there as a common spammer tactic of WP:BOMBARDMENT, in hope that people will see "plenty of reliable references", skip on accessing them and vote keep to the spammers delight. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:30, 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.
The sources are not secondary. All sources are either the websites of the colloquium itself, or they are the proceedings of the colloquium published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is necessary to reference scientific journal proceedings from the early conferences, as the IPNC did not have websites in the 1950s (for obvious reasons). As stated in the text, the colloquium is attended by over 800 international researchers and is the most important conference in the field of plant nutrition. Roger.mcdonald (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a well-known meeting with publications. The papers are peer-reviewed. The International Plant Nutrition Council which organizes the meetings is an elected body of senior scientists in the field. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:48, 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.
Btw it seems user is asking people in different languages to create article for him, at least several interwiki's has been created in past week in different languages, as far as I can see he is trying to use Wikipedia as source to advertise himself Mardetanhatalk10:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think , this article is promotional as Ebrahim Hemmatnia already has become a celebrity and This article is live on Wikipedia by following all guidelines more than 2 years , nothing wrong on this article but why it is nominated for deletion ?
Very strange and doubtful request and the intentions of Mardetanha is not clear. This page is solid and these are just some of the hundred articles and TV items about it in English and Farsi. Here is the list of references that has solid information about the Ebrahim Hemmatnia page:
Don't Delete it the page has hundreds of reliable sources where some are collected by editors and some are not. He or she might have not many edits but he /she has a point your (#mardetanha) intentions are for me also not clear because you are trying badly to delete a solid page of a public figure… To be frankly I have some doubts about your honesty in this page . Kalamya (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about a public figure. He holds a world record. Why should we remove it?!
I don’t understand the reason why to delete this page, it seems to me more personal intentions by the requester “Mardetanha” who gives incorrect arguments. I think we must not lose this page. Alexjoest02:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's meatpuppets need to stop the "But he's a celebrity! I found reliable sources! He's got a world record! Don't delete!" nonsense. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t delete. I’m afraid that you #Mardetanha have used your influences inside Islamic state of Iran to delete the Farsi version of this article, you seem to be an Iranian too according to your user page. Is that right? This is a clear personal or political intention because other languages of this article still remain. I'm now really concerned. One should warn the Wikipedia administration about this suspicious developments.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 and redirect name/title; not notable and trivial as a stand alone article; addendum: agree the name should be made a redirect to USS Arizona Memorial, as suggested. Kierzek (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at newspapers.com, 47 newspapers published his obituary (106 results, but many are from the same paper). To me, this is pretty close to notable, and I'd advocate for the article's creator to be given a little time in case there is more material. I think it might be appropriate for this title to redirect to USS Arizona Memorial (where there is currently an image of Langdell). Smmurphy(Talk)18:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure how being there equates to "played an important role"! That would mean anybody who was present at a major battle would pass. Hardly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even the last survivor. Junior officer who just happened to be present at a major event, just like millions of others throughout history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect per my comment above, with no prejudice to developing into an article should more sources be found later. Smmurphy(Talk)17:04, 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.
The article has two sources, one is YouTube, and the other is a digital music distributor, that looks to be at about the YouTube level, but is in no way a reliable source about her. This article falls way, way, way below even the most minimal passing of the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 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.
Strong keep - Directed features and music videos for Lisa M, T"he Queen of Spanish Rap"-- The Mexico International Film Festival is a major festival and his film won an award there.Masterknighted (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was deleted as a result of an AfD discussion back in 2011, and other than some non-notable shorts and a non-notable documentary (and a tv film now in post), hasn't done anything more to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969TT me15:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference-bombing doesn't add notability. Nor is notability inherited, especially from a video about a song ("La Suprema") which has no article. I also have my doubts about the notability of Against the Wall (2010 film), not part of this discussion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article has two sources. One is IMBd, which is not a reliable source to show notability. The other is an article that basically says "this guy has had a lot of minor acting roles, but he is studying filmmaking, so he might be notable as a filmmaker so some sort in the future." So no indication at all that he has yet risen to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 an unsourced blp, but now a few non-reliable sources have been added. Unable to find in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Should probably be redirected to The Internet (band), but an editor keeps restoring the article. Onel5969TT me21:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are self-references; mostly include own tweets, interviews, and uploads on personal YouTube channel. Seems to be a promotional article. ——Chalk19 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More reliable sources have been added. The self-references (i.e. tweets and YouTube videos) have been deleted. I apologize for creating the article initially without seeing if one should have been created about the musician and also for adding non-reliable sources. Bmegrl9113 (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would absolutely favor a move to draft space. The article's creator has been diligently making an effort to improve the article. Onel5969TT me13:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Onel5969: Does moving the article mean deleting it, and then have it recreated as a draft? Anyway, I see that most of the additional sources don't deal with Lacy personally, in the first place, so coverage, although improved, is still lagging behind a level considered to be sufficient. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi Chalk19. No, if the consensus is to draftify, the closing admin will close the AfD, then simply move the existing mainspace article into draftspace, so Bmegrl19113 can continue to attempt to improve it. I agree with your assessment of the additional sourcing. When I did my WP:BEFORE, I couldn't find enough in-depth sourcing to warrant keeping the article. Onel5969TT me15:50, 4 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 So.. you mean that all small local specialized museums which don't have articles on foreign WPs are not notable? And that only English references are acceptable? This is an interesting institution and there is a possibility to compile an interesting article based on reliable and independent sources I list below. Some of them are media with national coverage, some of them are "local", but definitely acceptable. Deleting of this information would be a disservice to Wikipedia, in my opinion.
Keep. Ridiculous. Let's start with WP:NONENG: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed". Furthermore, there is no requirement that an article exist on another language server. We can also see, per Vejvančický above, that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which therefore meets the general notability guideline. C67906:31, 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.
Delete - Not convinced he meets WP:GNG. Most search results seem to be wikis, forum posts or user reviews. Not very much from major secondary sources at all. PriceDL (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable for stand alone article; brief mention of him in the BOB article is the proper placement; otherwise, trivial. Kierzek (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's important, I think, to distinguish between the real men and their fictional representations in the HBO series. "Roy Cobb" in episode four of the series criticizes a replacement for his authorized wearing of a Presidential Unit Citation. There is nothing in the Ambrose book to support that event. The script writers needed a bad boy and they found one in Cobb.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk01:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As written, the article is about the real life person, and not about the character in the mini-series. Either, however, does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969TT me15:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable soldier, with an unexceptional list of medals. I thought of recommending a redirect to Band of Brothers (miniseries) - but, that article suggests that the TV series took the name and fictionalised the man. Not notable as a person, not notable as a fictional character, insulting to his memory if fictionalised. Narky Blert (talk) 00:57, 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.
Non-notable bus brand. For a start, the article seems to have no idea what it's actually about: there are about five or six different names used, and the bolded Mindanao Star has its own article anyway. Furthermore, it was created by Yanson100 (a username with clear COI implications) and therefore is probably little more than advertising. The only external link is to a dead website; I can't even find any evidence this brand exists. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:31, 5 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. The only sources are two reference works that have short CVs. They do not suffice to confirm the promotional content. My own search for sources didn't find anything better. Huon (talk) 00:24, 5 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.