< 8 November 10 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Cavallaro[edit]

Ebony Cavallaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject not notable. 2 of 3 sources are social media pages. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard - Accidentally hit XFD button instead of CSD. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet#Switzerland. With a selective merge.  Sandstein  19:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO[edit]

AfDs for this article:
F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The mock-up is a training device as you can find on every airport in the world. The encyclopaedic value is not more than that of a random fire truck of fire extinguisher Recreation of the earlier removed F/A-18C Mock-up that was deleted conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18C Mock-up The Banner talk 21:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the de-wiki version, if it passed GNG then why is everyone !voting delete? I suspect part of the issue is that we normally don't have articles for individual aircraft unless they are really really special even Air force one does not merit individual articles for the individual planes. Dysklyver 09:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The stability of the de version does help illustrate the notability evidenced in German-language reliable sources, but really I am referring to that body of sources itself. Two simulators are currently operational, so this is an article about an operational type not an individual machine. In any case, the English Wikipedia has long allowed articles for aircraft types where only a single example was built, sometimes where the design never got off the drawing-board. It all depends on what reliable sources say. You cannot sustain a "fails GNG" argument without reference to the sources put forward in support of notability. Did you actually check out the two secondary ones I recently added to the Bibliography? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked the new sources, no one here has actually read some of the sources, because they are both offline and in German. No one here has previously explained it is actual type of simulator well enough for me to understand that, I was, like most here i expect, under the impression this was a modified training aid. I think this AfD is descending into a mockery, little more than a pile on of people who don't understand the topic and can't read the sources. I apologies for having been one of those people and have withdrawn my vote. Dysklyver 11:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your honesty, I appreciate it. However, the new sources are in fact all online and linked to both from the article and from my "keep" vote above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um yes, it would be more accurate for me to say, some of the oldsources are offline / in German, and that I hadn’t checked the new sources. I will note also I can't deal with your PDF file links, although others might. Dysklyver 15:25, 13 November 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. Consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Davis Park, Washington[edit]

Jefferson Davis Park, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article confuses the removal of markers from Highway 99 with this later controversy, blending the timeline of both. This belongs merged into the Jefferson Davis Highway article, not as an undue separate piece. Anmccaff (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the "unrelated" marker removal takes up the majorty of the article. Anmccaff (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stripping it back to what is separate from the marker removal would leave a stub of questionable notability. Anmccaff (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then why is the majority of the article about events from before 2007, which legitimately might be covered at the JDH article? Anmccaff (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, more importantly, why does the link you supplied also concentrate on the history of the JDH? Anmccaff (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, these Sons of Confederate Veterans, live in the past and wish to preserve the legacy of 'the glorious cause'; so it is not unreasonable that the bulk of their website is about the past. Secondly and to your point is that this is a new story. When all traces of the Jeff Davis Highway were finally removed in 2007 from public lands, that's when the story of this park begins, in 2007. Much of this article from the lead to the ending is to give context to the vandalism, death threats and actions of Ridgefield city in seeking the removal of the markers from the Clark County Historical Registry. The city and county governments wanting to distance themselves from the park and all it stands for; in 2017, after such moved were rejected in 2007, this shift in local policy is note worthy as it not only made regional news, but national news. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment far from a snow keep, how is this not a WP:A10 speedy delete? It's a nearly new article which is substantially a duplicate of material in another article. Anmccaff (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lap[edit]

Lap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a dictionary definition contradicting WP:NOTDICT. A WP:BEFORE search found only online dictionary sources (not enough for WP:N) and will likely remain a WP:Permastub. Also, the disambiguation page has very similar content to this stub so this article should be deleted and replaced by the disambiguation page. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge . A distinct part of human anatomy. If you think the article has no chance to grow, the proper solution is to merge somewhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It seems that you misunderstand the meaning of WP:NOTDICT. This article is about a thing, not about a word. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Moving the DAB page here might be a good idea. You may want to request a page move. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Preece[edit]

Helen Preece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In the nine years that this article has existed it has gone from being a two-line stub with two sources to a two-line stub with three sources. The subject existed - and the photograph is fascinating - and no doubt had a fascinating life, but neither her nor her father are notable today. Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Catterick[edit]

Ryan Catterick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that Subjects fails WP:NFOOTBALL as has not played in a fully professional league, and no indication topic has received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green Antivirus 2009[edit]

Green Antivirus 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is here an apparent complete lack of notability. This was just one of many rogue security software programs, and the only thing worth mentioning about it in specific compared to them - the fradulent charity claim - is already mentioned in that article. The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LinguistunEinsuno 17:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK charity salaries of CEOs[edit]

UK charity salaries of CEOs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Compliments to the creator for his/her research and table-formatting efforts, but this is the beginnings of investigative journalism, not a wikipedia article. No context or lead, just a table of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. PROD (by another editor) was previously removed. Martinp (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you nuts ? This is the only modern collaborative resource of it's kind. It is an update on: https://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html This table took hours of research. The purpose was to discourage people have little money themselves, from giving money, without realising that they would probably need it to maintain their own health moreso. I think it would be very unwise to delete this. There are many articles around Wikipedia which are simply tables. I started with 21 major charities, under the impression people would add more over time. If you are worried about original research, the last column can be cut. Tetriminos (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tetriminos, I have a great deal of respect for the hours of research and editing this took. But I'm afraid your reply amplifies my point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative research space to jointly Develop Good Stuff, even update and expand data published elsewhere. There are plenty of such collaborative spaces around (though since this is not my field I don't know what would be a good fit for this, and of course such spaces tend to be less publicly top of mind than WP). Some of them, in some fields, are even wikis and use wikipedia markup language so your time spent formatting this would not be lost. I do regret that I'm upsetting your apple cart, and I'm pretty sure it's good apples. Just this is not what Wikipedia is for. Martinp (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well it seems there's plenty of tables of statistics on Wikipedia, so I don't see how it's a bad fit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_filmography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donalds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Park_episodes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_football_champions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Emmerdale_characters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_EastEnders_characters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coronation_Street_characters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Jersey
^ And the above list could go on and on and on.....
Are the above articles really more precious, valuable, and important than propagating the knowledge that the boundary between charity and business is smaller than some realise, in a capitalistic society ? As I said before, poorer members of society should be particularly aware of this, and nothing makes things more clear than raw numbers.
Or maybe we should just be reading about [British TV soap opera] Emmerdale characters.......... ?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LinguistunEinsuno 17:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Moise[edit]

Rudy Moise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsuccessful political candidate Rathfelder (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LinguistunEinsuno 17:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Elworth Jr.[edit]

Mark Elworth Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

trivial local publicity for unelected political candidate y. Not everyone who wants to legalize marihuana is notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note maintaining previous position after considering later comments. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second those thoughts on 'Independent Political Report, Ballot Access News and Palisade Community. Garbage references.104.163.155.95 (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are nine sources of additional information for the article. None alone intended to convey notability. Four of the nine are blogs, at least one of which is credibly authored however. Five of them are reliable sources. These are extras on top of the dozen or so references already in the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the second time, you only get to "vote" once in an AFD discussion. You can comment as many times as you like, but you don't get to restate the "keep" vote that you've already given — and just to clarify, since you clearly went with the wrong takeaway from the first time I addressed that with you in this discussion: it is not okay to restate your keep vote just because you italicize the word "keep" instead of bolding it. The problem isn't whether you format the revote it in bold text or not — the problem is the making of any followup revote at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being petty about a typo. Please assume good faith. Striking through someone's comment is like talking over them, an impolite behavior. No one is voting more than once. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when you write the word K**P in block letters on its own twice in separate entries, that's voting twice. Striking it out. Just leave it struck out please, to prevent confusion. It is very common practice to strike duplicate votes, look around.104.163.155.95 (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Block letters? Confusing? If you say so. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes. Notability requirements are met. Elworth is the "subject" of the articles in reliable sources including: NET News Public Radio, Lincoln Star Journal, KETV7 ABC News, Omaha World-Herald, and Fox42 KPTM TV News. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, he's not, at least not if the links you provided above are the "proof" of it. In each and every one of those links, the subject is something other than Elworth himself, and Elworth merely happens to have his existence namechecked as a bit player. Being named in a source is not necessarily the same thing as being the subject of that source. And even if he were the subject of any of those sources, it takes quite a lot more than just a handful of local coverage to make someone notable — everybody who'd ever been a non-winning candidate in any election anywhere could always show five pieces of local coverage, so what we would require is nationalized coverage demonstrating that he's substantially more notable than most of the other half a million or more people who've been non-winning candidates in democratic elections in the past decade. And incidentally, organizing a petition drive isn't a notability criterion in and of itself either — many thousands upon millions of people have done that in the past too. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LinguistunEinsuno 17:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Much of the opposition to keeping the article amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Everything in the article is confirmed by multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reply to comment Much of the "keep" amounts to "I like it overly much". It is not required to comment about every part of the discussion you disagree with. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:00, 16 November 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.  Sandstein  19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dingoo[edit]

Dingoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The CPU as listed in the sidebox of the article is correct. To the best of my knowledge, there is no separate GPU; only some CPU-based hardware acceleration of specific media formats, as was common for SoCs of that era. It runs a proprietary embedded OS by default, although an alternative firmware exists in the form of a Dingoo-specific Linux distribution (Dingux). 2001:980:A4CA:1:99F9:A8A6:9FA0:BD3A (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be an off-brand knock off of a handheld video game console (Game Boy Advance/Nintendo DS/PlayStation Portable/Playstation Vita type device). A lot of smaller companies attempt this sort of thing without much fanfare. While everyone's heard of a "Game Boy", there's lots of little ones out there too that never really take off. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LinguistunEinsuno 17:44, 9 November 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.  Sandstein  19:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Unruh[edit]

Heather Unruh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability thresholds, and appears to be notable because her son was allegedly victimized by Kevin Spacey. Even then, the alleged victim was her son, not her. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned money. I have to ask if we are Wikipedia or if we are Forbes magazine? I don’t think anyone can “buy” their way to Wikipedia by earning enough money. Also, she may be known to some, but to others around the country and world, her name is about as well known as Joe Schmoe. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, amongst other things I mentioned money, because it's an unusually high salary for a journalist, but not someone who is a celebrity figure within TV journalism. No Wikipedia is not Forbes, but every CEO for a Forbes 500 company should have an article. No, Unruh has not attempted to buy her way on to Wikipedia, I doubt she gives a fig either way. Yes her name is now known around the world, because of the Spacey allegation, but of itself, that's not a reason to delete this article. --Fæ (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to clarify. I am not accusing Unruh of buying her way onto Wikipedia. I am merely saying if we make an article simply because someone earns above a certain threshold of money, that someone effectively "bought" their way onto Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
just a comment. In many areas, value affects cost, such as salary. Unruh would not be able to command the salary she does if tv news organizations didn’t feel she was worth the money. Based on that point alone, she is notable
Comment: looking over WP:JOURNALIST, I found the thresholds:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. 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.

I would argue that she has not met threshold 1. People have heard of Sue Simmons, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings. Do many, many people know of a Heather Unruh? As for thresholds 2 and 3, I don't think she has met that, by any stretch. Threshold 4, her accusations re Kevin Spacey came really, really late in the timeline, well after Anthony Rapp and others. It's only because it's recent that it looks big. Years later, it will become a footnote, IMO. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's not the victim. She's the mother of a victim, and she's probably only known for that. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting back the tears, here. I'm sure we can all feel for the unnamed son (but not in a Kevin way, of course). Whatever happened to good ol' teen spirit? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Comment: Most of the award she received were either regional Emmys (which have been criticized for its award criteria, or lack thereof), or recognition for volunteerism and advocacy, which are given to many others as well. If we are to keep articles based on that, everyone on Earth would be able to get a Wikipedia article. By then, what would separate us from MySpace or Facebook? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on Facebook but I don't have several regional awards, and when the region is a State, that's a huge region; as reductio ad absurdum the comparison does not really work. It remains unclear why you are choosing to ignore the Gracie Award, which is a national award and not given for "volunteerism and advocacy".
Please keep in mind that this stub was created just 4 days ago, and that there are cultural reasons why it is more difficult to source the careers of women journalists and so harder to get these articles off the ground. The fact is that Wikipedia has 1,662 articles relating to women American journalists, but 3,879 about men. Arguing very hard to delete this one, may not be the best thing for the encyclopedia, especially considering that it is to the public benefit for people to be able to read about Unruh on this project at a time when all major newspapers have been quoting her as an important journalist. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Before the Kevin Spacey thing, no one outside of a particular region of the US knew who Unruh is, and I highly doubt she is going to be known for her work outside of that region after this, because she is out of the TV business. Outside of Unruh's region, to be brutally honest, her name might as well be an animal call on a 2016 Pixar animated movie. Also, turning this into a debate on sexism and male chauvinism is detrimental and divisive. Also, don't even get started on regional Emmys. There are so many controversies before on how they are run (I've worked in the business). You're basically arguing we allow unqualified articles on Wikipedia because of sexual discrimination. That's detrimental to Wikipedia overall, IMHO. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The recent coverage on Unruh does not meet GNG, in my opinion, because the coverage is about Kevin Spacey or Unruh's son, and not about Unruh. We are conflating Unruh being a conduit to the victim's allegations to Unruh being notable, as if she is the victim. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 00:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But is it WP:NTEMP, Megalibrarygirl? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 00:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, WP:JOURNALIST begs to differ in the case of TV anchors. Using that logic, we would have to create articles for all the news anchors who worked at KXGN, the smallest TV station in North America. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't cite JOURNALIST.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's notability is a test to separate standalone topics from those merged.  If you don't want to allow articles on TV anchors, and don't want TV anchors merged to parent articles, I suggest you extend WP:NOT with a WP:NOT guideline.  Otherwise, miniBios of KXGN anchors depends not just on notability, but on whether or not the information has WP:DUE due weight anywhere in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Boston Globe and Boston Herald are regional papers at best, with no national significance. We are not talking about New York Times and Washington Post here. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...I wasn't going to stick my oar in on this, but then I saw this and my jaw literally dropped (and no, this is not the 'new definition' of literal, either). Are you seriously claiming Boston's papers have "no national significance"? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Globe is noted to be the 25th most read newspaper in the country. Are you telling me that's a widely read newspaper? Even The Arizona Republic is read more than Boston Globe, and I won't say the Republic is a paper of national significance. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Yes, and thanks for bringing that up. All should be gone, IMO. None of them are notable beyond their small geographical region. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia notability is defined neither by your personal opinion nor by geographical regions.  I suppose we do see geographical regions of cities used by real estate agents that haven't attracted the attention of the world at large, but the kind of small you seem to be talking about considers the Boston MSA, the tenth largest such area in the U.S., as small.  Do you have standards?  Are you one of these people whose source requirement for GNG is, "more than you have found so far"?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to strongly suggest you follow WP:NPA, Unscintillating. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 03:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it rather misleading that you are using MSA sizes to make your point, when it is rather well known that the industry uses DMAs to calculate size. According to the latest data, only ~2,000,000 people watch TV in Boston, at all, and when you take into account that not all watch the news, and not all watch Unruh's station, that pool starts to shrink rapidly. Beyond all else, you have yet to make an argument that Unruh meets any notability requirements, other than being the mother of one of Kevin Spacey's victim. Not here to trivialize that (it is serious), but there are more than one mother of a victim in this case. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 08:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Only" two million. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you probably know not everyone of those 2 million watch TV, every single second of every day. When you start taking away those who don't watch news at all, and those who don't watch WCVB, not a lot of people are left. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It remains unclear why you are choosing to ignore the Gracie Award, which is a national award and not just known to the small number of people living in Boston. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gracie Award's article is noted for possibly not meeting GPG itself. Therefore, I am disregarding the award. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is not required in some endlessly self-recursive way. An award should be well known, and the Gracie is regularly reported on by Variety and other professional media/comms related press, so "well known" it is. Please refer to WP:ANYBIO. --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying this meets ANYBIO because of an award that itself fails GPG? That's like saying something is not faulty because of something that's faulty. I don't agree with your logic in this regard, unfortunately. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that Wikipedia does not define itself. If you want to claim that the Gracies are not well known, then make that claim but after looking at some news sources. Saying "there ain't no such animal" because you do not find a Wikipedia article is an obvious walled garden. By the way, the article did not "fail GPG", if you want that to happen then put it up for deletion. --Fæ (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boston's market may be big, but it's not a market that has reech nationally. It's not LA or New York. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is currently "nationally notable" because of WP:NTEMP, and even then, it's her son that's NTEMP, not her. You are confusing conduit of information with subject. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the relevance. WP:ANYBIO does not require that for a Wikipedia article to exist that the subject must be proven to be famous at a national level, nor that we should give proof that millions of people should know their name. If that were true, we would have hardly any articles for academics and I suspect that the vast majority of biographies would have to be deleted. --Fæ (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. I was saying Unruh is not notable because, on top of not meeting GNG, JOURNALIST, and violating NTEMP, she is not the subject of the NTEMP. She was the person who identified the victim that is now the subject of the NTEMP. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 23:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Llewellyn-Slade[edit]

Mark Llewellyn-Slade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to fail the notability guidelines for biographies. The article revolves around the fact he operates an awards firm (which reads like an advert). Strip out that and all you're left with is the fact that he has commentated on many media outlets but that's it. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the author of the article Mynconish (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) and argue that this subject is notable.

Thanks for considering. Mynconish (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visible Government[edit]

Visible Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A small group that did indeed present a paper to a Commons committee, I can find no evidence that this apparently defunct group (its official website is not working) ever met WP:NGO, based on Google search results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 9 November 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. However, there is agreement in this discussion that the article requires significant copy editing and cleanup to address promotional tone. As such, I have added the ((Cleanup AfD)) atop the article. North America1000 20:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat International Finance Tec-City[edit]

Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has had a warning for violating WP:NOTADVERTISING all year with no resolution. I was going to see if I could clean it up, but it appears to be too full of content that violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. Violates WP:G11. It looks like a copy paste from a company website, with news updates and awards. It also does not provide any sourcing for most of the information. Anon1-3483579 (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that article is in very poor condition and written like an advertisement. But topic is notable and major project so should not be deleted but rewritten. You may find plenty of news sources referring to it.--Nizil (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTFUTURE, WP:G11, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Nizil It seems to have news sources referring to it, but the development appears to be in very early stages and will be for a while. Another concern I see here is that any properly sourced information is just going to be a project/product announcement which could be against WP:NOTFUTURE. I'm not sure it can remain, as if it were to abide by WP:NOTFUTURE, WP:G11, and WP:NOTADVERTISING, it may be a very short article not worth noting. I'm not saying the GIFT project doesn't matter, but it may not have a place on wikipedia yet. - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anon1-3483579, I have already said that article is in poor shape and looks like an advertisement. It is an underconstruction project and three towers are already built so it can have information on them and other proposals like we do in underconstruction infrastructure projects like Metro rails. The issues here should be is it notable or not to have an article here. And I think it is a major infrastructure project in Gujarat state and should have an article. WP:NOTFUTURE and WP:NOTADVERTISING can be dealt with by cleaning up the article. WP:G11 specifically says "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So rewriting this article is preferable to deletion.--Nizil (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, merging with the larger geographical area is a good suggestion. I would support that. The development is far from completed, so I'm not sure it is significant enough to be considered a significant city yet. - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-ismist Recordings[edit]

-ismist Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Non-notable record label. –Miles Edgeworth Talk 15:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nobody seems to be interested in the newly offered sources.  Sandstein  19:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Gal[edit]

Natalie Gal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Currently sourced by dubious sources such as IMDB and primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The concerns that there is not enough sourcing to support an article remain unrebutted. The "keep" opinions are basically appeals to WP:CRIN. This is an invalid argument because that page is not a policy or guideline, but a WikiProject page, and therefore does not represent community consensus.  Sandstein  19:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. Kodikara[edit]

D. Kodikara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relies solely on statistical profiles in CricketArchive and Cricinfo which can be classified as routine coverage and therefore fails GNG. Dee03 14:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I have a more specific concern beyond these. The chap appears to have batted at number 11 in the batting order for his team but not to have bowled, was not the wicket-keeper and did not take a catch. I must admit that from the scorecard I get the distinct impression from that that he was an emergency fill in making up the numbers rather than someone who might have ever stood a chance to be a regular player for the club. This makes me more firmly of the opinion that we will struggle to ever show notability through the sorts of sources that we need. I would, of course, have no prejudice against the re-establishment of the article if those sources can be shown to exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully this can not be proven by the sources available and this point can be dismissed as personal opinion in the wake of basic statistical fact. I might as well just claim that I believe he was wearing a purple hat and wellington boots. Bobo. 22:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also you do realise this "more specific concern" is pretty much the definition of WP:SYNTH, right? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm really combining anything from multiple sources am I? I am reaching a conclusion which, as Bobo quite rightly says, I can't confirm. - although I suspect it probably is the case. It's not really that relevant to my argument however and if either of you would like me to strike it I will do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed. Precisely. Please do strike your argument. Bobo. 12:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done as requested. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No you haven't. Try harder. Bobo. 14:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand - I've done exactly as I said I would. Haven't I? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first half of your statement still exists. Bobo. 16:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was clearly writing about the "more specific concern" as raised by The Bushranger. Anything beyond that is simply you trying to be too clever I imagine :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this RfC which was closed as: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Looks like the trout did a WP:BOOMERANG there. Dee03 07:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to influence people based on your own opinion, Dee. The fact that we have proven that GNG can be proven to be contradictory nonsense based on other guidelines is enough to render both guidelines completely and utterly meaningless. Bobo. 12:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my opinion. What I quoted above in green is the result of an RfC, which was open for several weeks and had dozens of participants, from a few months ago. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing and claiming GNG is "nonsense" in every single discussion. This is getting silly. Dee03 14:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is your opinion. And yes, GNG is nonsense by the fact that is directly contradicted elsewhere. If you are unwilling to work to brightline criteria simply for the sake of pushing your own regime, you are the problem, not the solution. Bobo. 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is the result of an RfC. Can you click on the link and read the discussion and stop wasting everybody's time? I'm done with this conversation. Dee03 14:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not addressing my point. Bye. Bobo. 14:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this entirely seriously and not as an attack. If you're not sure there is a list article, there are two things you can do. Check, and if there isn't one, create one. If you are willing to create a list article containing every single first-class player for a given team on completely NPOV guidelines, do so. The whole problem with the list articles which we have recently seen is that they were slapdash and based entirely on people's POV decisions as to whether the article was deleted or not.
If you create a list article based on the one or two items which you have decided, against fundamental project guidelines, that the article should be deleted, then, as per recent AfD debates, these lists are likely to be deleted. If you are willing to create a list article with every individual who played for the side, then this is the only way these will be seen as being useful. Bobo. 16:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balfour Senior Living[edit]

Balfour Senior Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article on non=-notable community. I and another eds. removed most of the spam, but there isn't enough left to support the article. Almost every ref is a local press release--based article published in local newspapers; almost every award is also local.

Created by an spa, who would seem to be an undeclared paid editor, judging by the content of the original version. [29] I thought and still think it should have been deleted rather than waste the effort trying to improve as volunteers what others are being paid for and doing incompetently. DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamats Restaurants[edit]

Kamats Restaurants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. My A7 was declined , on the basis of "claims notability" I consider that puffery, not a genuine statement of significance or importance. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the hotels are notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the solution is to move this to Kamat Hotels, which is what the references are about? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...is looking forward to expand its presence by opening 30 more restaurants!"
Lacks notability to boot; WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH fail. Delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvision Entertainment[edit]

Nuvision Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:CORP with only one source currently on the article which is just another Wiki. Furthermore the original author has just blank copied from that Wiki (I cannot find the exact copyright details for the site and therefore presume it is copyrighted). Finally I can't see this company ever being notable given it was short lived and produced only a few poorly received games. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach.io[edit]

Outreach.io (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is promotional, thus making it an egregious violation of our neutral point of view policy. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure how this is promotional. This is written in a neutral POV and does not include promotional or leading language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseyf (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete DMacks (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alyas Jovan Panot[edit]

Alyas Jovan Panot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm struggling to see the point of this - a former user talk page moved over to article space. Appears to be an orphaned non-notable TV series with the same name as the primary editor. Coincidence, or blatant hoax? Nightfury 13:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almon Gunter[edit]

Almon Gunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Verging on NN. Clamed to be a USA track and field sprinter however, cannot find any mention of him on their main webpage. Google search provides little to go on as well. A further dig however on a Yahoo chat room of all places says he was a qualifier for the (what?) Olympics but nothing else. Nightfury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is a strong point against notability. There are a number of academic sources that support inclusion in Florida academic circles, and at least one of those YouTube videos is a directly sourced news station video. If they aren't reliable enough to support specific claims, such as academic accomplishments, that's one things, but how is that ubiquitously indicative of non-notability? -CamT|C
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Of the four "keep"s, only one actually discusses reasons for notability and sourcing.  Sandstein  19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi (actress)[edit]

Naomi (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite winning a best new starlet award we are left with no meaninful sources as required for a blp. Technical SNG passes do not equate to an article if the SNG is subordinate to GNG and it clearly fails GNG. Delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you argue that Mickey Murray is a technical sng pass with no gng value and should be deleted? And if not, then why on this? We shouldn't pick and choose Wikipedia policy for stuff we don't like. GuzzyG (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually nominate the Mike Murray article for deletion, if I had not already nominated another today. I would fully urge you GuzzyG to nominate that article. If you do I promise to advocate for its deletion. Wikipedia needs to hold more to the reliable sources rule. If we require multiple significant film roles to make an actor notable, it is beyond bizarre that a sportsperson can be notable with a passing performance in one game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a notability argument without analysis of the alternatives to deletion, WP:IGNORINGATD.  So the post hasn't tried to post a delete argument.  As per WP:N, GNG notability is no different than PORNBIO notability; so failing GNG, in the context here, is irrelevant anyway.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHYN is not a part of the standard, and hasn't been for years.  WP:N is not a content guideline...our core content policies take that role.  WP:N "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow", and chronic grousing against WP:N's subject-specific guidelines does not fall into the category of common sense or an occasional exception.  Common sense is that if some editors are using standard a, and other editors are using standard b, the project will be the victim.  Editors have tried to change PORNBIO, and the community has refused.  Your grousing is an admission that the topic passes WP:PORNBIO as per community consensus, and that you can't refute the evidence.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DRV couldn't have discussed sourcing if they wanted to, because (1) the article considered at the RFC/AFD had been deleted and was not temp undeleted for the DRV, and (2) the RFC/AFD closer did not identify BLP issues in the close.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As shown at the DRV, WP:N places GNG on a level playing field with PORNBIO.  It was also shown in the DRV that a defender of GNG could not explain how to apply the standard, meaning that GNG is as much vaporware as it is a standard.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DRV raises other questions, one of which is why Spartaz, who last I heard is an administrator, allowed the original RFC/AfD to remain posted in an AFD forum.   Spartaz was also first in line at the DRV, and allowed the DRV to proceed even though the closing administrator of the RFC/AfD had not been contacted.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was shown at the DRV that there was consensus at the original RFC that one of the points of evidence satisfied PORNBIO.  It was also shown that no delete !vote presented evidence that the topic failed GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were four major procedural errors in the RFC/AFD close identified at the DRV, none of which the DRV closer explained.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those arguments were rejected all but unanimously by the other DRV participants. They're now pretty much a road map to insufficient support for notability claims. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A DRV dominated by vote counting is a roadmap for continued defiance of the rule of law?  This DRV should be a call to action to restore the rule of law to Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Unscintillating Since the DRV was closed as endorse and you were the only person arguing otherwise and your arguments remain based on your own understanding of the guidelines that no-one else in the world shares, I really do fail to follow what ever point it is you are trying to make. I also see that once again your argument is supported by ad homs against me that have no relevance to the discussion. Please remove them unless you would like me to find an independent admin at ANI to review them as personal attacks. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was your choice to "bring in" the DRV, and now the DRV discussion has moved to the rule of law.  It is a legitimate question as to why both the AfD and DRV processes continued without administrative intervention.
    Take a look at what WP:PERPOLICY says, "Even if ten editors state an article should be deleted, and one editor states the article should be kept, but the one who wants it kept gives a good argument citing policy, while the other ten give none, this is sufficient grounds for keeping an article."  Unscintillating (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny how those !voting Keep/Speedy Keep have nitpicked over the noms rationale but not one of them have provided any sources to establish whether GNG or PORNBIO is met, Well they've not provided any because there isn't any. –Davey2010Talk 12:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Colorado. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Williams (Colorado politician)[edit]

Mark Williams (Colorado politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed without comment, not notable as per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:NPOL Gbawden (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre[edit]

Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article came to my attention after a blatant attempt to turn it into pure advertising, and after examining it closely I increasingly came to the conclusion that its apparently impressive list of reliable sources is largely there to make it look important. I removed the "Professional bodies" section which was not about the company at all but just general legal requirements, and then I examined the "Market commentator" section and that's really just a list of links to things the company has said. Anyway, as of this version (permalink), here's my take on the sources:

  1. Just Companies House registration, which every company has (actually a dead link)
  2. A report that the company had turned from loss to profit, which is nothing notable
  3. Essentially the same as 2
  4. Just quotes from a number of Scottish companies in response to a news story
  5. Dead link, redirects to The Scotsman main news page
  6. Dead link, redirects to The Scotsman main news page
  7. "The research, by the Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre..." seems like essentially a press release, or based on a press release
  8. A BBC story from 2009 reporting on a report by the company, which also looks like it's based on a press release
As far as I can make out, all that sources 4 to 8 demonstrate is that the company's marketing people are good at getting its name out in public. After that, all that's left is the fact that it made losses and then returned to profit.

A Google search finds further quotes from the company in news sources, some press release things, entries in commercial guides, mentions from member companies - but I can't find anything in-depth at all.

I did find this book link which looked superficially good, but the footnote makes it clear it's the company's own marketing blurb. There are hits in other property buying guides, but they appear to be just entries in lists of companies.

In short, I don't see that notability according to WP:NCORP can be demonstrated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G3'd by Nyttend. The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bavesh Padayachy[edit]

Bavesh Padayachy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not been able to find any reliable sources to back the claims within this article. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lourdes 11:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Nyttend, hope you're doing well. As you've deleted the article already, can you close this Afd too? Thanks. Lourdes 03:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather not; the last time I tried to close an AFD, I closed the whole day's AFD log, if I remember rightly :-) Some of the closing code I just find confusing. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Rajput[edit]

Imran Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the article, created apparently by the subject himself, is quite badly written (with two sections that had material simply copy-pasted from the lead, which I removed), the actor and one of his three claimed movies have insignificant mentions in sources (almost none of which are reliable). Subject fails GNG, WP:BIO and in specific ACTOR due to lack of reliable sources. Lourdes 10:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phattharaphol Khamsuk[edit]

Phattharaphol Khamsuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The footballer did not played in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, which fails WP:NSPORTS. Moreover, fails WP:GNG Matthew_hk tc 10:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 10:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Michelle Darnell[edit]

Linda Michelle Darnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NPOL a local candidate is acceptable as "notable" if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" There are three instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article;

The first one, https://thestoryexchange.org/election-2017-women-run-races-big-small/ The Story Exchange is a nonprofit media organization dedicated to telling the personal and professional stories of women business owners — and to exploring the role of entrepreneurship in advancing women’s economic independence. They are completely independent of and outside the control of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell). The Story Exchange is a well respected site; coverage by them certainly qualifies as "Notable"

The second one, http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/libertarian-party-wins-more-than-a-dozen Reason is an independent media organization which is completely separate of and outside the control of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell). Reason is a significant media organization; coverage by Reason is certainly enough to make someone "notable".

The third one, https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4600618/michelle-darnell-brings - C-SPAN, an acronym for Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, is an American cable and satellite television network that was created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. It is also completely independent of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell), and is a well-established channel, of which an appearance on, is certainly qualified as "notable".

Wikipedia's own page on Notability defines it: "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile." Based on the evidence presented here, the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell) is worthy of notice, for being a woman who ran in a state election and garnering significant numbers of votes; She has fame as her actions have been covered by at least three separate and independent sources; she is of a high degree of significance for being a woman who has run in several difficult elections against much better funded opponents; regarding capacity, she certainly has the capacity for further demonstrations of these qualities.

Based on all this, I recommend that this page be retained; I would also recommend that editors follow Wikipedia guidelines in that an attempt should be made to improve an article before suggesting that it be deleted - and regarding notability, that additional sources should be searched for if this is the main concern. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives Joezasada (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Nathanson, but no consensus about Young.  Sandstein  19:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nathanson[edit]

Paul Nathanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages because [of the same reason]:

Katherine K. Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough. I initially did this as a prod but the template was removed and a list of additional refs added to the talk page but I still think it's too thin. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are stubs, but the authors are notable based on several reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything after 2002 that wasn't printed by McGill-Queen's University Press, her own university?
Does 1,000 libraries globally constitute a lot? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you Wikipedia's designated expert on how many libraries are required for notability? Seems to me your concern is less about notability than scrubbing Wikipedia of people another editor called MRAs. I suspect that's really what's going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.94.208 (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you Wikipedia's designated expert on how many libraries are required for notability? Nope, that's why I asked the question. Young's blp already had notability template added to it in June 2014 and not by me – diff. If you know of any MRAs who don't already have blps on Wikipedia then feel free to create them, just make sure they are notable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Meier (author)[edit]

Paul Meier (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with reference only to his own website Rathfelder (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Certification for Emergency Nursing[edit]

Board of Certification for Emergency Nursing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't cite any sources; probably violating NPOV Simranpreet singh (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan Sarzameen Party[edit]

Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan Sarzameen Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is no such party. this is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL. the two parties have agreed to form an alliance however the name of the alliance is not yet decided. Saqib (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. And there is a draft for this article at Draft:Mustafa Jamal. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Jamal[edit]

Mustafa Jamal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

clearly autobio written by the subject himself. fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 9 November 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 Userfied to User:Fjohnstone96/Data Justice. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data Justice[edit]

Data Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of established research and google search return. Very little amount of publishings concerning the topic. Seems arbitrarily defined. Ueutyi (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.  Sandstein  18:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of pioneers in computer science[edit]

List of pioneers in computer science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To me, this article is pretty clearly WP:OR, and definitely original synthesis. As a case in point, there is a pages-and-pages long debate on the talk page about who "deserves" recognition, which is not rooted in reliable sources of any kind. Wikipedia is not a hall of fame. Lists should be based on objective, recognized criteria. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is no consensus on whether to adopt that approach, nor on which awards should be included if that approach is adopted, nor whether receipt of such an award should be a necessary criterion for inclusion or merely an adequate criterion. Zazpot (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is an on going discussion that seems to be leaning in the direction I stated above, with specifics being ironed out. It has not ended without consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's your view, but I'm not the only person who is sceptical of your judgement here. We'll have to agree to disagree about it. Zazpot (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I mean, I would argue that most of those categories should be deleted too, as they seem to be a way of ranking or judging people rather than categorizing them by any encyclopedic criterion. "Pioneer" seems to me a very subjective and loaded term. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn in Montreal's point about existing categories seems to reduce to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Zazpot (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the suggestions above with actual Wikipedia guidance:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.

— WP:VERIFIABILITY

[Be] aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.

— WP:LISTV#INC

It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.

— WP:LEADFORALIST

Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.

— WP:LISTCRITERIA
Several editors besides me have called out the bias shown in this article's edits and talk page (thank you): Andy Dingley here, SemanticMantis here and here, and David Eppstein here.
The key issue, though, is that there is no pristine, bias-free means to establish what constitutes a "pioneer" of, or a "transformative breakthrough" in, computer science (or computing, or electronics, per the lede). A much better alternative to keeping this article would be simply to categorise relevant articles as is standard practice, and to have Wikipedia articles for each notable award in the field. This would let us completely avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, while upholding WP:VERIFIABILITY and (I hope!) reducing contentiousness.
Zazpot (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not suggest that it "should be" an unofficial hall of fame. You truncated my quote at its start and at its end. Please don't do that. Here is my exact quote: "It's like an unofficial but important Wikipedia-based hall of fame, so we should be careful to get it right, and the people who care about this page seem to be going in that direction." See how quoting the whole thing in context changes the meaning you gave it? Randy Kryn (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that adding the rest of your quote changes the meaning one iota. There should never be a "Wikipedia-based hall of fame" within Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a primary source), and so there is nothing to "get right" about such a thing. Zazpot (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zazpot, I did not suggest nor would I advocate a Wikipedia based hall-of-fame, you said in your original post that I "suggested" it "should be". I was making a statement about how it might look to someone, not that it is or should be. That you missed the subtlety here might be also why you miss the concept of the page and think women and others should be added on the basis of their sexual identification rather than on the basis of their work as major and field-changing computer-related originators. The present criteria seems clear: "a list of individuals who made transformative breakthroughs in the creation, development and imagining of what computers and electronics could do". Any decision about inclusion should be on the basis of 'transformative breakthrough', not on a sexual or national formula. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, you seem to be saying that the second instance of the singular neuter pronoun ("it") in your quote referred to something other than the first instance did, and indeed to a concept that you did not even mention in your quote. I.e. that instead of referring to an "unofficial Wikipedia-based hall of fame", your second instance was instead referring to "selection criteria"? If so, then I appreciate your clarification, but feel that the issue is not that I misunderstood the meaning of your sentence, but that you did not write what you meant to convey. Zazpot (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 'it' you've pointed out referred to the list, not that it 'should be' something to the inclusion of all the other things it is or could be. The 'like' in the sentence means it resembles-but-is-not. The 'is' in the sentence in this post depends what the "meaning of the word 'is' 'is'", to coin a phrase. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It is not canvassing to notify editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Zazpot (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you chose to notify 4 particular users (and two possibly non neutral user groups) who happend to agree with you at some point in the article TP, while not posting the same at other users' talk - you are choosing a possibly partisan group, which is the definition of canvassing.Icewhiz (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if Zazpot was canvassing. (I was going to comment here anyway and already had the page on my watchlist before being "canvassed") Tornado chaser (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. International Biographical Dictionary of Computer Pioneers
  2. Pioneers of the Computer Age: from Charles Babbage to Steve Jobs
  3. The Computer Pioneers: The Making of the Modern Computer
  4. Computer Pioneers
  5. American Computer Pioneers
  6. Giants of Computing: A Compendium of Select, Pivotal Pioneers
  7. Pioneers of Computing
  8. The Man who Invented the Computer: The Biography of John Atanasoff, Digital Pioneer
Andrew D. (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That aspect of WP:LISTN isn't the only issue of concern here. Please look at the discussion above. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comments Zazpot makes above are rather irrelevant, and way off-beam. The list should be based on WP:RS, and those clearly exist. So anyone listed as a 'Pioneer' in a book on 'Pioneers' of computing can easily be regarded as a Pioneer, and could go in the list, whether male or female, with refs cited. That wouldn't be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The fact there was discussion on the Talk page of how the List could be structured is a good thing, and it's nonsensical for him/her to state: The article is in serious breach of Wikipedia policy, even if some of the suggestions on the Talk Page were a bit off-beam. Had the list been full of redlinked names, there might be some merit in that assertion. It's a shame editors can't cooperate on maintaining what should be a really useful and informative list of names and contributions in a helful, sortable order. But to suggest WP:SALT indicates there's an 'out-to-get-this-page' mentality, and that's a real shame. If there is a genuine attempt to expurgate women from this List that would be a grave concern and should be brought up elsewhere, with sanctions considered if proven. But, as is stated below, "AfD is not for cleanup" Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, "The comments Zazpot makes above are rather irrelevant, and way off-beam." I can see how I might look a little unhinged to someone coming at this with fresh eyes. "The list should be based on WP:RS, and those clearly exist. So anyone listed as a 'Pioneer' in a book on 'Pioneers' of computing can easily be regarded as a Pioneer, and could go in the list, whether male or female, with refs cited. That wouldn't be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH." A month ago, I, too, thought the matter was as simple as that. Let me explain how I went from that position to "delete and salt".
A month ago, sharing your view that anyone listed as a "pioneer" in a source on "pioneers" of computing could go on the list, whether male or female, with refs cited, I posted a list of some such sources to the talk page. These sources were reputable: the SIGCSE Bulletin, The Ada Project (of Yale and Carnegie Mellon University), and two newspapers of record (The Guardian and The Telegraph). Those sources were rejected by other editors on spurious grounds, such as that the lists were "large, and almost ... exclusively mention women", or that the women they contained weren't really pioneers even though the sources explicitly described them as such.
Over the course of the last several weeks, the pattern of denying the authority of WP:RS, and advocating inclusion or removal based on editors' expertise or on WP:SYNTH methods such as number of citations in the literature became increasingly serious, and people (especially women) were being deleted despite appearing as pioneers in WP:RS:
(I will flesh out this table as time allows - maybe next week. Feel free to contribute.)
Person deleted Characterised in pioneering terms by Notable why? Inclusion criticised by Deleted by
Kathleen McNulty Mauchly Antonelli
  • "Pioneering Women in Computing Technology". Carnegie Mellon University.
  • Schwartz, Juliana; Casagrande, Lindamir Salete; Leszczynski, Sonia Ana Charchut; de Carvalho, Marilia Gomes (2006). "Women in computer science: who have been the pioneers?". Cad. Pagu (27): 255–278. doi:10.1590/S0104-83332006000200010.
  • "Women in Technology Hall of Fame, 1997 inductees: ENIAC programmers".
 One of just six original programmers of ENIAC, the first general-purpose electronic digital computer. One of the inventors of subroutines.[1]
Jean Jennings Bartik "For pioneering work as one of the first programmers, including co-leading the first teams of ENIAC programmers, and pioneering work on BINAC and UNIVAC I."[2]
Sophie Wilson Created the most widely-used microprocessor instruction set in the world: that of the ARM processor. No-one

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9nd0AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT432
  2. ^ "Betty Jean Jennings Bartik: 2008 Computer Pioneer Recipient". IEEE.
That was when it began to dawn on me that this wasn't simply a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, it was really a dispute about whether to forge ahead with an article whose editors seemed to be forming a consensus that the basis for inclusion should be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, in defiance of core policies like WP:VERIFIABILITY, and in which mischief like removing all citations for an entry or removing women was considered to be in keeping with the article's intent. An article like that has no place in Wikipedia now or ever, IMO. Hence my "delete and salt" position. Zazpot (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is beginning to get ridiculous. We're not going to delete a page just because you've got some content bone to pick. Please do not flesh out your list. What this or that editor did has nothing to do with deletion. EEng 17:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Agreed. Concerns should be on the Talk Page, Zazpot, and I can see you do really care. But this page is solely for WP:AFD discussion. I think there may need to be a WP:RFC, and possibly concerns over editing practiced raised at WP:ANI. But lets stick to AfD matters here, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, thanks. I have already raised several concerns on the talk page, without much success. As for what's relevant to the AfD, the point that I am making (along with CapitalSasha and Tornado chaser) is that the edit history of the article and its talk page show that this article does not have selection criteria [that are] unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, is unlikely to gain them, and therefore should not be kept.
About the editing practices themselves: if you are (or anyone else is) in a position to help with an intervention of some kind, I would appreciate it. With any luck it would succeed in reducing WP:OR, etc, but would be a lot of work to take on, and I can't spare the time at the moment :( Plus, it's probably better for it to be led by someone relatively uninvolved. Thanks again, Zazpot (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The actions of those editors illustrate the difficulty (impossibility?) of achieving consensus on inclusion/removal criteria, and on having a WP:VERIFIABLE, encyclopaedic article on this topic. This in turn speaks to whether or not the article should be kept.
The actions of those editors are also germane to Nick Moyes's comment above, "If there is a genuine attempt to expurgate women from this List that would be a grave concern and should be brought up elsewhere, with sanctions considered if proven." Where else would you suggest I raise this? Zazpot (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the article's talk page. You're just going to have to make your case that this or that person should be included, or help thresh out inclusion criteria. Your accusation that someone's out to expunge women is paranoid. EEng 9:39 am, Today (UTC−8)
EEng, please be WP:CIVIL. I have removed your personal attack. Zazpot (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zazpot, you mean Your accusation that someone's out to expunge women is paranoid.? If you want to start the PA-crybaby game, your talk of other editors' deliberate, repeated removal of many of the women present, like it's some kind of conspiracy, is the PA, and indeed paranoid. If you disagree take it to ANI and see what kind of laugh you get. I've restored my post; do not fuck with other editors' posts again. EEng 11:16 am, Today (UTC−8)
I have already provided diffs to justify my characterisation of the edits as "deliberate, repeated removals". These removals were discussed on the article's talk page, conducted without consensus, and then repeated after being reverted, so it is hard to think of a more accurate, neutral characterisation. Zazpot (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your mass additions of figures, based on their social attributes, that included game programmers and the first XYZ to receive a PhD, were roundly rejected on the talk page. A still open RfC shows little support for such inclusion criteria. I was acting within consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Correction - most of the initial additions were done by an IP user (who seemed to know what they were doing). The additions were subsequently defended by Zazpot on the TP, to the objections of many editors, as well as reverting attempts by other users on the page.Icewhiz (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Your mass additions of figures..." Kindly withdraw that comment. I have never added anyone to the list. Zazpot (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The mass addition of women to the list was made on Oct 1 by 73.164.124.62 (talk · contribs). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Sophie Wilson as her inclusion was inconsistent with the exclusion of similar caliber early home-computer / 80-90s microprocessor innovators (e.g. Steve Furber which was on her team, Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak, etc.) - it is really a discussion to be had on the talk page - but we should be consistent regardless of sex/LGBT status. Some other additions such as: Carla Meninsky, Mary Shaw (computer scientist), Sister Mary Kenneth Keller, or Megan Smith were simply beyond any defense.Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sophie Wilson is increasingly described as a computing pioneer in WP:RS. Whether or not any other person is not on the list is irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. In the context, it is not hard to see why your deletion of her looked like the unjustified deletion of a woman along with a lot of other women, at least partly on the basis that they were women, rather than based on an assessment of WP:RS in each case. (FWIW, lest anyone think I oppose to Steve Furber's inclusion in the list: I do not. Furber is widely hailed as a computing pioneer in WP:RS and thus should be deserving of a place on the list under any reasonable criteria, if the list is kept.) Zazpot (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sophie Wilson's claim to fame was designing the ARM processor, but she wasn't the only one who worked on designing it, and none one else is listed as a pioneer. At one time Wilson was also credited with writing BBC Basic, which is certainly not that notable. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wilson was indeed part of a team in Acorn Computers (which developed early home computers in the UK, as well the beginning of the ARM architecture (which achieved success - much later, at the time MIPS reigned queen of RISC). I can see the case of the inclusion of Wilson - however inclusion was inconsistent with the lack of inclusion of similar figures from the late 70s-80s-early 90s who dealt with computer architecture (e.g. John L. Hennessy is out) and home systems - the list is basically devoid of any of these (there are a number of "firsts" on the way to first PC). This should be discussed however in the scope of inclusion criteria on the TP, not here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are also books called "the 100 best X in category Y" but we don't have wikipedia articles about that.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CapitalSasha doesn't name any specific books or articles. I listed relevant books above and they support my position. Now, here's a list of similar articles for other fields. These likewise support my position and so my !vote stands.
  1. List of railway pioneers
  2. List of aviation pioneers
  3. List of Internet pioneers
  4. List of pioneering solar buildings
  5. List of early settlers of Rhode Island
  6. List of the oldest newspapers
Andrew D. (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want specifics, I will point out that we don't have an article called "List of best vegan recipes" despite the existence of [32].... I would say the difference between the lists you cite and others is that they should, in principle, list all innovators in those fields who are notable enough for Wikipedia. We already have List of computer scientists, so "List of computer science pioneers" is always going to be "picking the best" from that list, which is inherently POV/OR. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon's list of "best vegan recipes"... right... You do yourself no favors with a stupid strawman like that. EEng 01:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me a "pioneer" is just a "best scientist" so the analogy seems to work.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopeless. EEng 04:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of time you've spent here insulting me, one might think you'd have had a chance to actually present an argument. But no matter, I think probably the core disagreement between me and others on this page is that we have a different sense of the connotations of the word "pioneer", and I should have understood earlier that my view of it as being an aggrandizing/hero-worshipping term seems to not be in line with others' sense of the language. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should have understood that earlier. Way earlier. Others have presented plenty of good arguments, so I need not bother. As to the point at hand, "best vegan recipes" involves a sensory evaluation impossible to pin down, which is completely different from historical evaluation of the key workers in a well-documented young technical field; to draw an analogy between these two is absurd. EEng 05:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the distinction between "hammering out criteria" and original synthesis/personal judgment, that's my issue. (And please let's try to keep the conversation civil, I know your comment isn't intended as a personal attack but it can feel that way. :) ) CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for Christ's sake, you've wasted a large chunk of editor time by making this silly nomination. With your limited experience you should have consulted one or two more experienced editors first before putting the ponderous AfD machinery into motion. Will you be nominating List of aviation pioneers, List of Internet pioneers, Category:Radio pioneers, Category:Automotive pioneers, and List of railway pioneers as well? EEng 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, please WP:KEEPCOOL. At least three longstanding editors had discussed the idea of taking the article to AfD before CapitalSasha did so. See the article's talk page. Zazpot (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Give diffs. Your inexperience seems to extend to the point of not knowing what constitutes experience. EEng 11:16 am, Today (UTC−8)
Sure: Meters and I had this discussion; Tornado chaser chimed in here. Zazpot (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What your links show is:
  • Meters telling you Disagreement over inclusion criteria is not a reason for deletion... If you think this should be deleted then take it to AFD, but I suggest that you will need more than just this weak argument (emphasis added since you seem to have missed it the first time).
  • With less than 3K article edits, Tornado chaser is hardly the kind of editor I was suggesting you consult.
Stop fucking with others' posts [33]. The next time you do that I'll simply undo all your changes back to before you did that. EEng 05:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to delete those pages and categories too, yes. Wikipedia should not be in the business of anointing people "pioneers" any more than it should be in the business of anointing people "heroes" or "success stories". If you want to criticize me personally, maybe that's a better topic for my talk page, to avoid derailing this discussion.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though I did not and still do not entirely agree with Meters's characterisation, I did and still do entirely understand what Meters said. Note that I did not open this AfD. Re: Tornado chaser, you didn't suggest that I consult anyone. Six months and ~7K+ constructive edits is far more than most registered users seem to achieve (which is sadly unsurprising, given the uncivil nature of all too much treatment of other editors on Wikipedia). I'll follow WP:RPA - "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor" - and I respectfully ask you to leave those edits as they are. Let's stay on-topic, thanks. Zazpot (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
QED. EEng 22:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRITERIA says, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed ... it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." So references should be included. Zazpot (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a chronological ordering is that some don't have a definite date. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, the section "Editing others' comments":
"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.
Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. " Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a simple rename, which would be OK with me. The pioneers of the English language are lost in history. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hengist and Horsa, surely—but wouldn't a list of "notable" computer scientists simply duplicate list of computer scientists? – Joe (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page's present criteria, "individuals who made transformative breakthroughs in the creation, development and imagining of what computers and electronics could do" rests on the word "transformative". Those type of major discoveries and breakthroughs are usually well sourced, and those sources can be found on the Wikipedia page of each of the people listed. It's a wonderful list and an accurate name, full of history and discovery and the leap which was the advance of the human race from the fire age to the electronic age. "Transformative" means something, and should not be taken lightly. Meeting the "Transformative" bar, by its very definition and promise, denotes who should be listed as a pioneer, not original research but carefully following the sources and the field's historians. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: I don't agree that that is the present criterion. There was a proposal on the talk page [34] along those lines (but not the exact words that you are supposedly quoting) but that discussion has been sidetracked by this premature AFD. The fact that you agreed with the proposal [35] does not mean that you get to declare consensus. This is not the place to discuss the criterion or criteria, just to decide if the article should be deleted. The AFD was started because the inclusion criteria are not clear, and the talk page discussion stalled as soon as this AFD started, so I fail to see how you can possible claim that that the issue is decided. it seems to me that the AFD will likely to close as keep. Once it does we can go back to fixing the list. If it should happen to close as "delete" or merge then the inclusion criteria are moot. Meters (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I mentioned it is that the language was put on the page on November 2 and not changed since. I realize the criteria has to be totally talked out, but I'd think the language will land somewhere close to that. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a far cry between your opinion of what you think the wording will end up resembling, and flatly declaring what the currently criteria are. That's misleading, at the very least. Meters (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some traction/hint of a concensus regarding renaming. "Notable persons in Computer Science"? 198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my book. That would be a much, much broader list. This is for the Babbages and von Neumanns, not your run-of-the-mill, everyday, nose-to-the-grindstone, great-in-the-classroom-but-what's-he-done-lately worker-bee hacks like David Eppstein.[FBDB] EEng 03:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No - as in wikispeak notable is someone with a wiki article (i.e. meeting notability guidelines) - that would be a huge list of fairly little value. Pioneer could perhaps be replaced with some other term, but not notable.Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject of the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Mz7 (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sonia Uribe Files[edit]

The Sonia Uribe Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No sources other than two external links: the official website, which is a dead link; and the IMBD page, which doesn't even list a single completed episode. The first episode was to be on the Loch Ness Monster, but I can't even confirm that that episode was ever finished production, let alone aired. I can find no reliable independent sources at all for this show. Meters (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not even blogs on it. Galobtter (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juan1973:I don't disagree with your view on deleting the article, but weren't you one of the major contributors to it in the first place, and in fact your only edits in ten years on Wikipedia have been to the Sonia Uribe articles? Bit strange now telling Wikipedia they shouldn't have the article. Richard3120 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the same thing.... Meters (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that I thought anything nasty was going on now. I noticed, assumed there had had likely been a bit of COI promotion 10 years ago, and was happy to see the support tor deletion now. If anything, I was surprised that the user could still login after 10 years. Meters (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject of the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Mz7 (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Uribe[edit]

Sonia Uribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Opening this for User:Central2017 who claims "I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want this page to be deleted" but does not understand how to complete a proper AFD. I have explained that this is not a sufficient reason for deletion, and given OTRS contact info for proving her identity. Having said that, I'm nominating this for deletion as failing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The article is almost unsourced, with nothing but a dead link to the subject's own website and a pic and passing mention in the click bait "The 50 Hottest Columbian Women". She apparently hosted The Sonia Uribe Files but that seems to have been very short lived. All I can find is one episode from 2008. I have not found the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to justify an article on this woman. Meters (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely even mentions exist of her. Galobtter (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing recent about her in many years. — Juan1973 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: I provided the OTRS contact information, but I have no access to see if the user has contacted OTRS (and based on the lack of familiarity with Wikipedia I suspect that there has been and will be no formal request). Since the article is more than 11 years old I thought it was worth taking to AFD to make sure I wasn't missing something. It looks like everyone is in agreement though. Meters (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1; nominator was unaware of WP:PM and proposes a merge, not deletion. Potental merges can be discussed there. The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration[edit]

Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article largely covers a single press conference and three states' response to that single press conference. It the topic is noteworthy but not deserving of its own article. There are single articles for the administration's policy on immigration and the economy, but a separate one for marijuana? Seems rather silly to me. The content should be stripped down and merged into Social policy of Donald Trump. Instaurare (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Instaurare, perhaps it's a dumb question, but if the content should be stripped down and merged, why are you proposing a deletion instead of a formal merge? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may be the dumb one. I have seen many AfDs where merge was the final result, so I didn't know there was a formal merge process. Instaurare (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even the nominator seems to think so "It the topic is noteworthy but not deserving of its own article." and seems to be only proposing a merger, which is why I !voted speedy keep. Galobtter (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mz7 (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TAXAB[edit]

TAXAB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New organization without notability, fails WP:ORG. References don't establish notability, merely announce campaign launch, but no lasting legacy (yet). P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KagunduTalk To Me 04:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PSA Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:
PSA Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NTOUR, the tour only grossed $1,294,000.00 for their entire tour of 6 shows + 4 cancellations VS 11 other groups whose single performance surpassed the PSA Tour's 6 show total. The list of future dates is noncompliant with WP:BALL Atsme📞📧 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's too early to decide whether PSA Tour should be deleted. In fact, the article doesn't deserve deletion anyway! 72.92.40.158 (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear anon, you are welcome to express your opinion, but if you do so, you should not close the deletion discussion per WP:INVOLVED. In particular, you should definitely not close it before it has run its 7 days unless it is a speedy keep case, and certainly not with a summary "withdrawn nomination", which can only be done by the person who nominated the article for deletion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The answer. Atsme📞📧 20:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinion is split on whether the sources identified are of sufficient quality to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Espinosa[edit]

Mason Espinosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE local and primary coverage from his time in low-level college football and indoor football. Well below the standards for WP:NGRIDIRON. Yosemiter (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "should be questioned". It certainly should not be "disregarded", and I don't think that's what you're saying. My rule of thumb is that there's a sliding scale on outlets. For me small town newspapers get less weight in a WP:GNG analysis, but major metropolitan dailies and regional newspapers are entitled to substantial weight. Billings Gazette is the largest and oldest newspaper in Montana, so it's somewhere in the middle. This one article is not enough to pass WP:GNG, but a couple more of that caliber (from additional reliable, independent sources) would tilt me to call it a GNG pass. Let's see what others come up with. Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By should be questioned, I mean they have locality bias (slightly independent or not independent of the subject) on something that would otherwise never be covered by any other media. I do NOT mean disregard. Generally, if someone gets significant local coverage, even from multiple sources, I lump that as one GNG-worthy source. Since multiple is typically needed, I feel there must be one other source with significant depth from a widely distributed source. Otherwise, this would be filled with city high school athletes. As an example, my step-brother is the starting running back at a high school in a 100,000+ metro area and has two articles written on him in two local-only papers; one about his then-upcoming season goals and past accomplishments and another on his discussions with some Div I FBS/FCS programs. He is a local high school star but nothing more for now. That is what I call a locality sports bias and the same general rules apply to pro athletes in small regional sports per SPORTBASIC (found in bullet point number 3).

I guess I should mention that I did go through all 70 G-News hits and saw nothing substantial like the Billings article. Yosemiter (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, your concern about high school athletes is addressed in WP:NHSPHSATH which provides an express limitation on the use of local sources. This is a special and extraordinary rule that was adopted to avoid opening the floodgates to high school athlete articles; it has not been extended to higher level athletes. Second, I disagree with your assertion that multiple local sources cannot suffice. So long as the sources are independent, reliable, and consist of significant coverage beyond the routine passing references in game coverage and the like, there is no prohibition on local or regional sources. SPORTBASIC simply emphasizes that local sources need to be independent, which means that the publication must not have ties to the subject (e.g., a university newspaper is not independent when reporting on its student athletes, and a sports league's web site is not independent when reporting on one of its athletes. However, newspapers and magazines with independent editorial oversight are valid, reliable sources under GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point about high school athletes (and by extension, college athletes with a different explicit statement that is like the generalized term I referred to in SPORTBASIC, that the subject needs national attention) is that semi-pro/regional-only pro athletes get the same amount (and often less) than high school/college athletes in the local news. Yet you are saying that it means more. I guess I don't see the difference in terms of independence of the source, both are only being covered because they are expected to be covered by the local media on local athletes. The only difference is that one athlete is paid. Even the local Div I school's players and its rivals in the next metro area got far more coverage in local papers than the local IFL team or any other minor league players. Yosemiter (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding the nature of what we mean by an "independent" source, Per WP:INDEPENDENT, and in short, it means that a source must have "editorial independence" and no "financial or legal relationship with the topic." It does not mean that the Chicago Tribune or The Des Moines Register are not "independent" in their reportage on topics tied to Chicago/Des Moines. Cbl62 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the low-level college coverage seems to be against WP:NCOLLATH as local athlete coverage, which is exactly what was being discussed above. But then again, I may be against the consensus in my belief that local coverage (local celebrities and athletes) should be considered routine and expected coverage. The transactions covered by only local media, as far as I have seen in AfD's, have almost always been considered routine. Yosemiter (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one. College football players can still pass muster under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only inclusive to a point; per NCOLLATH#3: Gained national media attention as an individual. The keyword here is national, not local. I fail to see how sports sections for the Herald-Citizen (his hometown paper, he went to Cookeville HS, hence all the titles have "UC/Upper Cummberland Connections:" at the start of each) and the The Delaware Gazette (the paper for his college town that always covers the college) is considered National.

The rest listed by WikiOriginal-9: The Erie Times-News where he played in the low level PIFL and is routine game coverage, KRTV local game coverage and happened to win offensive player of the week with only two paragraphs about what he did in that game, Cleveland 19 game coverage, Billings Gazette transaction coverage of his signing, Primary DIII athletics website about him, Erie Times-News coverage of local team, Gazette coverage of the same Offensive player of the week award with the same amount of content, and WTOC-TV coverage of the next game will have a new starter (Espinosa). I guess I still don't understand why a local-only coverage semi-pro player would be notable when it specifically calls out amateur athletes (who often get more coverage) must be nationally covered. Seems like a lowered standard. Yosemiter (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of an "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" standard. Nobody is arguing he passes NCOLLATH. The argument is that he passes GNG which does not require national media sourcing. **** sigh **** Cbl62 (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find Yosemiter's arguments persuasive. I also believe notability guidelines like NCOLLATH and NGRIDIRON gives us tools to decide notability when GNG is in question. IMHO, if the subject doesn't meet the specific guideline in the area that notability is claimed then I find them non-notable unless a very clear GNG exists. I (personally) hold them to a higher standard. Ifnord (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy basis for imposing "a higher standard" than GNG on athletes, but it's not surprising that you would find Yosemiter's non-policy based and deletionist arguments persuasive given the fact that the AfD stats you tout on your user page show that (a) you vote Delete/Merge/Redirect 89% of the time; and (b) Yosemiter votes Delete/Merge/Delete a stunning 97.8% of the time. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I appear to match with consensus 85.6% of the time. Your percentage is higher. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I respect your opinion, appreciate the effort and time of your argument, but I do not agree with it. Ifnord (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. We are here for the same reason, to build a better encyclopedia, and reasonable minds can and do differ at times. Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I am no advocate on notability for NCAA Division III football players. But Espinosa may be the best QB in Division III history and holds the all-time conference passing record with 11,069 yards. He is the very rare example of a notable Division III player. Compare Brett Elliott with 10,441 passing yards, mostly at Division III level. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, this (p. 20) says Espinosa is 16th on the D3 all-time passing yards list. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Elliott also previously played for a DI school, made an NFL roster (without making an appearance), and started for an AFL team (which qualifies for NGRIDIRON). He is also a quarterback coach for Mississippi State. All things that gets more coverage than DIII and low end pro career. They don't look that comparable (over 300 G-News hits for Brett Elliott football vs. 72 for Mason Espinosa total). Yosemiter (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Delete - I think being the leading DIII career passer makes him notable. I added that he's an assistant coach also, albeit for DIII Denison. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, this (p. 20) says Espinosa is 16th on the D3 all-time passing yards list. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to delete. I misread the info - he's not the leading DIII passer, just the leading conference passer. The #2 all-time DIII passer isn't on the site, so #16 doesn't qualify either. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The #2 all-time DIII passer isn't on the site, so #16 doesn't qualify either". That might not necessarily be a reason to delete this article. Maybe no one has made the other article yet. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, yet a simple search for Josh Vogelbach shows that he also fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Tim, it's not the issue, but that simple search shows the opposite: See Josh Vogelbach. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion but there's only been a couple of solid positions taken. Could use some more experienced editors to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: Does your well-crafted discussion of the "nabobs" (a term I haven't heard since Spiro Agnew's day here) mean that you support keeping this article? Cbl62 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the article itself, just on the level of discussion around it. Also that's not my first mention of WP:NABOBS. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mondottica[edit]

Mondottica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much just COI promo. Blow it up, and maybe someone else might make an actual article, if needed. Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 9 November 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.  Sandstein  18:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney International HD[edit]

Disney International HD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only cover in entertainment media, TV Post, Indian Television and bestmediaifo. Per Notability nutshell: "..world at large and over a period of time...", niche media sources doesn't constitute the "world at large". This can be incubated in the The Walt Disney Company India article or as a draft until suitable notable sources can be found. Spshu (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Second guessing nomination of it for deletion is not a reason. Any one can nominate obscure TV channels for deletion. Why didn't you? Spshu (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Disney's (or the channel's) Twitter, Disney's website and ads are invalid as it is Self-promotion and publicity (WP:SPIP). Spshu (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While so far all the !votes have been unanimous keeps, there isn't much citing of policy or reliable sources going on yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Property[edit]

Progressive Property (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The sources used in the article are either citing people from the company for quotes, or are very local coverage of the company's charity donations. Googling, I'm not finding the sort of in-depth coverage we're looking for - there's some coverage on founder Rob Moore, talking about how how he got his money and how he spends it on things like Ferraris and (less than a month later) how he totaled a Ferrari, and this fill-in-the-form "interview". The biggest things I can find on the company's work is This Spectator article which covers how scammy their efforts appear and this review claiming their classes are a scam. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. McWilliams[edit]

Thomas E. McWilliams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hostoffer[edit]

Robert Hostoffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable. References mostly advertising Rathfelder (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bride (band). (non-admin closure) J947( c ) (m) 03:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Experience[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Jesus Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why was this article recreated with no additional sources. It was determined to be non-notable six months ago and since it still doesn't meeth WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM, it should not have been recreated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is sufficiently different to the deleted version that G4 doesn't apply. --Michig (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much different? The previous one had more unreferenced text, but essentially the same lede and a tracklisting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tracklisting is obviously going to be quite similar. The rest, while there's not much of it, is different enough. --Michig (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 12 November 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. No opposition to sources found. (non-admin closure) J947( c ) (m) 03:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Roe[edit]

Bobby Roe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor/director lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 9 November 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.
More