The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Music Factory[edit]

Desi Music Factory (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 does not establish notability for this subject per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The references provided do not discuss the subject in a significant way. A Google search also provides results that are trivial (directory listings, social media, song download sites, lyrics sites). Prod tag removed without comment/change. ... discospinster _talk 23:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. This very small company produced six (6) singles. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete upcoming at best fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Snowden[edit]

Jane Snowden (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)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO. JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep seems to have prominent roles in the ITV series Wish Me Luck and the film The Frog Prince so has claims to pass WP:NACTOR, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Can you find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? JMHamo (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not finding much at all unfortunately, thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article lacks anything even close to significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any significant reliable sourcing. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bikicsunáj[edit]

Bikicsunáj (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 and non-notable Norden1990 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This meme ran its course in a week. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2018 (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) Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HC Bratislava[edit]

HC Bratislava (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 is not in english Joeykai (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, The original version of this article was in English. Emoxx1 (talk · contribs · count) added some Slovak-language text from the team's website. The only contributions of Emoxx1 have been to this article. I have reverted that addition, and asked that the versions with that text be removed as a copyvio. Perhaps some of these references could be added to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastman. -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deletion rationale no longer applies. Smartyllama (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Florida College of Integrative Medicine[edit]

Florida College of Integrative Medicine (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)

For-profit university fails WP:NCORP / WP:ORGCRIT. All of the listed references are to directory listings, and my own searching failed to find anything better.

The history is bizarre. On 13 February 2016, User:SwisterTwister (now banned as a sock), declined the AfC submission. Then, on 9 November 2016, with zero additional edits to the article, User:SwisterTwister moved it to mainspace. WTF? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The college certainly exists in some capacity as it's included in IPEDS. However it's a tiny institution (IPEDS lists only 92 students) so unless it has an exceptional or unusual history it's very possible that the college doesn't meet our bar for notability. I can barely find any information or news about the college at all so I'm comfortable !voting for deletion until and unless another editor can provide multiple sources that establish notability. ElKevbo (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG, only mentions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, partisan sources, Bachelor of Science sans Science. ¨¨¨¨
• Delete Fails wp:GNG - no solid RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable at all for stand alone article; trivia. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Basie (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. It has fewer than 100 students and is not regionally accredited. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Save Srinagar Front[edit]

Save Srinagar Front (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 Google News references. Doesn't assert a single indication about notability. Minima© (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per reasons provided. I could also find no evidence of notability. ToastButterToast (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non Notable Political party. --DBigXray 19:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- we are not a website for lists of political parties. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2018 (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 draftify. Sounds like a good idea per ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aatagallu[edit]

Aatagallu (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:NFF just the usual reprint of PR release notes. Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify probably just WP:TOOSOON but right now the sources are only pre-release PR, most of it about one of the actors rather than the film itself.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:43, 9 July 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (1967 Judd sculpture)[edit]

Untitled (1967 Judd sculpture) (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 Wikipedia:Notability - none of the sources in the references are indepth independent pieces about the artwork, they give the artwork a brief mention in writing about the artist. GRuban (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant work by a significant artist. Included by the museum in a group of "Highlights". Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to being in a museum collection and singled out as a "highlight", I've found a few sources that deal with this work in more than just passing. It seems that this work is important within conservation discussions and around ideas of original and copies in prefabricated artworks. "Do conservators dream of electric sheep? Replicas and replication", Louise Lawson (Studies in Conservation Volume 61, 2016), "Nothing but the Real Thing: Considerations on Copies, Remakes and Replicas in Modern Art", Lydia Beerkens (Tate Online Research Journal, Inherent Vice: The Replica and its Implications in Modern Sculpture Workshop, Tate Modern, 18–19 October 2007), and "Corrosion Intercept tent packing and handling system for Donald Judd’s brass and copper sculptures", Eleonora Nagy (Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Volume Six, 1999) all deal with this work in some detail. The article can be expanded with a discussion of conservation and considerations of what is an original, per those sources. As well, the book Furniture, Structure, Infrastructure: Making and Using the Urban Environment, Nigel Bertram (2013) mentions this piece. A couple of points: I don't believe that every work by a major artist should have an article and untitled works such as this are extremely difficult to find good sources on. I think in this case, however, a number of useful sources dealing with the work itself beyond a passing mention, and addressing topics that help expand the article, go a long way to establishing notability and satisfying WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT concerns. freshacconci (✉) 19:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they should, but they probably could - once the mongraphs get written. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:CRYSTAL. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge To a Judd article. One has to ask how this untitled Judd work is different from one of the dozens of other untitled Judd works. WP Is not here to be a catalogue raisonné of every work done by an artist. We are just here for the notable ones. This one is barely notable, which is demonstrated by the lack of writing about it: if this really were a significant work by Judd, there would be, you know, significant writing about it. The artist is highly significant; not everything he made is notable.198.58.163.19 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to be included a museum's highlights collections, indicating the work is of some significance. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:39, 9 July 2018 (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. While there was some suggestion of a possible merge, in this instance the consensus strongly favors outright deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS J140821.67+025733.2[edit]

SDSS J140821.67+025733.2 (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)

AfD as suggested in declined PROD comment. I haven't followed this in detail but it appears to fail WP:NASTRO. I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage, only catalogue entries. Simbad lists only 16 papers mentioning it at all, which is pretty scanty. Lithopsian (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable. Satisfies GNG due to significant coverage in 16 sources in SIMBAD and 33 sources in NED. Plus which, this happens to have a very large mass. James500 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entries in catalogs are not by themselves notable. Is there anything beyond the basic numbers that go into a catalog (location, magnitude, size)? Tarl N. (discuss) 23:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I've gone through and thoroughly checked all of the sixteen supposed sources, and I can confirm that these are all merely listings in catalogues containing tens or hundreds of thousands of objects each. Not one source mentions this one specifically in the text. This is a textbook example of why you need to check your references before exclaiming how many there are, because not one of these is useful. Not notable. Reyk _YO! 07:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I did check them. (2) I have no problem with the (extensive) information contained in 'catalogues'. 'Catalogues' are good. I have no problem with the photograph in NED either. James500 (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: at present there is no "substantial" coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. If that changes in the future, the page can be restored from the deletion archive. Praemonitus (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, complete fail of WP:NASTRO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of most massive black holes, the only article in the Main namespace to link to this one. I navigated to this article from the list; as the largest known black hole, the article's information is interesting in this context. If this article gets deleted, the information in its lead section should be moved to the list page/table, or somewhere else where people would be likely to view it. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Mooseandbruce1. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above; top supermassive status makes it desirable that at least some information be provided, and a couple of lines in the list should cover that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, object fails WP:NASTRO. The black hole mass estimate is almost certainly spurious, this is an oddball quasar with a weird spectrum and the usual methods to get rough estimates of black hole masses probably don't work well for an object like this. Note that Kozlowski did not even mention this object in the text of his paper. Presumably if the author had thought it was noteworthy to find a BH with mass 10 times bigger than any previously known from direct dynamical measurement, he would have mentioned that fact in the paper. Instead, this is probably just a case of an automated measurement and mass estimate going wrong and giving a spurious outlier result. As such, this doesn't really even belong in the list of largest known black holes. This is not a reliably measured mass and shouldn't be treated as though it was. Aldebarium (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NASTRO. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Forest Folk[edit]

Wee Forest Folk (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)

Despite some small coverage in the Boston globe I can't find significant coverage outside sources selling or promoting these products Polyamorph (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG for lack of secondary source coverage. --HunterM267 ^talk 20:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a cottage business that fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails not notable small business - no solid RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Oszkár Szántó[edit]

Zoltán Oszkár Szántó (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 enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails wp:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR either, as far as I can see Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and h-index is low to pass WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:48, 6 July 2018 (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; multiple in-depth reviews of work exist. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Imhof[edit]

Dirk Imhof (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 indication for suffcient notability as an academic; sources are the flimsiest of incidental mentions (and I must say that I've never seen the same wedding notice used as three references before...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, first up this article is atrocious, 2nd WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, now: Imhof has authored/contributed to numerous books that are held by libraries throughout the world including - Jan Moretus and the Continuation of the Plantin Press (85 libraries), Abraham Ortelius (1527-1598) (18 libraries), Flemish miniatures from the 8th to the mid-16th century : the medieval world on parchment (co-translator) (180 libraries), No home grown products : illustrated biblical poems in the Dutch Republic in Illustrated religious texts in the north of Europe, 1500-1800 (180 libraries), Return my woodblocks at once in The bookshop of the world : the role of the Low Countries in the book-trade, 1473-1941 (145 libraries), Antwerp, dissident typographical centre the role of Antwerp printers in the religious conflicts in England (16th century) (49 libraries), The illustration of books published by the Moretuses (85 libraries), Christopher Plantin and engraved book illustrations in sixteenth-century Europe (238 libraries), Botany in the Low countries (129 libraries), Mercator : reizen in het onbekende (17 libraries), Blind bestempeld en rijk verguld (26 libraries), Een feest voor het oog (29 libraries), De wereld in kaart : Abraham Ortelius (1527-1598) en de eerste atlas (27 libraries), Estampages et dorures (39 libraries), Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) en het Plantijnse Huis (62 libraries), Een hart voor boeken : Rubens en zijn bibliotheek (23 libraries), and Ducum Brabantiae chronica ... ad serenissimos principes Albertum et Isabellam Brabantiae duces (26 libraries), so he has written/contributed to a lot of books that libraries deem are worthy to be held. now lets see if there are any reviews out there, reviews of his works include: Jan Moretus and the Continuation of the Plantin Press - The English Historical Review here, Quaerendo here, Journal of Jesuit Studies - here; Christopher Plantin and Engraved Book Illustrations in Sixteenth-Century Europe - Renaissance Quarterly - here, Seventeenth-Century News - here, Sixteenth Century Journal from EBSCO, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America from EBSCO, Library from EBSCO; Abraham Ortelius 1527–1598: Life, Works, Sources and Friends. By Marcel van den Broecke - The International Journal for the History of Cartography here (note: all of the above were found with gsearch, editors with access to the fancy inhouse academic/library searchers will find more, no i dont want access:)), from the above would meet WP:AUTHOR (a couple of books with more than two reviews), WP:ANYBIO (the go to guy for the field of early european illustrated books/publishing), and WP:GNG so is a keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added to the article 11 published reviews of two of his books (probably with some overlap with the ones listed above by Coolabahapple). I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that does look like a critical mass. Suggest I'll wait another day or so, then may withdraw. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou David Eppstein, btw, editors are always welcome to grab info i include on afds and add them to articles:))Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR, with multple non-trivial reviews of his works. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:AUTHOR. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:49, 6 July 2018 (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 00:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimshi Khalid[edit]

Jimshi Khalid (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)

Cinematographer with one example of reasonably significant coverage, trivial mentions elsewhere, apparently one notable film, and no evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG and upcoming at best has just done his debut film and other films are under production a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found some brief mentions, but not enough to pass WP:NBIO. I agree this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:50, 9 July 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lota Chukwu[edit]

Lota Chukwu (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 lacking in-depth, no -trivial support. References are listings, PR type interviews, or the slightest of mentions. reddogsix (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep she is absolutely notable enough in Nigeria as an actress and a media personality. I just spent a few hours editing the article; some issues raised have been corrected as it seems.Ercsco (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she is notable enough having starred in high ranking movies as a lead actor, I think she also has notable sources Buzzy anslem (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 06:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 06:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR, has had major roles in multiple notable films. HandsomeBoy (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NACTOR. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources in the article appear to be non-RS like blogs, imbd, irokotv (which is a borderline spam link to a pay per movie website) - and I haven't been able to find other sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:54, 9 July 2018 (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 Gokulam Kerala F.C.. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Andres Santiago Valera[edit]

Fernando Andres Santiago Valera (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 declined since he apparently passes WP:NFOOTY. That is not true. While the I-League is a WP:FPL, Valera has yet to actually manage in an I-League game while the league itself doesn't start until October. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by managing a team in a WP:FPL. There is no requirement (unlike players) to actually manage a game. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me but that honestly sounds ridiculous. Where was it established that for coaches and managers that it doesn't matter if they have managed a FPL club in game or not? I feel that that can be used for players then as well. It just doesn't make any sense. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per GiantSnowman. Definitely needs some cleanup, but meets WP:NFOOTBALL. 21.colinthompson (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Gokulam Kerala F.C. until he has managed a match to make a stand alone page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - per the above. @GiantSnowman: @21.colinthompson:, WP:NFOOTY quite clearly states managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, so not sure where the comment that they don't have to have managed a game has come from unless I am missing something. Will probably be notable once the season starts. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - oof, had previously understood differently on that. Apparently, I was way off. Vote struck as such, thanks for the correction. 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now per Fenix down.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:50, 6 July 2018 (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. Discussion shows by consensus that WP:GNG and WP:ENT are met. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Sterzel[edit]

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

Winston Sterzel (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 does not appear to pass general notability guidelines and seems to be largely self-promotional. Shritwod (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC) NOTE There has been off-Wiki canvassing by the subject on Twitter: If anyone of you has knowledge of how Wikipedia works, could you please help me as my wikipedia page has been under serious vandalism and revision and nominated for Deletion again by the trolls, it's very frustrating as they have... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Sterzel … Shritwod (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Ding, A (2017-10-09). "British YouTuber helps foreigners settle in China". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2018-06-25. Retrieved 2018-06-25.

     The article notes:

     WITH 220,000 subscribers, Winston Sterzel, a Briton who was born and raised in South Africa, is an Internet celebrity on YouTube. His videos about daily life in China, which average 100,000 views, are favored by those who are interested in China.

     ...

     Fueled by his experiences as a newcomer in a foreign country, he started making videos that explained how foreigners could do simple tasks such as taking a Metro or a bus, or how to order food and ask for a beer in a restaurant.

     ...

     All of Sterzel’s videos are real footage of his personal experiences. When he has an idea, he simply hits the street with his camera.

     The most important thing for his videos is to have engaging themes, and he always gets new ideas from his viewers’ comments. His videos include trendy and practical content, such as warning people to avoid scams such as black taxis in China.

  2. McGeary, Kevin (2015-06-05). "PRD People: Medical Trainer and Online Celebrity Winston Sterzel". The Nanfang. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

     The article notes:

     Winston Sterzel, 33, a British-South African medical training manager who has been in Shenzhen for eight years, has been praised by plenty of Chinese netizens for the astuteness of his online videos which give an introduction to the “real China.” His motorcycle tours have taken him to dozens of cities and small towns, but the portal through which he understands the Middle Kingdom is Shenzhen, a city he fell in love with during a business trip and came to despite having no contacts here.

     Sterzel has a large following on YouTube, Facebook, and Youku and has been featured in Shenzhen-based media eleven times. He has kindly taken the time to talk to The Nanfang about road trips, cold beer, internet celebrity and Chinese nationalism.

     ...

     After moving to Shenzhen eight years ago, he immersed himself in the local Chinese community while learning the language. …

     He works for a medical training company, training doctors in international hospital rules, etiquette, medical terminology and other things related to internships in Australia and Germany. Another one of his main activities is taking motorcycle trips around China. Either through business trips or lone adventures he has biked his way to Dalian, Inner Mongolia, Shanghai and many other far flung places. His videos about riding to Guilin gained 10,000 hits per episode, almost 80,000 in total.

     According to this December 2016 article from Hong Kong Free Press, "The Nanfang – an English-language digital news and commentary website for southern China – is closing after almost seven years, citing commercial challenges."
  3. Gidge, Sky (2016-12-20). "Take 5: YouTube Vlogger Winston Sterzel". that's Shenzen. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

     The article notes:

     After 10 years of vlogging about Shenzhen, Winston Sterzel recently stepped into the wilds of making his YouTube videos a full-time job. Often appearing in a suit and drinking a beer, his video repertoire of city guides and interviews on taboo topics have earned more than 15 million views, making him the unofficial face of Shenzhen in the Anglosphere.

     that's Shenzen is a sister publication of that's Shanghai, that's Beijing, and that's PRD, which are all published by Urbanatomy Media.
  4. Ye, Shangqing (2015-10-19). "Foreigner's Shenzhen videos have 8 million views". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

     The article notes:

     WINSTON STERZEL is the face of Shenzhen on YouTube. Searching “Shenzhen” in YouTube brings up his videos, which have been viewed more than 8 million times.

     Calling himself “the original China vlogger” Sterzel has posted 584 videos to YouTube since 2006.

     The South African, who was born to British parents, uses a digital camera to film videos with a focus on life in Shenzhen. The videos range from him speaking into the camera while walking down the street to polished guides to parts of Shenzhen.

     ...

     Sterzel’s videos include advice on renting an apartment, finding a job and even interviews about intercultural relationships.

  5. Wang, Yuanyuan (2012-06-08). "British-South African telling people 'how China is'". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

     The article notes:

     WINSTON STERZEL, a British-South African, has always been a warm-hearted person who likes to help others. After living in Shenzhen for about six years, the 31-year-old is finding a new way to give that help — online videos that show newcomers what Sterzel calls the real China.

     Without any advanced equipment or complicated plots, Sterzel, a medical training manager and self-employed businessman, uses his mobile phone and years of rich experience in China to help foreigners visit or learn about the country.

     So far, he has made 12 episodes for his popular video series, “China: How It Is.” The series detailing Chinese lifestyles, customs and culture has generated about 900,000 views on YouTube, with more than 1,800 subscribers.

  6. Zhang, Qian (2015-11-04). "Expat filming S. China trip documentary". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

     The article notes:

     CAMPING in a cold, wet abandoned shack is what Winston Sterzel did on the seventh day of his South China motorcycle tour. Sterzel and four others are filming a documentary about their 16-day trip that they hope will be out around Christmas time.

     ...

     The South African is uploading “behind the scenes” footage from the trip to YouTube and Youku, with the YouTube videos already racking up more than 10,000 views.

     ...

     Sterzel is effectively Shenzhen’s face on YouTube, with his 584 mostly Shenzhen-centric videos having been viewed about 8 million times since he began posting in 2006. Searching “Shenzhen” on YouTube brings up his picture, linking to videos where he talks about living in Shenzhen, finding jobs and intercultural relationships.

  7. Gidge, Sky (2016-01-14). "Expat's video featured". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

     The article notes:

     THE adventures of a motorcycle riding, Shenzhen-based expatriate are getting noticed in Chinese media.

     Winston Sterzel’s video was featured yesterday on one of China’s most popular video-sharing websites, sohu.com. The preview for “Conquering Southern China” appeared at the top of Sohu’s documentary page.

     ...

     Traveling 5,000 kilometers by motorcycle, Sterzel and some friends documented their trips through southern China.

  8. "Falling in love with SZ in three days". Shenzhen Daily. 2008-01-07. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10 – via Shenzhen Municipal E-government Resources Center.

     The article notes:

     WINSTON STERZEL, a Briton who grew up in South Africa, was convinced that Shenzhen was the place to be after a three-day business trip in 2005, following which he moved here.

     It turned out to be a wise decision as his company Access Oriental is booming. He is mainly in charge of sourcing, technical proofing and quality control of the company.

     ...

     Sterzel has a Chinese girlfriend here, and plans to stay in China for a long time. He hasn't been back to South Africa to visit his family; instead his family came to visit him in Shenzhen. "It is my place," he said.

  9. Mullin, Kyle (2016-08-19). "Watch Two Crazy Vloggers Drive 5,000km Across Southern China on Handmade Motorcycles". The Beijinger. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

     The article notes:

     Winston Sterzel, and Matthew Tye have done what most of us only dream of doing – traversing 5,000km across southern China on ramshackle, handmade motorcycles, stopping to sample the most unique local dishes, filming every moment of their adventure. The pair of Shenzhen based Youtube vloggers – who go by SerpentZA and Laowhy86, respectively – recently worked with Beijing based editors Ricardo Afonso and Mark Masterton, turning their footage into a series called "Conquering Southern China," which is now streaming on Vimeo on demand.

  10. 魏博 (2015-06-25). "12集纪录片《南非人在中国》在北京发布(组图)". 中国网新闻中心 (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      纪录片主人公来自不同行业，他们中有酒店创始人、DJ、留学生、南非酒吧老板、高尔夫球场高管、拍摄中国的视频博主、中国功夫迷、国际学校老师、推广皮影戏的艺术家、建筑师、领事夫人等等。他们的故事既有特殊性又有代表性。例如，居住在上海的格兰特•霍斯菲尔德（Grant Horsfield）把生态旅游的概念引入浙江莫干山，他建造的“裸心谷”度假村给当地提供了一个绿色旅游的范例，并带动了当地经济；在深圳的温斯顿•斯得泽尔（Winston Sterzel），由于看到西方媒体对中国的报道与事实出入很大，决定利用闲暇时间拍摄真实的中国并介绍给世界；同是居住在深圳的马克•欧克莱尔(Mark O’Connell)，把自己在南非管理高尔夫球场的丰富经验带到中国

      This verifies that Winston Sterzel's name translated into Chinese is 温斯顿•斯得泽尔.
  11. "南非男拍视频记录深圳". Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2015-12-14. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      英裔南非籍男子Winston Sterzel住在深圳已将近十年，他从2007年开始制作关于中国见闻的视频并上传到视频网站，因为住在深圳，其视频的内容大多与深圳有关。Winston录视频的初衷是方便家人和朋友了解他在深圳的生活，没想到逐渐受到网民关注。最初，对深圳的好奇心驱使Winston四处游走，走得最远的一次，从东门走到了蛇口，20多公里路程，走过大厦楼底，穿过城中村，他一点也不觉得累。一个偶然的机会，Winston来到下沙村。跟其他地方相比，这座位于福田区西南部的城中村虽然破旧了些，却设施齐全。Winston看中这里的排屋租金便宜，又能接触到各种不同的人，就住了下来。

      From Google Translate:

      British South African man Winston Sterzel lived in Shenzhen for nearly a decade, he started in 2007 on the Chinese knowledge of the video and uploaded to the video site, because living in Shenzhen, most of its video content and Shenzhen. Winston recorded the original intention of the video is to facilitate family and friends to understand his life in Shenzhen, did not expect to gradually be concerned about the Internet users. Initially, the curiosity of Shenzhen drive Winston to walk around, go farthest once, from the East Gate went to Shekou, more than 20 kilometers away, walked through the building floor, through the city village, he did not feel tired. By chance, Winston came to Xiasha Village. Compared with other places, this is located in the southwest of Futian District, although the dilapidated village, but the facilities are complete. Winston fancy the townhouse rent cheap, but also access to a variety of different people, to live down.

  12. "外籍深漂：城中村是深圳最有意思的地方" (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. 2015-12-14. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      “Hey guys,welcome to another video（大家好，欢迎收看新一期视频）!”

      几年来，视频制作者“SerpentZA”的粉丝习惯了他在每个视频开头这样问候。视频背景或许是繁华街头，或许是城中村的啤酒摊子，他自说自拍，用英文对着镜头讲身边的趣事，细碎而平和，像在与一位老友聊自己的近况。这位英裔南非籍的视频制作者原名Winston Sterzel，居住在中国深圳将近10年。

      从2007年开始，每隔一段时间，Winston都会制作出一个关于中国见闻的视频，上传到视频网站YouTube，因为他住在深圳，视频的内容也大多与深圳有关。到现在，他的YouTube个人频道已经拥有了600多个视频和10万多万订阅者，最受欢迎的“China,how it is（别样）”系列视频已累计拥有约750万次的点击量。

      From Google Translate:

      "Hey guys, welcome to another video (Hello everybody, welcome to watch the new video)!"

      Over the past few years, the video producer "SerpentZA" fans accustomed to his greeting at the beginning of each video. Video background may be the bustling streets, perhaps the village of beer stalls, he said that self-timer, with the English side of the lens to talk about the interesting side, crushing and peace, as in an old friend to talk about their current situation. The British-South African video producer was originally named Winston Sterzel, living in Shenzhen, China for nearly 10 years.

      From 2007 onwards, every time, Winston will produce a video on the Chinese knowledge, upload to the video site YouTube, because he lives in Shenzhen, the video content is mostly related to Shenzhen. Up to now, his YouTube personal channel already has more than 600 videos and more than 100,000 subscribers, and the most popular "China, how it is" series of videos has accumulated about 7.5 million hits The

  13. "SerpentZA: Blogger ng Shenzhen" (in Filipino). China Radio International. 2015-05-14. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.

      The article notes:

      Si Winston Sterzel ay isang "laowai" mula sa Timog Aprika. Siya ngayon ay nakatira sa lunsod ng Shenzhen, probinsyang Guangdong, sa may timog na bahagi ng Tsina.

      ...

      Noong 2005, isang business trip ang nagdala kay Winston sa Shenzhen. Mula noon, nahulog ang kanyang loob sa Tsina.

      Nang makabalik sa Timog Aprika, ibinenta niya ang lahat ng kanyang ari-arian, at iniwan ang kanyang tahanan sa Johannesburg upang mamuhay sa Shenzhen.

      Sa kanyang pananatili sa Tsina, maraming natututunan si Winston, gaya ng maling pagkaunawa ng kanluran sa Tsina. Gusto ni Winston na baguhin ang mga stereotype at kamaliang ito.

      From Google Translate:

      Winston Sterzel is a "laowai" from South Africa. He now lives in the city of Shenzhen, Guangdong province, in the southern part of China.

      ...

      In 2005, a business trip brought with Winston in Shenzhen. Since then, he fell in China.

      After returning to South Africa, he sold all his property, and left his home in Johannesburg to live in Shenzhen.

      During his stay in China, learn more about Winston, like misunderstanding of western China. Winston wants to change the stereotypes and errors.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Winston Sterzel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about sources:

  The Nanfang was "an English-language digital news and commentary website for southern China" according to the Hong Kong Free Press. Its editor in chief was Cam MacMurchy and its senior editor was Kevin McGeary. The Nanfang was cited by CBS News (link), The Washington Post (link), The Wall Street Journal (link), The Atlantic (link), and ABC News (link). From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:

  One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections.

  Here are some corrections:
  1. https://thenanfang.com/man-in-guangzhou-offers-to-sell-legs-for-20000-each/ –"Note: A correction was made at 5:23 p.m. October 10. He offered his legs for 200,000 RMB, not 20,000."
  2. https://thenanfang.com/suicide-bomber-detonates-at-residential-complex-in-downtown-guangzhou-seven-people-are-dead/ – "Correction: The original version of this story indicated that seven people had died; in fact, seven were injured. Our apologies for the error."
  3. https://thenanfang.com/a-baby-is-in-intensive-care-in-guangzhou-after-a-nurse-accidentally-fed-her-baijiu/ – "*Note: Initially, we mistakenly said it was a “seven-year old infant.” In fact it was a seven-day old infant. This has now been corrected."
  Because The Nanfang had editorial oversight, published corrections, and was cited by numerous reliable sources, it passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

  Shenzhen Daily is an English-language newspaper based in Shenzhen. It covers the subject in multiple lengthy articles.

  The newspaper Sing Tao Daily (Canada) published an 857-word article about the subject. That a Canadian publication covered a British-South African man based in China strongly establishes that the man is notable. This is international coverage about Winston Sterzel.

  The Hong Kong TV broadcaster Phoenix Television published a 1426-word article about him.

  The Chinese state-owned radio broadcaster China Radio International published a 175-word article in Filipino about the subject.

  It is clear based on the above sources that Winston Sterzel passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about promotion:

  The article was created by Sonofjoat (talk · contribs), whose user page says, "This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Capilano University/ENGL 300 - Digital Writing Studio (Spring 2017)." The article was reviewed by L3X1 (talk · contribs), and content expert for the class Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk · contribs) provided feedback about how to improve the article.

  The article creator is a student who wrote this article for a class. I see no intent to promote the subject.

  Cunard (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston Sterzel participants: Simonliyiyu (talk · contribs), Isofarro (talk · contribs), Ayoopdog (talk · contribs), Digbybare (talk · contribs), Wolfguardian (talk · contribs), Xxanthippe (talk · contribs), K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), L3X1 (talk · contribs), Mjbmr (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per prior AFD ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Upon further consideration, I have decided to change my vote. I do not believe this article meets WP:ENT and notability requirements. Jp16103 01:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep significant coverage. Suggest that the article also be reverted to re-include content removed in the last 6 weeks. He also has an IMDB profile. Editors, please note, look at the View History since May 9th, or a diff between now and then, it shows that significant chunks of the article have been removed over the past 6 weeks. This does look like a targeted effort. For example this heavy-handed blundering that's losing edited material. Also seems fishy that the editor putting this article up for deletion is the same one who put Matthew Tye up for deletion within 6 minutes of each other. Isofarro (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Chinese Life: Winston Sterzel--The Original China Vlogger - A profile of Winston Sterzel on China.com, dubbing him "The Original China Vlogger", also an item in City Weekender Watch: China's Original Vlogger is a Shenzhener, and television coverage on CRI: My Chinese Life: Winston Sterzel--The Original China Vlogger -- CRI (China Radio International) is a Chinese government run news agency.
  • Falling in love with SZ in three days -- The Shenzhen government website reposts a local news item about Winston Sterzel as he documents Shenzhen's growth and steady evolution.
  • Watch Two Crazy Vloggers Drive 5,000km Across Southern China on Handmade Motorcycles -- The Beijinger reports on Sterzel and Tye's Kickstarter campaign for a video series travelling through Southern China by motorbike. Also press coverage in Shenzhen Daily Expat filming S. China trip documentary. This resulted in a video that is available, amongst others, on Amazon Conquering Southern China, and led to inclusion in IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. And now a fully funded Kickstarter campaign for "Conquering Northern China" Conquering Northern China -- Adventure/Travel Series.
  • Take 5: YouTube Vlogger Winston Sterzel -- A profile / 10-questions interview of Winston Sterzel for That's Shenzhen, an online magazine part of the Hong Kong's Focus Media Group.
  • Spectrum Sino Radio Schedule -- Radio segment with Winston Sterzel titled "My chinese life Winston Sterzel". Spectrum Sino is a freeview DAB Radio station part of the GB Times Media company.
  • Global Times: ‘Different does not mean wrong’, September 2017
  • Xinhua: South Africans find home away from home in China, August 2015.
  • Eye Shenzhen: British YouTuber helps foreigners settle in China, October 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isofarro (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • USA Today: Chinese are OK with Utah teen's controversial cheongsam prom dress, 4 May 2018, uses Sterzel's video collecting (Shenzhen-based) Chinese people's reaction as a counterpoint to the online outrage about cultural appropriation. Isofarro (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is utterly irrelevant and not a reliable source. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 2:08 pm, Today (UTC−4)

The Matthew Tye article is a massive abuse of process, it has been deleted twice and recreated. The two subjects are linked as per the quote "Matthew is best known for his work alongside his filming partner Winston Sterzel, also known as SerpentZA." In my opinion neither subject is notable, and the Tye article requires salting. But if you have evidence for your "fishy" comment then I suggest you report me to the admins. Shritwod (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isofarro, please don't make any more personal attacks. As a side note, having a profile on IMDB is, indeed, completely meaningless, and I am puzzled that a citizen of the 21st century thinks that something being for sale on Amazon is somehow a mark of fame or notability. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Barely passes notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Because of the large number of SPAs editing the article, I have protected it (not this AfD) for one week, being the duration of the AfD.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not meet WP:ENT; promotional article. Associated with another nn YouTuber, whose articles is also at AfD, for the 3rd time:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Tye (3rd nomination).

Sources presented above are not sufficient to establish encyclopedic relevance of this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not found for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep - don't see any problem with this page; if one finds any problem, simply edit it. Alexkctam (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That an article comes from WikiEd student does not establish notability or guarantee a non-promotional article. Unfortunately, even good faith editors often write in a manner that is indistinguishable from promotionalism, due to the prevelance of advertisingh in the world generally, and in WP specifically. DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I wish this could be unprotected so it could be recast based on the sources, including those listed by Cunard, but I see substantial info about him in the bike business article (whose content is not being used), at least one of the Chinese sources Cunard lists counts toward notability, so does the "crazy guys" thing, so does The Nanfang, so do the Shenzheng Daily articles (though it should be noted how many of Cunard's list of sources are from that same paper), and so to a lesser extent does the USA Today mention. That's enough. So whatever the state of the article now or at previous stages, I advocate keeping it per WP:GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthony Bradbury, would you mind unprotecting so that Yngvadottir can get to work? Cunard's list is one thing, but seeing it incorporated into the article (through the filter of Y's judgment) is quite another. If there's more disruption we might could handle it in our usual heavy-handed manner--with blocks for those who deserve it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected as requested. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I can only make a start right now; I hope someone else will jump in. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your significant improvements to the article, Yngvadottir (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sterzel aka SerpentZA is not notable for achievments in a jobs or as a YouTuber. Controversial Subject #1 - Winston Sterzel There are only a few local newspaper reports in China. He is not mentioned in major newspapers, neither in China nor in English-speaking countries like his mother country South Africa, USA or Britain. Sterzel is a full-time YouTuber and has no other job. This article is advertising his YouTube channel, because he is dependent on support of his patreons to make a living in China. His documentary films Conquering Northern China and Conquering Southern China with fellow English-speaking expatriate Matthew Tye didn't reach much attention and were not shown on TV or in cinemas. An IMDb entry can be made by anyone who is registered there and does not prove any notablity. Matthew Tye already moved back to the US and lives near his parents, because he couldn't live in China any more. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: y'all are making me use my Chinese. Anyway, subject does not meet WP:ENT, but the sources provided do allow for a presumption, however slight, of notability, and for an article to thus be written. Having said that, I am disappointed by the blatant canvassing carried out by the subject of the article. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 05:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Have seen his Conquering Southern China series locally on TV here in California as well as having attended his premiere screening in the Los Angeles Independent Theatre for CNC Jason Sonic2k (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article about Winston Sterzel contains irrelevant and false information about him being "head engineer and one of three owners with Tye of acustom motorcycle business in Shenzhen called Churchill Custom Motorcycles" which was closed several years ago. "medical training manager" is also an exaggeration. As far as in his videos on YouTube was mentioned he taught English in a hospital. He didn't not have a contract with this hospital any more and relies on his supporter at Patreon which give him money for producing his videos and make a living in China. All this informationion cannot be proved by independent media, but has to be sourced by his YouTube videos.serpentza (25 July 2016). "I'm QUITTING my job!". Retrieved 27 June 2017 – via YouTube.
  • Teaching english is not the same as medical training.
    • From The Nanfang article (June 2014): "He works for a medical training company, training doctors in international hospital rules, etiquette, medical terminology and other things related to internships in Australia and Germany." Isofarro (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are not many reports about Sterzel in the media false information will stay in his article for ever. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • • This is not medical training, but English training. He is not a doctor or medically trained person. He just taught them English terminology. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the concerted effort being made to discredit this page only goes to prove that he meets the GNG guidelines. Nobody would try so hard to get a page deleted if he was a nobody あいこく (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note: I've blocked Jason Sonic2k, Serpentza, and あいこく as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no difference between Sterzel and Matthew Tye, because both people are YouTube and filmed two movies together. --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stricken their comments. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep we all know this guy in China 小粉红龙 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)— 小粉红龙 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Shritwod (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source for that claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete most of these keeps are pretty weak and not at all based on established process or policies. His IMDb page is irrelevant and few, if any, of the sources are significant or in depth. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, per Cunard's sources, and current sourcing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, article around 250 words (exc. refs.), afd around 4250 words, still aways to make it on coolas longest afd list but pretty good being around 17 times article length. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2018 (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 Louie Giglio#Passion Conferences. Consensus is against retaining this as a stand alone. The only difference being whether or not to delete before redirecting. With no clear consensus on that and the discussion already relisted once I am opting for the last drastic course. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sixstepsrecords[edit]

Sixstepsrecords (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 record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. From searches, available sources consist of name checks and passing mentions. Could be redirected to Louie Giglio. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Louie Giglio. This article could easily fit in as a subsection of the Giglio article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubizuva (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & redirect to Louie_Giglio#Passion_Conferences where the subject is already mentioned. Not independently notable and there's no need for two separate articles on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2018 (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. Based on the weight of argument supported by WP:PAG, in particular the new and somewhat stricter NCORP, I believe a rough consensus in favor of deletion exists. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoscraps[edit]

Ecoscraps (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)

Recently deleted as spam but it has been around since 2015 so it deserves a deletion discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has been created by a paid editor for the article subject, using an alternate account dedicated exclusively to this kind of edits: You can presume any edits I have made are on behalf of the article-subject or their employer, unless I specify otherwise. (from User:BC1278); see also Special:Diff/718631179 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made this disclosure at Talk:Ecoscraps and when it went through AfC. A reviewing editor wanted to see that the company was active in between major media articles. I complied but this led to a lot of marginal information IMO. I think a lot of the material reads as very promotional and I'd like to remove that material myself, if it's acceptable to move this to Draft for the time being.BC1278 (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

The tier-one, independent, reliable sourcing for this article includes Inc. Magazine, CNNMoney, Reuters, Food & Wine Magazine Forbes. I have made several suggestions for deleting passages that seem to me to be promotional at Talk: Ecoscraps#Request_Edits. These help address the objection that the article is spammy. While some admins say they have no problem with a COI editor making mainspace edits during an AfD discussion, other editors have said should not be allowed. So I leave it to someone else to evaluate these Request Edits, unless someone can cite a firm policy that says I can do this myself.BC1278 (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

It is a common misunderstanding of policy to interpret "independent" in the way you have done. Please take a read of WP:NCORP. None of those references are *intellectually independent* as they rely extensively on interviews/quotations from company sources, or rely on company announcements, or are routine company news such as investments. These types of articles (commonly referred to as "paid news" or churnalism) fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability and specifically fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The core premise of the "intellectually independent" policy is that "the content must not be produced by interested parties," which is clearly not the case with these tier-one media feature stories. The idea that a feature article by a staff journalist at a tier-one publication does not count as "independent" if it has extensive interviews/quotations from the company is not to be found in WP:NCORP. In fact, no tier-one publication would ever allow a feature story to be written about a company or individual without requesting such access. Journalists are obligated to speak extensively with profile subjects. The stories above are feature articles (not tied to announcements or press releases), appearing over an extended period of years. They are not "dependent" (there is a very specific list of such instance in WP:NCORP and they do not apply here), but rather independently produced journalism. For example, the Inc. Magazine story was featured on the cover of the May 2011 print edition of Inc. Magazine. And the CNNMoney story is a multi-interview feature (meaning it's not tied to a news event and takes a broad perspective.) The Reuters article compares two other companies to establish a trend. These are all examples of good, independent journalism, not "dependent" sources. -BC1278 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

• Keep Looks pretty well-sourced to me, with CNN, Reuters, and Forbes. They are also listed on the EPA sustainable food management page, for what that's worth. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See my comment above. The CNN, Reuters and Forbes articles fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After reviewing the updated notability guidelines, I don't see anything that would discount the reliable sources listed in the article. The two criteria for independent coverage in the policy are independence of the author, which is clearly met, as these are top-tier media corporations with no financial dependence on EcoScraps, and independence of the content. While much of the material in the articles does come from interviews, that is not the same as getting the material from press releases. While Inc.com is specifically mentioned in the policy, the author of that piece is a staff editor, not a non-staff contributor. (Forbes is also mentioned, but I can't see that article since it is behind a paywall to tell if it would qualify under the policy.) PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a well-sourced article, as illustrated by PohranicniStraze. The subject is main topic in numerous reliable-sourced articles. Easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the company is probably notable but the way it has been written is overtly promotional and reads like a company website or PR piece. It needs some serious copyediting to remove the fluff and overtly promotional phrases such as "Using Ecoscraps, stores dispose of their food waste, except meat and diary, at no cost, a waste hauling and landfill service that stores previously paid for". I doubt very much that a volunteer editor would have written such phrases. This highlights the difficulty of dealing with paid editing that uses Wikipedia as free and permenant advertising space for services and products and people. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not saying there isn't some promotional language that could be cleaned up, but I don't think AfD is the right forum to address that. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify as the author of the content suggested, for further work. Sometimes AfD does serve as the most effective impetus for cleanup. This is especially true since one of the reasons for deleting as promotional is that the article cannot be fixed, and sometimes the original contributor or another editor is able to show that it can. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Since you advocate "draftify" and RHaworth, an admin who specializes in AfD, says I may User_talk:RHaworth/2018_Jun_28#Deletion_request "certainly edit in the mainspace while AfD discussion is open", despite my COI, do you object if I made the proposed Talk edits now, while the article is being discussed? The heavy amount of promotional content is clearly influencing the vote, and the problem can quickly be addressed with some substantial cuts. If two admins who do a lot of AfD say I can make the proposed changes now, then it won't create a problem for me later.BC1278 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

If you really want to follow RHaworth's advice you might want to go beyond cherrypicking what he said and also take into account this the issue with this article is the inherent notability of its subject: no amount of tinkering with the text can fix that. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He also said, more recently "looks like AfD was the best route for you: it may get a "keep" !vote without you doing anything!" Despite that, I'd like to make the changes to the article since some of it is promotional, for the reasons I explained above, and that's the primary objection of some editors here.BC1278 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

• Delete The Keep !votes above are clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of the criteria for establishing notability. While the references provided are all tier-one reliable sources, they all fail to meet the criteria/interpretation for "independent" sources (clarified in the recently updated WP:NCORP guidelines). The references are not intellectually independent, relying extensively on interviews/quotations from company sources with no independent opinion/analysis as attributed to the journalist, or are based on routine announcements such as funding. These types of references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages. This is a run-of-the-mill young company with normal advertorial-type "news" with company profiles, but is not intellectually independent as there is no independent opinion/analysis within the article itself. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and WP:SPIP. The article is entirely promotional, bordering on WP:G11, as in: "In 2013, the company announced its product line would be available at 1700 Target stores"!. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have already proposed a clean-up of the promotional language Talk:Ecoscraps#Request_Edits, including removing that specific sentence. It is inaccurate to say the cover story of the print edition of Inc. Magazine, in-depth features on CNNMoney.com and Forbes.com (staff written), and a trend story in Reuters is routine, a passing mention, or in some was not independent of the company.BC1278 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278.[reply]

• Delete as per the clearer and stricter WP:NCORP guidelines. I originally said I thought this company was "probably" notable but the above arguments swayed me. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2018 (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. Deleted by Shirt58; rationale was: G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban (CSDH). (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Mia (politician)[edit]

Amin Mia (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)

COI-created article about a politician who fails to meet WP:NPOL criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete for G5 and G11. This article has already been deleted several times before. Bradv 22:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  G5 does not apply as the current article creator is not blocked. wumbolo ^^^ 22:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wumbolo: I wasn't aware of previous versions. I see now that the current article is substantially identical to the deleted ones, which suggests sockpuppetry. Pinging @Anthony Bradbury: who deleted a previous version Amin Mia (without the disambiguator in the title). ~Anachronist (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only reason the creator's not blocked yet is because of the backlog at SPI. G5 is used to delete articles created by socks all the time. Bradv 04:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and salt per above. wumbolo ^^^ 23:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Politician using Wikipedia to appear more notable than he really is, sockpuppet issues are disturbing as well.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gram panchyats in India are a unit of local government, not state or national, so the inclusion standard he would have to satisfy to get a Wikipedia article is the one for the local level of office: being reliably sourceable to enough media coverage to mark him out as a special case over and above most other local councillors. But that's not what's being shown here at all, and even if he did qualify for a Wikipedia article he still wouldn't get to write it himself per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI rules. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. No inherent notability in being a member of a Gram panchayat. FitIndia 18:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:53, 6 July 2018 (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 without prejudice to further discussion of a possible merge on the appropriate talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SIP Animation[edit]

SIP Animation (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)

Merge back and redirect. Per notability, " Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, " All sources are primary, media or animation news news website. This is not gaining significant attention by the world at large I recommend that the SIP Animation information be place back at Saban Entertainment where it was. Spshu (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: by the world at large has too often been misinterpreted to mean "covered by mainstream news", which would result in the deletion of the vast majority of Wikipedia articles if applied consistently. Modernponderer (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep, as this is the wrong forum for merge discussions. Merge discussions should happen on the talk page, or failing that, at an RfC or WP:MFD. See, e.g., WP:MERGEINIT for details on starting this process. --Mark viking (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Williams Whitcher[edit]

Benjamin Williams Whitcher (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)

Nonnotable priest, tagged since 2017 Staszek Lem (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- Strikes me as NN, unless he achieved a lot after be became a Roman Catholic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2018 (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. I'm going to withdraw list--I was apparently confused by some other articles I was working on at the time. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easytrade[edit]

Easytrade (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)

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

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

Promotional article for non-notable firm, founded to deal with government purchasing in a single country. No acceptable sources for notability. A companion article to Tradeshift--see adjacent AfD. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a firm, but an infrastructure. The article claims it is mandated by the law in Denmark. Hence inherent notability. See serious independent ref. [1] Staszek Lem (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

are you seriously claiming that all trade and other standards issued by all national goverments are notable? Then WP would be not an encyclopedic . but an indiscriminate .collection of government information. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 5 July 2018 (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 02:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ecovision[edit]

Ecovision (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, poorly sourced article about a non-notable company. Probably covert advertising, given edit history and creation by SPA. MER-C 16:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Yet another example of a promotional article created and maintained by SPA's Lyndaship (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article setting out a company's wares. The text says nothing about the 2014 Advertising Standards Authority adjudication regarding Hassle Free Boilers, but even if that were to be added it would not be evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not seem to meet notability and this looks an attempt at using Wikipedia for promotion. Dunarc (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2018 (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 18:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons (Poland)[edit]

Nicktoons (Poland) (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 is small part of a notable corporation. It is not notable standing on it's own. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nicktoons.Delete No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge into to Nicktoons. 344917661X (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @344917661X: Nicktoons is a set index article. As such, it would not be appropriate to merge this article to it. Zingarese (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. 344917661X (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ajf773. Other than mentioning it's existence there is no real information in Nicktoons to justify a redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears that only two pages link to Nicktoons (Poland). Both are index articles: Nicktoons, and List of MTV channels. Henry ^TALK 15:18, 10 July 2018 (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 Draftify. Per the reasoning provided, This is a notable topic, but it's current state is not helpful to the project. I am moving this to the draft space. Pinging @DGG:, and @Icewhiz:, there should be no objections if this is moved back to mainspace upon article improvement, loosely defined. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Succession of Ali Khamenei[edit]

Succession of Ali Khamenei (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 renominating this article for discussion. The previous nomination was malformed. The original nomination was...The article is not based on any facts and is pure speculation. I think it should be deleted per WP:CRYSTALBALL Goharshady (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I take no position on the merits of the nomination. Courtesy ping Goharshady. - Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just as a article about a future election is appropriate, because people being talking about this considerably in advance, so is an article of the succession to a national office in a non-democratic system. It becomes a matter of political concern long before the persona actually leaves office. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the succession of the successor of Khamenei is WP:BALL, the succession of Khamenei, a 78 year old gentleman, is far from BALL turf (unless we view the present supreme leader as immortal?) and is widely discussed. Indeed, the date of said succession is unknown (Khamenei being on of the longest reigning dictators in the region) - it may occur tomorrow - or in another decade or two - however the list of possible candidates for consideration before the Assembly of Experts is indeed known and is quite limited due to various requirements (unless they were to be flexed at the time of election). Possibly one might add an usurpation (democratic or a different type of dictator) to the lists of possibilities. In any event, this is a much discussed succession - [2][3][4][5]. Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Move to draft space, since it is plausible that this can become a reasonable article. The sourcing has to be improved, and the list of possible successors has to be attributed in the text. Also, the title of the article is incorrect, since the succession of Ali Khamenei occurred when he became Supreme Leader. The next Supreme Leader (Khamanei's successor) will then 'succeed' to the position. So the article is about the next leader's succession, not Khamanei's succession. Zero^talk 13:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Ok I have had a chance to look at this and form some opinions. The subject is probably notable but the article is an unencyclopedic mess. Move it to draft space pending appropriate improvements. In its current state it just doesn't belong in the mainspace. (preceding comment is mine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Good suggestion. I'll modify my vote accordingly. Zero^talk 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The topic seems considerably notable, but the article is confusing, questionably sourced, and of low quality. Draftifying will allow editors to to make it a good article. Henry ^TALK 15:26, 10 July 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nabagram FP School[edit]

Nabagram FP School (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 source found  — FR ⁺ 15:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are multiple primary schools with this name:
  • Nabagram F.P. School in Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal, established 1980 [6]
  • Nabagram F.P. School in Paligram-ii, Mongalkote, Barddhaman, West Bengal, established 1946 [7]
  • Nabagram F.P. School in Ketugram-ii, Barddhaman, West Bengal, established 1949 [8]
  • Nabagram F.P. School in Nabagram-iii, Baruipur Block, South-Twenty-Four-Pargan District, West-Bengal, established 1942 [9]

  All seem to be primary schools so this doesn't seem to be helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no notability and AngusWOOF's excellent research shows that it is not helpful as a redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2018 (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 18:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer[edit]

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer (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)

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer is a hugely successful singer songwriter with multiple albums to her name, who has featured prominently on a Dutch talent show, is an acclaimed filmmaker and ground-breaking therapist. Or so I inferred from reading the article - but looking deeper it appears this is all a serious exaggeration. In fact, I can find no evidence she even meets any inclusion guidelines.

Does she meet the WP:GNG? There certainly are articles about her, particularly about her appearence on a Dutch talent show. So we can at least be confident she exists. But is she notable? These articles are almost exclusively local publications featuring local-interest stories. Such publications routinely feature local residents in this manner; the articles do not of themselves appear to demonstrate any sort of global or even national significance and the lack of national coverage is telling. Even the prominent claim that she was featured as one of the "most interesting poeople" of 2016 by a Cleveland Magazine loses it shine when you realise 30 people were all the most interesting in that year.

As a musician, WP:MUSICBIO provides the clearest guidance. She certainly hasn't had the level of success demanded there - her albums appear to be unpublished or self-published (see here, for example) and her highly lauded appearance on The Voice of Holland seems to have been a brief early-round few minutes in the spotlight - way less than the third place or better demanded for notability.

Her film work, similarly, appears to be at best self-published. It's hard to verify - the article says she directed and produced "the documentary on the USS Indianapolis" but it's unreferenced and gives no clue as to what the documentary actually is. Her "musical tribute to the victims of gun violence" appears to be a self-produced video for one of her self-produced songs.

Her music therapy work is an interesting string in her bow but again not an indication of notability - huge numbers of people are involved in the running of clinical studies; there does not appear to be anything especially notable about hers.

I wish her good luck in achieving her aims, but it appears to be way WP:TOOSOON for an article yet.

Then there's the question of how we have come to have an article that is so overly exaggerated. It becomes clear when you look at the edit history: it was created by someone with the ID Jacklynlala, a WP:SPA that has made no other edits before or since. It was subsequently significantly developed by another SPA going by the name of musicpressinc (now blocked) and then by an SPA IP that knows the subject well enough to know how she thinks. Finally it has been edited by a new user who has also not edited anything else but did feel sufficiently proficient to remove a maintenance tag in support of the IP which had twice removed it and twice been reverted. In fact, of 150 edits in total, 116 are accounted for by just these four editors, and together they have developed the article in turn. The obvious conflict of interest, most likely an autobiography, severely undermines any suggestion that the article may be balanced and neutral, and explains the clear promotional content within it.

So for reasons of notability and spam, this article does not belong. It should be deleted. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Honestly Dorsetonian, I don't know what this chick did to you to make you so angry that you had to write this thesis I just had to read. Read 3 lines of this and you know it fails WP:Promotional by miles. Maybe could be considered with serious, serious rewrite. Seafox289 (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve If the article has been created by people who do not understand Wikipedia policies, that is a reason for us to re-consider and improve, not summarily delete. If there is a Wikipedia policy saying that WP:GNG should ignore local-interest publications, I do not know that policy. Also, honestly, Seafox289, "this chick"? Let us show ourselves better representatives of Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the local-interest publications, I should clarify. WP:MUSICBIO is pretty clear that only winning 1st-3rd place in a "major music competition" is of itself notable. When someone appears on such a show there will be a degree of local interest, and so it follows there a level of routine coverage of contestants placed fourth and lower which does not confer notability. I don't see evidence there is anything exceptional here, so the GNG doesn't appear to be met. If the subject isn't notable, no amount of article improvement will make her so. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not sure what to make of the nominator's obsessively long explanation, and charges of a conflict of interest might be a little beyond the tradition of assuming good faith at Wikipedia. The nominator has a convincing analysis on how this woman does not meet the notability requirements for a musician, but since she has done many things the article could possibly survive on her work in film (WP:FILMMAKER) or science (WP:NACADEMIC). Alas, in all three endeavors she comes up just a little short on notability for a Wikipedia article. Without that, the article does seem like an attempt at promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with DOOMSDAYER520 and also with Dorsetonian that the topic of article does not rise to NMUSICIAN, NFILMMAKER, NACADEMIC, or for that matter WP:NPOL. My Keep !vote is based on WP:GNG criterion, specifically "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This criterion is clearly met by the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per suggestion from House of Change and Seafox289 I have added notability criteria. According to the criteria for musicians, article 10, "the person must have performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., performance in a television show or notable film." This artist was in the cast of two seasons of Breaking Bonaduce, making “frequent appearances” on the popular Vh1 show. http://dannybonaduce.net/dannybonaduce/2016/01/04/breaking-bonaduce-music-cleveland-magazine-names-lorain-native-one-interesting-people-2016/ She and her music were featured on the show. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7073589/, on the episodes Gretchen Bonaduce played with her band. (episodes 3.1 and 2.7). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bonaduce

Also according to article 1 of criteria for notability, this artist has many independent reference/news sources and has made national/ international headlines, more of which I found and have been added. Subjective wording and advertisement wording has been removed mostly by House of Change. -more editing may be needed in this respect but subjectivity improved. These items contribute to verification of notability. Up for further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triptopia (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Triptopia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD nomination could be a poster child for contemptuous dismissal of biographies because we're offended by amateur editing, even if the subject clearly meets GNG. Multiple independent sources wrote about JBP because she did a lot of different things that happened to interest multiple independent RS reporters, even if her activities fail to interest someone so offended by amateur efforts at editing Wikipedia that they want to torch rather than improve a BLP. Then instead of policy arguments, we get reasons why multiple "reliable sources" shouldn't count: local interest articles shouldn't count, being one of the 30 most interesting people in Cleveland shouldn't count, etc. Another way to ignore GNG is by concentrating on the (irrelevant) failure to meet a bunch of other categories of notability. So what, if the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL? She meets GNG. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:HouseOfChange: I suggest that you quit while you're ahead. The nominator did indeed mention that the article has been constructed by new editors, which is relevant if new folks are unaware of Wikipedia's long-standing policies. But even so, the entire discussion since then has been about notability, as it should be in a deletion discussion. You have given your opinion on Ms. Palmer's notability three different times, and your unfounded accusation of discrimination against newbies does not make Ms. Palmer more notable. Your opinion on that matter is here for all to see, thrice. Now let the consensus process play out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:HouseOfChange: please don't assume the motivation for my nomination, still less criticise me for what you perceive it to be. FWIW, I am not "offended" by the "amateur editing" - if anything I am impressed by the apparently expert editing which I think has made the subject appear far more notable than she is. You accuse me of avoiding policy arguments but the deletion rationale addresses precisely the relevant policies and guidelines for inclusion, and in response to your initial comment I had clarified why I assert that the GNG is not met at all, again with reference to policy and guideline. If anything, your arguments do not address the concerns that the GNG is not met, just merely assert that it is, and resort to personal attacks, from which I conclude you have no reasoned response to give. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my inappropriate comments, Dorsetonian, and have edited the page to strike them out. My "reasoned response" has been to try to improve the article, removing puffery and adding information from WP:RS, hoping to be able to demonstrate my belief that she passes GNG. If you look at my userpage, you will see that I like to do article repair when I think it will help. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HouseOfChange - I appreciate that. Dorsetonian (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there's certainly been some COI editing here, and a bunch of trivia/puffery is included (appearing on an episode of House Hunters is almost certainly not worth mentioning on any biography). The source [10] and the coverage of her other minor publicity events seems to be enough to pass GNG, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - in news media like Chronicle-Telegram, Cleveland Scene & The Morning Journal Joaomufc (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by blocked sockpuppet struck out. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Essentially PR, based on PR. This is an attempt to make a non-notable career sound important. The lede paragraph epitomizes the technique: "one of the Most Interesting People of 2016.[5]". (and it then turns out from the ref that "one of the" means one out of 30. Such a listing of people really means, one of the 30 people their publicists have most strongly pushed us to include" That amounts to an utterly trivial so-called award from a local paper. Similarly, one of the arguments for keep was "the coverage of her other minor publicity events seems to be enough to pass GNG," Coverage of trivial publicity events is not substantial coverage. Her claimed significant medical work has only 28 citations for its most cited paper. None of her films or recordings are notable. The argument for notability depends upon an uncritical misuse of the gNG, ignoring the requirements for the publications being significant and independent--the susceptibility of the GNG to such misuse is the key reason I think it's essentially worthless, because peopel can interpret those terms according to the result they want.

In any case, notability arguemnts are unnecesary here. This is pure promotional biography, and NOTPROMOTION is a basic part of policy, and requires deletion regardless of notability , just as does copyvio. I don't like to cut short a discussion with even a well-merited speedy, but this is really G11 territory. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NOPROMO. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform period. Notability is a secondary issue. The article cannot be kept in its current condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The less famous a person is, the more suspicion that an article is promotional there will be. You could write two articles of random people using exactly the same types of sources, the same tone of voice, and everything, and the article about the less famous person will appear to be more promotional. Here, significant amounts of the article were written by sources close to the subject of the article. I understand that maybe the article contributors were not deliberately attempting to be promotional, but evertheless this article fails WP:Promotional in tone and in content and so should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an original platform for promotion: it can reflect notability, but it cannot be the source of original promotion. Egroeg5 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Improve Currently, the article is indeed promotional and needs some serious rewriting, but the subject is notable enough and does merit a wikipedia page. Goharshady (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Currently, discussion seems to be focusing on:

1. Does the subject of the article fail WP:Notability and WP:MUSICBIO?
2. Does the article fail WP:Promotional?

If the article fails either criteria, then the article is eligible for deletion.

I am not going to comment on WP:Notability, even though I personally find it doubtful that the subject is sufficiently notable.

That said, it is very clear that the article fails WP:Promotional. In fact, the article so fails the second criteria that, quoting from DGG above, this is really G11 Speedy Deletion territory.

To those who suggest that we rewrite or improve the article, the problem is that the subject is not very notable and it would be very difficult to rewrite the article in a less promotional way. In fact, take out the promotion, and it becomes doubtful that she is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Again quoting DGG above, this is "an attempt to make a non-notable career sound important." Maybe she has just enough notability for Wikipedia, but I think a fresh start-over of the article (deletion) is the best option, until the subject becomes more notable. Egroeg5 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PROMO \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Move to draftspace There is a conflict of interest going on, failing WP:AB as well as WP:PROMO as stated above. Perhaps if it was moved to draftspace, the article could be sufficiently reworked, and after which if the editors could prove notability, they could go to WP:PR before moving it to mainspace. But as of now, it should not be in mainspace. Henry ^TALK 16:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this idea from HenryMP02 is good. I am not one of the original article creators, but I have plenty of room in my sandbox for the draft so far. If more WP:RS cover the activities of this very energetic person, then it will be a shame to lose the work others have done so far on the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brave (web browser)[edit]

Brave (web browser) (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 as it stands. No secondary sources. Present sources fail WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Sources are mix of churnalism, blogs and press releases. scope_creep (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NCORP. A promotional piece by a SPA Lyndaship (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reviews by Network World, cnet.com and Ars Technica are both independent and in-depth. They are not reprints of n press releases. Disregarding the Google Play and Apple Store links, there is enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is established, and there was recent improvements to make the article less infomercial. Basicbbr (talk • contribs) 21:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC) - Removed vote for Keep after reading other opinions, article exist because of inherited notability (If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner)[reply]
• Keep The only primary sources are the versions and operating systems compatible with the browser, which is the case for other wikipedia articles on web browsers such as Firefox and Google Chrome. The rest of the sources are okay and although this article may require a little clean up. The browser definitely deserves it's own article. 344917661X (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC) (unsure)[reply]

344917661X, your rationale doesn't make the least bit of sense. This is primary sources, WP:PSTS, not what it executes on. The sources are trade papers, it is their business to report on major software products, and as such they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The product isn't known outside the software world, it is completely transparent to the average web user, and the only reason it has got traction is because it was created by Brendan Eich. Chrome has 88% of the market, and Firefox has a very long history, and a one time 77% of the market. This doesn't and the only weight that is carrying it at the moment is Brendan Eich. Without him, it would unknown to almost everybody. scope_creep (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument of yours that I agree with is the trade papers one, but because the only secondary sources in the article are trade papers, I have crossed out my keep sentence and have withdrawn my support of keeping this article. 344917661X (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

344917661X Please don't let any arguments of mine stop you. If you think it is a keep, please say so, but you must specify the policies, and a good rationale. scope_creep (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, now let's see how this AFD turns out. 344917661X (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this browser wouldn't be notable without the involvement of Brendan Eich is unfair, in my sincere opinion. Brave is an ad and tracker blocker, similar to uBlock Origin, AdBlock, and AdBlock Plus. Brave has repeatedly found itself leading charts in both the Google's Play Store and iTunes. On the Play Store alone Brave has more than 5M downloads. The software is of interest to those in traditional advertising and publishing circles too on account of Brave's forthcoming digital advertising model, which is currently in user testing. Jonathansampson (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathansampson, I feel I should point people to the COI disclosure which you very properly placed on your user page, just so there's no uncertainty as I only discovered it by chance. Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basie, thank you. If you find anything I've said or done to be inappropriate, please do let me know. My aim here is not to market a browser, but to state and defend what is factual and objectively true. Jonathansampson (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least—I just find it's better to be overt about these things :) Cheers, Basie (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain. I don't find the argument convincing that sources which report on major software products do not count toward NCORP. Further, it's not a requirement that to be notable a piece of software must have significant visibility to "non-computer people" (otherwise, we'd have no React article among many others). Finally, software surely does not have to be comparatively popular to be notable. Brave does not require a specific percentage of the browser market share before it "deserves" an article. It simply requires coverage in independent RS, which it has. It's worth noting that, even if it got so much press because of its creator, the coverage is of the browser, making the issue of inherited notability somewhat moot. Basie (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (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 snowball keep, then withdrawn by nominator. There was a fundamental misunderstanding here (playing out across multiple pages), about the difference between an ethnolinguistics classification and a human geography one. Not the same topic, just similarly named.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Anatolian peoples[edit]

Anatolian peoples (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)

Ancient peoples of Anatolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - WP:CSD#G8 as redirect — IVORK _Discuss 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination has now been withdrawn (see below). Either delete or merge with List of ancient peoples of Anatolia. It is claimed that this article is about ethno-linguistics but it bears little if any relevance to the subject and the list it contains is virtually the same as that in List of ancient peoples of Anatolia. There has been considerable movement of the page following an initial attempt to both define and categorise it appropriately and this activity needs to be taken into consideration. There is already a substantial Category:Languages of ancient Anatolia which provides coverage of linguistics by peoples (e.g., Phrygian language) so this article seems to have no real purpose. The title is entirely misleading because it says nothing of linguistics and expected scope would be the peoples concerned albeit including some description of their languages. It is important, I think, to avoid the false equivalency of a people and their language which an article like this might ultimately achieve. Please note that there is a related CFD in progress. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Anatolian peoples, as shown in the article, have have been addressed directly and in detail in reliable secondary sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. The defining characteristic of the Anatolian peoples is the fact that they spoke Anatolian languages, not that they at one point lived in Anatolia. Merging them into List of ancient peoples of Anatolia does therefore not make sense. Anatolian languages are part of the Indo-European languages. Below is a list of Indo-European languages and the corresponding ethnolinguistic groups/ethnic groups:

• Armenian languages - Armenians
• Baltic languages - Balts
• Celtic languages - Celts
• Dacian language - Dacians
• Germanic languages - Germanic peoples
• Greek languages - Greeks
• Illyrian languages - Illyrians
• Indo-Aryan languages - Indo-Aryan peoples
• Iranian languages - Iranian peoples
• Italic languages - Italic peoples
• Phrygian language - Phrygians
• Thracian languages - Thracians
• Tocharian languages - Tocharians

There is no reason to assume that every Indo-European language is connected to an ethnolinguistic group except the Anatolian peoples. Scholars certainly do not assume such an exception, so why should Wikipedia? Krakkos (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. List of ancient peoples of Anatolia (which is not, in fact, a list) has much more linguistic content than Anatolian peoples so it makes complete sense to use that as the ethno-linguistic article, subject to it be renamed as it isn't a list. The two articles counteract each other in terms of scope and content. The titles do not help at all and are probably half the problem in themselves. Re GNG, no one has said that these peoples and their languages are not notable so that argument is a distortion. The issues are titles, scope, duplication, purpose. Not notability. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Peoples of Anatolia" and "Anatolian peoples" are two different topics. The ancient Phrygians and the modern Turks are peoples of Anatolia, but Phrygian is not an Anatolian language, and neither is Turkish, so they belong under "Peoples of Anatolia" but not under "Anatolian peoples". In the same way, Estonians are a people of the Baltic, but they are not Balts, because Estonian is a Finno-Ugric language, not a Baltic language. Baltic languages are Indo-European. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find the argument that this fits the established convention of such articles on Wikipedia compelling. It is well covered in RS so notability is not really an issue either. SpinningSpark 18:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the reasons listed by Krakkos. Dimadick (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. Given the work now being done to both the articles discussed here, I think I should withdraw my nomination. Thanks to a transfer of information by Krakkos from List of ancient peoples of Anatolia to Anatolian peoples, the latter now fulfills its purpose and has the potential to become a very useful article. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2018 (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. The clear consensus seems to be that the article is notable due to the listing in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Also per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Zimmerman[edit]

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

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

single source whos-who, nothing that speaks to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A listing in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography generally indicates notability. As well, the article in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography cites several references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 'nothing that speaks to notability'? A dedicated article in a national-level biographical dictionary is notability. Agricolae (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - On top of the above, there is a bibliography in his DCB entry which seems to suggest numerous additional RS about the subject. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anyone with a lengthy section in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography or similar reference work is notable, especially if that section has a lengthy list of sources that can be used to expand the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have not been editing for awhile. DoCB articles have always been considered notable. This one seems well above the minimum. Does it need work? Certainly! Stormbay (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per ANYBIO(3).Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the entry in the bio-dictionary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:ANYBIO. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:BASIC. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qez Mi Or Togheci[edit]

Qez Mi Or Togheci (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)

All references listed are links to YouTube, iTunes, etc. I have been unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Appears to be simply promotional based upon content (and author's username); there had been citation spam in what appeared to be an attempt to sell dresses from the artist's online shop (I since removed it). Regardless of the promotional content, my concern is more with the lack of notability as per WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Songs are not entitled to an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, or because their existence can technically be verified by iTunes and YouTube. Songs become notable enough for Wikipedia articles only when they can be reliably sourced as the subject of media coverage which verifies that they've achieved something that passes WP:NSONG. But there's no claim like that here, and the creator has an evident conflict of interest based on their username. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising platform. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bearcat Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2018 (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. The consensus here is not the strongest but it does exist. If someone down the road wants to renominate this once we have a clearer idea of whether or not the coverage meets SUSTAINED, that can be addressed in the future nomination. However I advise in favor a reasonable delay before any hypothetical renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rakem Balogun[edit]

Rakem Balogun (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 textbook WP:BLP1E. The subject is notable in so far as he was the victim of police persecution and nothing more. It would be impossible to write a full and balanced biography from the sources available. – Joe (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 12:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is absurd. The article was titled Rakem Balogun Facebook incident until a clueless administrator decided to move it without leaving a redirect (or fixing any incoming links). Now it's threatened with deletion because its title (and putative subject) is the person and not the incident. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The coverage extends over several months, from the arrest to the dismissal of charges, and is likely to continue as the FBI continues to be criticized over its actions. This article from a newspaper in Spain, as well as the Guardian coverage referenced in the article, both indicate international interest in the story. This 2016 article from the BBC quotes Balogun as a founding member of Huey P Newton Gun Club, so he has been in the news long before the arrest. And if he seeks compensation for the arrest and detention, the fight for compensation is likely to generate coverage over a protracted period. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nothing "clueless" about it. There were never links from other Wikipedia articles, and the article was written about the person, not the incident. Create some links if you have a problem with it. Deb (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baloney. User talk:Deb#Rakem Balogun Facebook incident. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Like he said, a textbook WP:BLP1E. If someone thinks the incident is worth writing about -- and, frankly, I don't -- then someone can write that, a different article than this. But this is NOT a biography. --Calton | Talk 13:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Eastmain. I for one tagged this article for lack of clarity, and concurred with MShabazz on the article's talk page that the edits do not reflect fully the sources cited. However, that in itself does not warrant deletion. The issues can be fixed with editing to reflect the sources cited. The subject passes the notability guidelines, received ample coverage from several reliable third party sources and is a bye product of the Black Identity Extremism nonsense cooked up by the FBI under the administration of Trump. As the first person to suffer miscarriage of justice under this fabricated policy/agenda, it is notable enough to receive great coverage from several reliable third party sources. If the article is edited as it should be as per the sources cited, it would provide counter criticism of that foolish policy/agenda. When he decides to pursue legal action, it would also attract further coverage. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject passes the notability guidelines, received ample coverage from several reliable third party sources .
• Cool. Then tell me some things: where was he born? How old is he? Where did he go to school? What are some of his biggest personal accomplishments? What's he done OUTSIDE of this one incident which happened to him? Where are the reliable sources that actually discuss the man himself, in any depth whatsoever? --Calton | Talk 23:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do original research here. We go by Wiki policy: notability and great coverage from reliable third part sources. If you are asking for original research rather than what the sources have reported, then you are in the wrong place. If you have an issue with how the sources reported the case, take it out with them. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not asking for original research, they are asking how the subject satisfies WP:BLP1E, which was the concern I raised in both the nomination here and the PROD you contested. Having a large number of sources is useless if they offer no depth of coverage, especially if the subject is a living person. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you overlooked is that, this is more about the incident than the person involved. This incident is bigger than the person involved hence I agreed with MShabazz below. This article should be moved back. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep as per Eastmain.Linguisticgeek (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom WP:BLP1E and fails WP:LASTING .There is news coverage, but it was not biographical in nature.About his arrest ,his posts in facebook against police and later that the charges were dropped in court.Only coverage of the arrest and droping of charges that is all.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move back to Rakem Balogun Facebook incident, which has been the subject of sustained international news coverage since February. It was foolish to pretend this was a biography. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. That makes more sense. Senegambianamestudy (talk)

• Keep Per Eastmain. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Septrillion, Eastmain voted for keep. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 01:53, 8 July 2018 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Nelson[edit]

Bobby Nelson (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)