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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saal.ai[edit]

Saal.ai (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 but actively self-promoting corporation. Google search shows no third-party or independent coverage, only considerable promotion marked by the use of a lot of buzzwords. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – It isn’t clear whether Saal refers to the company or its products. It probably doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t satisfy corporate notability, software notability, or product notability. Most of the puffery has been removed from this article more than once, but the following remains, which illustrates the overall tone of the article:

 By using the power of NLP (Text), Computer vision (Image), Automatic Speech Recognition (Speech) and drawing inspiration from Neuroscience and Philosophy, Saal is able to accomplish any goal. 

Even after a considerable effort to trim out the buzzspeak, what is left is still a sales job. There is no evidence that the company is notable, but even if it is, the article needs to be blown up.

• Delete I made an attempt to remove most of the blatantly promotional content (and reverted to this after persistent restoration of it), but agree that there is no evidence of notability and WP:TNT is the best course of action. Melcous (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The author has been indeffed for undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If deleted, please also delete the redirected related pages mentioned at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Saal.ai. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Refs don't support notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pretty clear from the language used that the 2 references provided are not independent, and so there is no evidence of notability. Layer on the COI issues and the promotional language, and Deletion is a pretty natural outcome. No ill will towards saal.ai; I wish them the best in their field and WP will be happy to have an article on the company where there is enough independent, reputable, secondary sources discussing the company; and said article is written in keeping with WP:PAID. Martinp (talk) 03:20, 4 April 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. Snow. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zeke Upshaw[edit]

Zeke Upshaw (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)

Was created after death, and posted at ITN (where it was rejected - [1]). Appears to fail WP:NBASKETBALL. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I spent some time during the ITNC discussion looking for pre-death coverage and unfortunately came up rather short. Most of what I came across was run of the mill, bordering on trivial and insufficient to ring the WP:N bell via WP:BASIC or NBASKETBALL. Significant coverage does not appear to begin until after the subjects untimely death which places it under the heading of BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Striking my oppose out of deference to clear consensus. This can probably be closed early w/o controversy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG with multiple sources of significant coverage cited, including many before the recent death coverage. They are not routine, planned coverage of games, but rather articles with Upshaw as the main subject and in the title. Moreover, not meeting an SNG is not a reason to delete. Per WP:NSPORTS: "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline ..." Pro athletes that die while competing will undoubtedly be referenced in the future. The timing of the article's creation and its ITN status are red herrings.—Bagumba (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Changed my mind, as the article is evolving (with more details about his life and career being added). Delete Fails condition 3 of WP:NBASKETBALL (no award, no lead in a major statistical category). The timing of the article's creation is clearly no coincidence. Pre-death news coverage is limited, and career highlight is from 2014. Example of recentism: the death of an athlete does not make the athlete notable. If the death is considered the only notable event then the article could be moved to Death of Zeke Upshaw. --Renerpho (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Bagumba's rationale. Upshaw technically fails all 3 of NBASKETBALL's guidelines. In saying that, Upshaw played in the top league in Slovenia in 2014/15, then in Luxembourg's top league in 2015/16. Luxembourg is nothing to ride home about, but Slovenia's league is up there with the best in Europe. GNG clearly supersedes NBASKETBALL here. There is plenty of good coverage from his college days, and a bit more digging can easily expand his professional career section. Google searches are obviously saturated with sources from the past few days, but it's not difficult to find sources from pre-death. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Per Bagumba's rationale. GNG trumps NBASKETBALL in this case in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG. --Jayron32 12:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or possibly rename "Death of Zeke Upshaw"--TM 13:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources are present to pass GNG. Upshaw is notable for his life, not his death. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Keep – The article has been updated to where it talks about his life more thoroughly with sources to back it up as well. And much like Rikster2 and Eddy before me mentioned, it does pass the general notability features that Wikipedia requires for articles like this. So I say keep it as is and don't rename it just off of the surprise death of a player. I mean, we don't do that for people like Len Bias or Reggie Lewis, now do we? (Yes, I know they were both prominent players before their sudden deaths, but that's beside the point.) – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Upshaw was the subject of several substantial news articles in the years before he died. He led an NCAA Division 1 conference in scoring, which is a good foundation for notability. Zagalejo^^^ 04:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisfies WP:GNG and as long as we can keep the article focused on his career not his tragic death, he's deserving of an article.--Rockchalk717 12:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passes GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily meets GNG. SNOW close. Calm Omaha (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:51, 2 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anibal Ramos Jr.[edit]

Anibal Ramos Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

City councilman, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sourced only to local newspaper and press releases. Rusf10 (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages of other Newark city councilpersons:

John Sharpe James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gayle Chaneyfield-Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joseph McCallum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newark Municipal council members as that article was created in direct response to this Afd.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: These are all council members of the biggest city in New Jersey. The Star-Ledger is quite a notable paper. Just a quick check shows additional sources from the NYT and The Washington Post.--Meanderingbartender (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Newark Star Ledger's of the Newark city council is routine coverage. The Washington Times (not Post) "article" in question is actually an opinion piece that was printed by (not written for) the Times. You can read it here

• Delete - Can make a table to summarize party affiliation, start-end term, and 1-2 sentences for background for each member at Municipal Council of Newark. Otherwise it is too much information for local politicians. Acnetj (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting an ALTERNATIVE TO DELETION?

• Keep -- Clearly passes WP:GNG. See 21st Century Urban Race Politics, not to mention sources already in the article. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Nom should unbundle these. They're really different from one another and there's no plausible way to discuss them as a group. These articles have exactly NONE of the properties listed in WP:BUNDLE which make bundled AfD noms appropriate. Thus I'm calling for a technical close and, if necessary, five separate AfDs to be created. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds are four members of the same municipal council, none remarkably better-sourced than any other, "different" enough from each other to require unbundling? Are you maybe just copying an argument you saw attempted (but not successfully, I must point out) in another recent NJ-related bundle of politicians? Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, you're accusing me of copying an argument? On what grounds? Please comment on the contribution, not on the contributor. The grounds are that not one single one of the criteria for bundling is met here. WP:BUNDLE states "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately." Are you asserting that it is unimaginable that one City Councillor might be notable while the others are not? If it's imaginable then it's inappropriate to bundle. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calm your jumpies, it was just a question, not an "accusation" (as if that were an accusable crime in the first place) or an ad hominem attack. And at any rate, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of bundling is not determined by whether or not it's "imaginable" that one person in the bundle might be more notable than the rest — it's determined by whether or not one person in the bundle is already explicitly demonstrated as unequivocally being more notable than the rest. But nobody here is. Bearcat (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where can one find the claim/interpretation you are making other than by you on this page? It would be good to read about it somewhere else on Wikipedia: Please provide links to page that back up what you are saying, thank you. Where is this wordy policy about bundles: determined whether or not one person in the bundle is already explicitly demonstrated as unequivocally being more notable than the rest. that is so confidently presented, certainly not in Wikipedia:BUNDLE, the guiding factor for making bundled nominations.Djflem (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not just a system of following the literal letter of written rules; it is also necessary to be familiar with the established consensus around how the rules are actually interpreted in actual practice when there's debate or disagreement about them. If all that was required to make a bundled nomination invalid was that it was imaginable that one of the bundled topics might have a stronger notability basis than the others, then by definition literally nothing would ever be bundlable at all, because that exact claim that a notability differential was imaginable could always be applied to any bundle of any two or more topics. So I'm correct about how BUNDLE actually applies at an AFD: not just "a notability difference between these topics might be imaginable in theory", but "a notability difference between these topics has actually been demonstrated in fact". Bundling Donald Trump here, in the hopes that people just voted "delete all" without actually noticing that Trump was in the batch, would be an inappropriate bundle — but a group of colleagues on the city council of the same city, where none has demonstrated any evidence of having a stronger pass of NPOL #2 than any of the others, is not. Bearcat (talk)

Wikipedia is not just a system of making up random stuff because it's easier for you. You're not correct about bundling, and if you think you are, why don't you start an RfC to change WP:BUNDLE instead of attempting a sub rosa change in its meaning via some obscure AfD? According to your theory you could bundle any finite set of human beings for deletion on the basis that all humans are similar to some extent and then all of a sudden it's everyone else's responsibility to argue that they have distinct levels of notability. Obviously that's not right so neither is your theory. Why don't you just unbundle them since there's significant desire that you do so? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm correct about how BUNDLE works, and bundling a bunch of random humans together just because they're all humans, without regard to whether they had different bases for inclusion or not, would fit precisely into what I explicitly said about where bundling is not appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. The standard for inclusion of city councillors is not that the city is the largest in its own state, or whether its own local newspaper is a notable one or not — most cities' local newspapers are notable for our purposes, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. To get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as a city councillor, the person has to serve on the city council of an internationally famous metropolitan global city, such as New York City or Los Angeles or Toronto or London. Outside of that range (even in those cities' own external suburbs), a city councillor qualifies for an article only if they can be sourced to a depth and volume and geographic range of coverage that marks them out as plainly more notable than most other city councillors in most other cities. Every city councillor anywhere could always show as much local coverage as any of these contains, because local coverage of municipal politics is quite routinely expected to exist everywhere. To be kept, the standard all of these people would have to clear is not that they exist, or that they can be sourced to some local coverage — they would have to be shown as significantly more notable than most other people at this level of political office, and none of these are. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all This is typical local election coverage, and I'm afraid I must remind everyone, once again, that the New York Times is a local paper in this case and in others on events and places in northern NJ: they even have a local Newark news section on their website. Mangoe (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Unbundle No basis for doing so.Djflem (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all a bunch of local politicians part of the ongoing absurdity of creating articles on almost everyone ever elected as anything within the boundaries of New Jersey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I do suggest that if WP:BUNDLE is used, the find sources markup should be used for each nominee, for ease of research.

  (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) --Enos733 (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - routine coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:48, 4 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalahargo[edit]

Kalahargo (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)

Somali "town". Satellite imagery shows the claimed location has a handful of enclosures of some kind scattered around but there's no sign of a town or even a village. The one database entry cited describes it as a "locality" which means it's a place and people don't necessarily live there. No other sources to satisfy WP:V or WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepDelete. Not so sure about this one. Trip Mondo has a page for it and describes it as a city. That's probably pushing it even for Somalia, this page reports a population of 1043 within 7km. Several weather sites are reporting weather for it, eg Accu Weather. The name is definitely in their database, it's not just a generic response, trying some of this users more dubious creations on the same sites (eg Qaydarhagoog) draws a blank. This fishing site is quite informative. It describes Kala Hargo as a sports fishing destination. Not quite verifying that it is an inhabited settlement, but it is definitely a tourist destination and hence notable. SpinningSpark 23:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [2], [3] and [4] are just clickbait: somebody has run an automated process on entries from the database the article also draws from to create pages for the entries in the database. These don't have any real content beyond what was in the database. All the Somali places, including nonexistent ones, have several pages of Google hits for these kind of things - weather forecasts, travel destinations, Islamic prayer times, dating sites, even a site selling T-shirts. I'm less sure about your population estimate but there is a real town about 15 km to the west and I suspect that may be what it's registering. (It's possible it might be an estimate based on the general population density of the region, in which case it doesn't mean anything at all.) Hut 8.5 06:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. I've struck my keep. I was being too enthusiastic. Frequently, unsourced articles on villages in Africa and Asia turn out to be genuine places and should be kept per WP:NPLACE. But this series are just mistakes by the editor in question misreading a database. SpinningSpark 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax. Szzuk (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G3. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a bit unfair to call it a hoax. The user seems to have been acting in good faith. Nor is it obviously wrong, since it appears in a database that does include many genuine settlements. So I oppose speedy deletion. Let the AfD play out just in case someone comes up with something. SpinningSpark 17:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has created by a user now blocked for sock puppetry. Szzuk (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a G3 candidate: it was created in good faith and you need to do at least a bit of research to establish that it doesn't exist. I've seen many similar articles which correspond to real settlements. The fact that the author was a sockmaster doesn't qualify it for speedy deletion unless they evaded a block to create it. Hut 8.5 18:06, 3 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duulin Maaxato[edit]

Duulin Maaxato (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)

Nonexistent Somali town. Coordinates given point to a patch of desert next to a road with no signs of human habitation in satellite imagery. The one database entry cited describes it as a "locality" which means it's just a place rather than a settlement and people don't necessarily live there. No other sources to satisfy WP:V or WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 21:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not there. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not anywhere. Szzuk (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-existent/no longer existent locale. Quis separabit? 20:05, 3 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airbourne Colours[edit]

Airbourne Colours (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)

With just 3 mentions at Google News, 0 mentions at HighBeam and 0 mentions at Newspapers.com I don't think the company is notable enough. Also the tone of the article is quite promotional. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. They paint aeroplanes at a single location. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting subject, but fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, there is just not enough coverage concerning the company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:06, 29 March 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMMFX[edit]

IMMFX (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)

Performing a BEFORE search I don't find anything that shows that this forex company is notable jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails teh GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NCORP. BTW I deleted the "awards" section that contained some not-so-subtle humor. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:13, 1 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Stansbury[edit]

Melanie Stansbury (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)

Unelected candidate for political office. WP:NPOL. Madg2011 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Candidates in forthcoming elections do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides her candidacy, then she has to win the election and thereby hold the seat to become notable as a politician. But this does not offer any evidence that she had preexisting notability for her prior work — the references are entirely to directly affiliated primary sources, and nothing claimed in the article text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over WP:GNG on real reliable source coverage. Also, this is written more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article (giveaway: capitalization of job titles like "PhD Candidate" and "Consultant" and "Program Examiner".) No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but nothing here entitles her to already have a Wikipedia article eight months before the election. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: article appears to serve as promo for some future political race. Quis separabit? 20:07, 3 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Chapman[edit]

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

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

Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Roles are bit parts or uncredited, no main roles. ... discospinster _talk 20:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. I'm seeing almost no coverage in reliable sources. The most I could find was a brief mention in Rolling Stone and two blog interviews. -- irn (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of passing WP:NACTOR. Amusingly, one could read the dates associated with two of her three listed credits as suggesting that she was acting before she was born (rather than listing the dates those shows started). Meters (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not IMDB, we do not aim to create articles on everyone who ever had a credited part in TV or movies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 31 March 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Atom[edit]

Bitcoin Atom (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable sources Retimuko (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are so many non-notable Bitcoin forks these days, and this appears to be one of them. No refs that suggest notability, and clearly would fail any crypto SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:38, 3 April 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 merge to List of hybrid creatures in mythology. J04n(talk page) 12:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goat people[edit]

Goat people (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 found far more sources describing "goat people" as "people who raise goats" than "mythological goat/humans". Does not seem to be a common enough motif to deserve a list to itself, given that half the list is less "goat person" and more anthropomorphic goat or demon. Does not give evidence that this was a "class of mythological beings". _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination doesn't provide any reason to delete; just some pointers for article improvement per our editing policy. It's easy to find more sources for this broad concept: Goat people; The Classical Tradition; &c. Note also that goatification was a thing at the last Wikimania. Andrew D. (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the first source is the only one that explicitly mentions "Goat People", and you are suggesting using WP:SYNTH to connect it with the 2nd source, which is solely about how Pan relates to depictions of the Devil. While the first source does provide some link between early goatlike races and later gods, it doesn't seem like enough to make the term pass notability as a broad concept._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer The above analysis by Zxcvbnm of Andrew's comment is accurate. Regardless of how this ends, please be careful not to word your close in a manner that appears, even implicitly, to endorse SYNTH. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep there seems to be some merit to this article, and source are available to improve it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While at first glance it might seem like a worthy article, it actually contains nothing at all of interest or notability. This is simply a list of mythological creatures - moreover, augmented by duplication of material, e.g. Pan is a satyr and does not merit a separate listing. There are no ciations, no links nothing. This could perhaps be a valid idea for an article if there are scientific or other sources expanding about the concept of people presented as goats in human mythology or biology :-) out there. Until then, this is yet another article indiscriminately created. -The Gnome (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Keep/Renamed - It's very keep as per good examples above me. But it's clearly need renaming as List of Mythological Goat-Human hybrids to end confusion [with better sources to prevent this again in future] for some people like the guy who proposing for deleting the page. Chad The Goatman (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chad The Goatman: Would you mind defining what you mean by "hybrids"? Satyrs and the like are not traditionally portrayed as the result of humans mating with goats. Absent a reasonable alternate title, renaming the page isn't a viable solution. Never mind figures like "Satan", who come from Hebrew mythology and had nothing to do with goats until much later artistic representations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly they are fictional so no bestiality since they are made up by Ancient Greeks to explain outside world especially of explain how Wine exists and second two please don't take this mostly literal. And lastly, a course later version Satan satyric appearance was later adopted by 15/16th century Christian to try portrayed Satan's appearance to purposedly demonized Pagan gods. Chad The Goatman (talk) 24:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of hybrid creatures in mythology. There needs to be some form of WP:DAB/WP:SAL page for the various human-goat hybrids of mythology, but the current article at Goat people does a poor job of it and the title isn't ideal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't keep; neutral on redirect/merge/rename/userfy/etc. Another unsourced OR nightmare. "broad concept" (as mentioned by Andrew Davidson in his canvassing message here) doesn't make any more sense than the last time he brought it up (or the time before that) -- if a topic is never described by a particular term in reliable sources, it is a violation of WP:NOR for us to describe it that way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I endorse power~enwiki's redirect idea. This at the moment is an unsourced list. At the very least it should be renamed. It could possibly be replaced using the list here as GOAT People... SportingFlyer talk 07:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. King, Scott Alexander (2007). Graham, Tanya (ed.). Animal Dreaming: The Spiritual and Symbolic Language of the Australasian Animals. Blue Angel Publishing. p. 104. ISBN 0980398304. Retrieved 2018-03-13.

     The book notes:

     Pan, the half-man/half-Goat fertility God of Greek mythology (sometimes depicted with an erect penis), personifies the potency of the Goat's fecundity, as do creatures of equally fabulous ilk, satyrs, fawns and pookas. When negatively directing their potential, Goat people are typically followers who inconsequentially indulge themselves in shameless activity. They may drink to excess, for example, partake in illicit drugs, boast about their sexual conquests and forcefully exact their sexual wants and desires. They play harmful practical jokes, amuse themselves with cruel taunts and activities that frighten others (reckless driving, for example) and often adopt irrational or unreasonable attitudes regarding the environment and the world as a whole. When demonstrating their positive traits, however, Goat people are gentle and loving. They have an inherent love of animals, plants, the waterways, mountains and nature. They are demonstrative, funny, and sensitive. Goat people are often described as being the 'Salt of the Earth', grounded and sound.

     According to https://www.blueangelonline.com/about_us.html,

     Blue Angel Publishing started as a specialist bookstore and art gallery in 1997 and in 2001 evolved into a publishing company. The first Blue Angel Publishing publication was Toni Carmine Salerno's Universal Love Oracle.

     We are now a small boutique and independent publishing house with a strong network of distribution outlets around the globe and many of our publications are now published in various languages, including Japanese, German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish, Slovenian, Polish, Czech, Portugese, Chinese, Danish, Russian and Norwegian.

     I consider this edited book from an independent publisher to be a reliable source.
  2. Arrowsmith, Nancy (2009) [1977]. Field Guide to the Little People: A Curious Journey Into the Hidden Realm of Elves, Faeries, Hobgoblins & Other Not-so-mythical Creatures. Woodbury, Minnesota: Llewellyn Worldwide. p. 107. ISBN 0738715492. Retrieved 2018-03-13.

     The book notes:

     Goat people
     
     Besides various elves who occasionally take goat form or who have goatlike qualities, there is an entire group who have assumed the characteristics of both men and goats. The most famous of these are the Panes, Satyrs, and Sileni of classical Greece. These were early wood and field spirits who were later changed into the classical half-gods with which we are familiar. The Sileni, or Albanian Goat People, were reduced to Silenus, the drunken old goat-man who followed Dionysos. The Satyrs, once known only in Argos, were suddenly recognized all over Greece as the "gentle gods." The wood and herd Panes were telescoped into "the great god Pan," the pipe-playing nymph ravager.

     In Italy, the Goat People were called Fauni and Silvani, The Fauni, once field spirits who gave nightmares to animals, were honored at state festivals and were changed into the god Faunus. The Silvani, elves who guarded the herds, houses, and land boundaries of the ancient Romans, became the minor god Silvanus.

     [An "Identification" subsection that discusses what Goat People look like.]

     According to the book's title page, the book was first published in 1977 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux and was published a second time in 2009 by Llewellyn Worldwide.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Goat people to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Umm ... the portion of Arrowsmith's book you quote seems to treat these myths with a degree too much credulity, and according to the publisher's website she has a master’s degree in acupuncture and runs her own healing practice: are you sure her book is a reliable source? As I said in the swamp monster AFD, mythology and folklore are topics of serious academic study, and we shouldn't be relying onfringe popular sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the text to be unreliable based on how it's written. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries of individual works: "In articles on individual works, the plot summary is usually described within a section labeled 'Plot', 'Story', or 'Synopsis'. This heading implicitly informs the reader that the text within it describes the fiction. For conciseness, it is thus not necessary to explicitly incorporate out-of-universe language". I believe Arrowsmith decided for concision not to use out-of-universe language (like "The Fauni, who was said in myths to be once field spirits who gave nightmares to animals" instead of "The Fauni, once field spirits who gave nightmares to animals") because it is clear to the reader that this is mythology.

The New York Times said of the book, "Rationalists, materialists, be forewarned: the ancient forces governing earthly incident and momentum lie neither in our heads nor our economics, but, rather, in the revelations from A Field Guide to the Little People." I don't consider this book, which was first published by mainstream publisher Farrar, Straus and Giroux in 1977, to be a fringe source based on the author's background.

Cunard (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I drafted a reply to an earlier comment that made it clear that there is a difference between "fiction" and what we are supposed to be writing here, but apparently forgot to post it. The guideline you quote definitely does not apply to articles on mythology and folklore, as I already painstakingly explained here. Anyway, are you aware that "Fauni" is plural? Your above hypothetical amendment to Arrowsmith's text seems to imply you are not, even though it is obvious from her grammar, and the NYT quote appears to agree with my reading of the source as fringe "the fairies are real" stuff, not with your assertion to the contrary. It is very difficult to discuss topics like this with editors who are not reading their own sources as closely as I am, and FS&G being a "mainstream" publisher is frankly irrelevant, as they're not an academic publisher known for strict fact-checking of content submitted to them by authors who promote fringe spiritualist theories -- Doubleday is a mainstream publisher, but that doesn't magically make The Da Vinci Code a reliable source on anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny coincidence: I last heard the name "Doubleday" in a lecture by John Meier about his influential series A Marginal Jew, which is a well-regarded scholarly work on exactly the kind of stuff Dan Brown got so wrong in his book; no general publishing house can be used as a measure of the "reliability" of everything they print, one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaargh Browsing around the topic, it seems that goats screaming like people is a thing – see Slate's report, for example. The super-cut compilation is worth a view -- some of those goats express the Wikipedia experience very eloquently. Andrew D. (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just rename it to List of hybrid goat people. All it is is a list anyway. If someone wants to make an article about goat people used in a different means, they can do so. List_of_hybrid_creatures_in_mythology#Upper_part_human in the goat section doesn't list everything in this list, just the Greek mythology entries, so redirecting there wouldn't work. Dream Focus 11:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: The list is pretty short, so "redirect" implies "merge, assuming content can be sourced". Are you willing to locate sources for some of the more dubious (read: OR) content in the list? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on the article after posting here. [5] I eliminated one bad entry already, and tagged another as a reference needed, and started to organize and add information to the rest. Any references can be found in the articles linked to quite easily. I don't see anywhere most of the entries can be merged to. Dream Focus 12:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Wikipedia is not racist against goats or their people. In any event, this is more of a disambiguation page in my view, and it seems useful, just like List of piscine and amphibian humanoids and List of reptilian humanoids. Horse people currently redirects to Eurasian nomads, but that's a different usage entirely. In German, they are called "Reitervölker" which does mean Horse People. Alas, why is there no article on Hausziegevölker (goat people) on the German wikipedia?-Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename into List of goat hybrid creatures - they are not really "people". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of hybrid creatures in mythology#Upper part human. This is a list and that's a list too. Merging and redirecting also takes care of the fact that this article is misnamed. There are other kinds of goat people that have nothing to do with mythology, such as year of the goat people. [[6]]. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do merge something to a list about mythology if most of the entries aren't about mythology at all? Dream Focus 19:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to fit, which ones are not fitting into mythology? Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Which entries are not mythology? If you mean creatures called "gods", then FYI all pagans gods today fall under both religion and mythology. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking it over, yeah, they don't just have Greek and Roman mythology but others as well. Remembering how someone argued that mythology and folklore were too different things, and I thought some would complain about some of the entries, but whatever. That could work. Need to do a proper merge discussion before merging of course. I posted on the talk page there just now to make certain no one had any objections to anything on the list. Dream Focus 19:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This merge suggestion has another problem: it changes the subject: not all crritters in the list are "upper part human"see eg Baphomet Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could put that critter in #Human with animal head on the same page. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea getting consensus from the other article - selective merging into different sections would seem to make sense, but that makes a specific redirect harder. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There appear to be sufficient sources for a separate article, but it will need retitling. I suggest there might well be sufficient sources for similar expansions of most of the other sections in articles also for most of the sections in List of hybrid creatures in mythology. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Chimera (mythology). This article has sources, but is terrible structured and scoped. Do not redirect to a “List of” article, because these lists are only for standalone articles. Goats feature strongly among the many chimeras, so the material needs to stay. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At the moment, I don't see the utility of this article. Individual cases should be handled on an individual basis. If they have some relation, we can discuss that per article. I'm generally opposed to ill-defined lists with little solid content. This is a solid example. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seeing as this article does not have any sources whatsoever and merely lists other articles about different types of so-called "goat-people," I see no point in keeping it. We have other articles about satyrs and fauns; we do not need an amorphously-titled one like "Goat people." --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable mythological creature with extensive coverage in multiple cultures. I've added sources. The group of creatures have been collectively called Goat people. [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at these sources reveals that they're all from non-specialists. For example, can you find folklorists using this term? What would the relevant AT motif be? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: Wait, was "keep" already how you personally were leaning before you initially closed this AFD? Because if you are letting your personal opinions drive your non-admin closures, that is a serious issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I based my close on sources provided by Cunard which passed GNG. I did further research after I revert my own close out of good faith. But to answer your question the revert forced me to do further research and I have provided sources which suggest this is clearly notable as an article. I was completely neutral at the time which is why I pinged you as a good faith editor. It appears you agree with my sources as defining the subject. But no, I had no favors keep or delete. Instead of focusing on the close, you should focus on the sources I've provided which nullified the deletion rationale. This is the definition of neutral editing do you not agree? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that you ignored (or read and then immediately threw out) my comments that demonstrated how Cunard's sources were completely useless? GNG has nothing to do with it anyway, since the concept of half-goat/half-human beings already has a separate article and the present title of this article is more likely to refer to other (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) topics like people who raise goats. Anyway, your sources have similar problems: if "goat woman" is a common synonym for glaistig, then that title should redirect to that article, not this one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No the initial nomination focused on this referring to people who deal with goats. My interpretations at the time believed source provided showed it focused on the mythological being. You made a strong argument which was then countered by Cunard. Further analysis suggests the discussion did not have a consensus, and was then updated to be closed as such. However, you disagreed and I reopened the discussion. I did further research as people generally do when questioned about a close which at the time I had no leanings. I've since found multiple scholarly sources which I listed below as well as additional book sources. These sources have yet to be countered. I now believe this should be kept. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretations at the time believed source provided showed it focused on the mythological being. How on earth did the random grab-bag of fringe sources demonstrate that? How could they? You made a strong argument which was then countered by Cunard. Where? Cunard's last reply was at 08:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC), I refuted them at 10:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC), and they never got back to it. Further analysis suggests the discussion did not have a consensus, and was then updated to be closed as such. "further analysis"? It was plain for everyone to see, and your close as "keep" was a super-vote and was highly inappropriate. Please stop denying this or a serious discussion will need to be had about your continued permission to perform non-admin closures of AFDs. I've since found multiple scholarly sources which I listed below as well as additional book sources. Umm ... no, you didn't. You cited two sources, neither of them scholarly, and neither apparently using the phrase "goat people", either at all or as a generic term for the purported topic of this article. These sources have yet to be countered. Please read my comments before responding to them. I clearly stated it above: Anyway, your sources have similar problems: if "goat woman" is a common synonym for glaistig, then that title should redirect to that article, not this one.

• delete this is like something written by a junior high school kid. There were zero sources and the sources that have been added are poor. We are not an indiscriminate collection of random facts; that is policy and that is what N is all about. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something like this? That is an academic source. There are a tremendous number of sources from Google Scholar on "Goat men" [11] This should remove any doubts on WP:N. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the "tremendous number of sources" you cite from Google Scholar, I note a scant 356 results, most of which appear to be false positives or from non-academic sources. (Looks like Google might want to take a closer look at its approach, but that's another topic for another time.) :bloodofox: (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: you are right not all sources are directly related to the mythological creature as search engines are never completely specific, but there are enough to show this is a history subject covered in Greek plays and history. Here are some solid sources Books and Journals, https://search.proquest.com/openview/3495bb1f8badca7098a775e7bdaccc5b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1819401 Proquest], Wiley. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I honestly looked for reasons to rename and merge this. Maybe there were a number of objective scholarly works that included all the goat people listed in the article, and discussed their common traits, significance in folklore, etc? But no, there aren't multiple sources making this distinction to justify Wikipedia creating this list and classification. I agree the original article was like something written by a high school kid, and sourced to things like the invented language of a TV show. Others have tried to patch it up with sources that only address satyr plays, etc. While it's true that articles like (totally unsourced) List of piscine and amphibian humanoids exist, that's not a compelling reason (to me) for creating one more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated sources There are additional sources which speak of Glaistig and Pan and goat man/goat woman

Richard P. Martin (1 April 2003). Myths of the Ancient Greeks. Penguin Publishing Group. pp. 63–. ISBN 978-1-101-12698-1.

The book notes:

Hermes was mightily pleased. He tenderly lifted the goat-child and wrapped it in the softest hides of a mountain hare. Holding the baby to his chest, he set out for Olympus, to introduce his new son to the other gods. All of them were abolutely delighted, especially Dionysus. Since all were made happy by the infant, that is what they called him: "All" or, in Greek, Pan.
Any human being unlucky enough to be alone in those wild places might chrink in fear hearing this powerful uncanny sound, an uncomfortable feeling that people began to call "panic", after the goat-god who caused it.

This is an independent publisher and reliable source.

Sue Weaver (16 April 2011). The Backyard Goat: An Introductory Guide to Keeping and Enjoying Pet Goats, from Feeding and Housing to Making Your Own Cheese. Storey Publishing, LLC. pp. 142–. ISBN 978-1-60342-699-2.

The book notes:

Goat woman

The Glaistig water fairies of Scotland are half woman, half goat. Though they can be dangerous, they enjoy looking after human farmers' cattle, as well as children and old folk.

According to the book's title page, the book focus on goat farmers but makes references to the mythos.

Another source is:

Morgan Daimler (8 December 2017). Fairies:: A Guide to the Celtic Fair Folk. John Hunt Publishing. pp. 83–. ISBN 978-1-78279-696-1. This source given detailed coverage of Glaistig. This should conclusively show that each creature on the list has been referred to as "goat man" and/or "goat woman". Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your sources here, it seems clear to me that if anything like this list is going to stay, it's going to have to be renamed. The Daimler and Weaver pieces are not reliable sources (they're non-specialists making general observations), and the first instance refers to Pan as a "goat-god", whatever that's worth. If we're going to keep something resembling this list, it's probably going to need a new title and will definitely need to have a defined scope. We're also going to need to keep superior sources as a mandatory requirement (then again, we should be doing this anyway). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone at least remove the entry for "Chinese mythology"? It clearly uses the phrase "goat people" to refer to people born in the Chinese Year of the goat. It has nothing to do with the topic of mythological goat-humans. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie:,  Done, I hope you can reconsider. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perhaps it needs a better title, but having a list of mythical human-goat hybrids seems like an encyclopedic thing to me. Maybe we're in WP:IAR territory, but whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, a merge to List of hybrid creatures in mythology wouldn't be bad either. But don't just delete it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this relates to the issue at hand, but a link to an article titled For the Love of Goats showed up in my inbox a few minutes ago. Cosmic coincidence? Weird caprine karma? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Your opinion on what should be done with this article seems identical to mine, but you frame it the exact opposite way. If you think the article needs to be renamed and needs to OR/SYNTH/WHATEVER cut, on the off-chance that there might be something worth saving, that's not normally described as "keep". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't even understand most of these Keep votes. When you search for your description, we literally have a page for that article. And it's literally the same article that has been suggested for a Merge. Perhaps create sub-sections of the lists in that article named "Human-goat Hybrids", along with "Human-Horse Hybrids", etc...and there we go. Almost everything is there already. Add the couple that are not, and we are done. Dave Dial (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a notable topic that is discussed in reliable sources, as pointed out by Valoem. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:49, 4 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anıt Ticaret[edit]

Anıt Ticaret (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 subject does not meet the notability criteria for companies. Also, there are no reliable sources for it to pass WP:GNG. KingAndGod 19:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of English or Turkish sources; all I can find are mirrors of this page. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as non-notable. Article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG at minimum. Quis separabit? 20:09, 3 April 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 16:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Tantak[edit]

Yogesh Tantak (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 originally prodded this article as "Autobiographical article of questionable notability." The prod was then removed by Yogeshtantak7788 without addressing the issue, i.e. improving the article. This stub looks more like self-promotion than something that should be in an encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotional autobiography lacking third party robust coverage -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:20, 27 March 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boorti Calasow Sabriye[edit]

Boorti Calasow Sabriye (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 Somali locality, with nothing at the location given. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is an article about a patch of desert next to a road, it doesn't even claim to be anything else. Nothing to pass WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 21:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notability. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 19:48, 2 April 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. Copyright violation. Can be recreated in a non-copyvio manner. Sandstein 16:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Syed Shah Nasiruddin[edit]

Hazrat Syed Shah Nasiruddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only web sources I could find outside Wikipedia were links to banglapedia.org, and books and scholar sources came up empty. (Is it possible that the person's name is misspelled here? I keep getting suggestions for Hazrat Syed Shah Naseeruddin when I search...) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As it is, I believe this person might be better suited to be merged with Shah Jalal since that appears to be what he is most notable for. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the person is indeed notable, sure :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - suspect this is Badar Shah Following the instructions of Hazrat Shah Jalal (R), Badar Shah and the twelve Awlias defeated King Achak Narayan of Taraf and established Muslim rule there. Badar Shah then started to spread the message of islam in Chittagong. Several places in Chittagong are associated with him: Badartila (hathazari thana), Badarkhali (chokoria thana), Badarkua (cox's bazar) and Badar Mokam (Akyab in Arakan). In 1340 Badar Shah helped kadal khan gazi, the general of fakruddin Mubarak, Several places in Chittagong are associated with him: Badartila (hathazari thana), Badarkhali (chokoria thana), Badarkua (cox's bazar) and Badar Mokam (Akyab in Arakan). In 1340 Badar Shah helped kadal khan gazi, the general of fakruddin Mubarak shah, to capture Chittagong. The original name of Chittagong, Chattagram, is believed to have derived from the word chati or lamp. According to the legend, in the fourteenth century Chittagong was overrun by jinns and fairies who ....[12] we also have this story here - Badarkhali. Seems like this is probably notable (e.g. SOLDIER - the Awlias seem to have been accompanying a military force - 3,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry. Shah Jalal seems to have had 360 Awlias, so 12 might not be so many in the Awlias scale) - but this needs Bengali sources.Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think this is General (Sipahsalar) Syed Nasiruddin, mentioned at Shamsuddin Firoz Shah#Expansion of kingdom. If kept, I think the article should be moved to "Syed Nasiruddin". I see mention of him under that name in a number of places at google books, but the only detail that he led in the battle against Gaur Govinda ("nasiruddin", "syed+nasiruddin", and many books with only snippet view for me). I'm fairly sure Badar Shah is a different figure; in some sources, both names are present and seemingly designating different individuals (p140 and p160). One page, Habiganj District, said that there was once a state, Nasirabad, named for Nasiruddin Sipahsalar, but I am suspicious, as there are plenty of Bengali Nasiruddin's who were better known and could have served as a namesake (see: here) and I cut it. A version of this text has existed at that page since December, 2008([13]). As such, I think we should probably keep and cleanup this article if it he is deemed encyclopedic or keep an eye out for and tabs on recreations if not. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We possibly have a synthesis here of two individuals here (unless this copy-paste story dates back to the 14th century...) - I went the alternate route of checking the underlying story (which I often do when I think that there would be a multitude of transliterations possible for the name) - starting out from "At Shah Jalal's direction, accompanied by twelve saints, he attacked and defeated king Achak Narayan of Taraf and became administrator there" - I see the story of the army with the twelve Awlias defeating King Achak Narayan of Taraf ascribed to Badar Shah.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. There is a list of the twelve Awlias at Shaharpara - with brief biographies of each in an older version of that page[14]. None of them have names that match Badar Shah or Syed Shah. The pir for Syed Shah is in Habibganj, while that of Badar Shah is in Chittagong. This page has Syed Nasiruddin born in Baghdad, while Badr Shah was, I think, born in Meerut[15][16]. Also, I found the entry in Banglapedia (2003) for Syed Nasruddin [17]. This article is a copy of that, thus I have !voted below. The entry for Badar Shah is here:[18]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a copyvio.[19] The subject is encyclopedic, as he has an entry in Banglapedia, the national encyclopedia of Bangladesh (per ANYBIO, anyone with such an entry is likely suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). If there is agreement, I'll try to make a stub for him (and Badar Shah) to prevent further inappropriate re-creation. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- If he is in a national encyclopaedia, he is probably notable. If there is a copy-vio, then reduce to a stub and cite the work plagiarised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that is how copyright violations are handled. In this case, the entire page is a copy, and there is not old version of the page which is not a copy. Hence, there is no amount of revdel that would deal with the problem (WP:DCV). Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

If you want, you can stub it down with a good reference, then all the previous edits can be revdeled as copyvios (as was recently done at Henry Corbin (colonist)). Or you can just speedy delete it and let it be recreated or recreate it yourself. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 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. I will salt it as requested since it has been deleted at AfD twice, I suggest that anyone who wants to recreate it come up with a draft which addresses the notability concerns. Hut 8.5 20:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MeWe[edit]

MeWe (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 with rationale "I can't find significant discussion of this website in independent (non-PR) sources." The only coverage appears to be launch PR. None of the references are recent, so possibly a G4 candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. This version is a chaste stub, unlike the wildly promotional version that was deleted per the first AfD. But it has no more information or notability, nor better sources, than the previously deleted version. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Notability not established by the refs. Szzuk (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Szzuk. Not opposed to salting too. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 4 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Kane[edit]

Yuri Kane (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 can't find any reliable sources regarding the person and I doubt the accuracy of the content. There's also a 81% confidence in copyvio with similar content to the subject's website. I'm not sure if the website copied this article or the other way around, but still the notability of this person may not be great. The WP:MBIO criterion of gaining air play on national radio may be met but I cannot find a reliable source to verify it, so endorse deletion. KingAndGod 18:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, We can not tolerate copy right violations.--31.173.188.190 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Técoult[edit]

Daniel Técoult (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 claim to notability and no reliable sources can be found. KingAndGod 17:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 3 April 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 National Party of Australia leadership elections. Content has been merged. czar 00:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Party of Australia leadership election, 2016[edit]

National Party of Australia leadership election, 2016 (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:EVENT. Not all leadership elections are notable, and this was a total non-event; not really an election at all. StAnselm (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article could certainly use expansion to reflect the notability of the election. Upon looking at WP:EVENT criteria I'm not sure it does fail and think that nominating to delete this seems too hasty. Kiwichris (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a new article about National Party leadership elections in general. It's not an inherently invalid topic — people are interested in the leadership histories of political parties, and they do get media coverage — but it's not necessarily the case that every leadership election always needs its own standalone article even if there's very little that can actually be said about it because it was a one-candidate race that ended in an acclamation. A better approach is what we do with New Democratic Party leadership elections in Canada: we start with an overview article about the overall phenomenon of the party's leadership elections in general. It directly contains all of the content about the races where we can't really write or source anything significant, because they were one-candidate or "incumbent leader challenged only by a minor fringe candidate who had no chance of actually winning" formalities, and then the races about which we can write and source more content have their own separate articles which are briefly summarized under a "main article" link to the standalone subpage. This isn't an inherently invalid topic, but it doesn't really need its own standalone article — including a brief summary of it in an overview article is a better approach in this case. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Bearcat. Some of these elections, where they are contested, might be interesting enough to justify standalone articles, but for pro-forma processes like this where there is only one candidate, dressing them up as an "election" is borderline misleading for our readers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Bearcat. We have far too many of these leadership election articles (the sheer number at Category:Leadership elections in the Czech Republic is painful to see) and I agree that merging them into a single article on leadership elections within the party would be a good solution to having numerous articles that are never going to progress beyond a stub. Number 57 22:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to relist comment I stand by my suggestion. Obviously I am not going to create a new article with content that duplicates that here, unless it is clear that consensus as expressed by these discussions is that it is a good idea to do so. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: This discussion (with the merge proposals) should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Party of Australia leadership election, 2007. In hindsight, I should have nominated the two articles together. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The content has now been merged into National Party of Australia leadership elections. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 29 March 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. none ofhe keep arguments are relevant to notability DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Rhoades[edit]

Dusty Rhoades (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)

Aside from this being a self-published article, this guy's sole claim to fame is being a brony on the internet, something that hardly makes him unique or interesting. Jtrainor (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think this is self-published. Everymorning is the original author, I know I cleaned up from that. I have no added comment at this time about keep/delete but calling this "self-published" is not true at all. --Masem (t) 14:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from article creator I did in fact create this article. I am not Dusty Rhoades and I have never even met him, so, as Masem pointed about above, it is totally incorrect to call this article "self-published", nor are any of its sources self-published. Every morning (there's a halo...) 14:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this proposal for a non-notable brony; otherwise way too many people would qualify. But if everyone's notable, then no one's notable. -The Gnome (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mention in articles is not the same as substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have no interest or real knowledge in this subject area, but for those who do, this subject does gets some pretty high level coverage - dedicated coverage from Entertainment Weekly is nothing to scoff at. I think it deserves a bit more effort than these lazy WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE responses above. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 23 March 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 10:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hôtel de Clermont[edit]

Grand Hôtel de Clermont (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)

"Simple rooms in a modest budget hotel" according to Tavago. At least the page has a ref. Junk like this is why we need ACREQ Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since sources supporting notability cannot be traced. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many sources that discuss this modest hotel, because French superstar Édith Piaf lived there for several years at the beginning of her career. Several book length biographies of Piaf discuss the hotel, and it is mentioned in her Wikipedia biography. Readily available news stories discuss this historic Paris hotel, sometimes in great detail. Please do your homework per WP:BEFORE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did before. I found lots of websites to book a room there. It's just a hotel. Notability is not inherited from who lived there. This little page does not tell anything about the place except some one stayed there. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator. As it happens, I know about this particular hotel from way back, personally. I passed by it in the early 1980s, too. The reason, yes, is that Piaf lived there for a while. But this is not the Chelsea, where many famous people, mostly artists, lived and congregated. All we have about this hotel is Piaf's stay there. Nothing else whatsoever. Does this make it notable?-The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate place to mention it is in her bio. You might even consider a redirect of the hotel name to her bio. But there are presumably no RS discussing the hotel as a stand alone topic. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete has few sources, connection to Edith Piaf can be included in her article. AidanSW (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The hotel can`t have an article because it is not that prestigious and the hotel does not have a particular history. And the fact that Edith Piaf slept there is not enough to be considered as notable. Moreover in this article there are only two sentences and it seems more like advertisingIrma2403 (talk) 06:41, 29 March 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top Secret (magazine)[edit]

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

(Find video game sources: "Top Secret (magazine)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Find video game sources: ""Top Secret" "czasopismo"" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Should have been speedied, since it is a recreation of an article which was deleted just over a year ago, and has even less claim to notability now. All the current sources were available during the last AfD, and found lacking, which they still are. The rationale from the last AfD still exists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mojo Hand: who closed the first instance of the AfD and @Lee Vilenski: who removed the G6 tag, could you explain further what's going on? Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773 - I removed the G6 tag, as I believed the previous AfD was lacking (Due to editors not trusting non-English sources, and the idea that to pass GNG, sources need to be verifiable. I understand there is an argument for WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES here; and that video game magazines sometimes struggle to establish notability, and as such wouldn't go against the deletion process, however, the article was re-created by another user, and removed the tag.

I apologies for this, as I (for whatever reason), I thought the AfD was older than it was. I then saw the article was PROD'd for a second time, which confused me, as I thought under WP:CONTESTED that once an article had it's PROD removed, it shouldn't be re-added and thus go to AfD. Is that wrong? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee Vilenski - I didn't Prod it, I nominated it for speedy deletion, citing the AfD from last year. Doesn't look like this particular incarnation of the article has ever been prodded. Once you removed the speedy (which you have every right to do, not being the article's creator), since I disagreed with your rationale for removing the speedy tag, I took it to AfD. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for clearing this up. From what it appeared to be an article not deleted from previous discussion, although I was confused because a second AfD for the recreated article was not started using the proper procedure. You're right that G6 wasn't the right tool to use. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your confusion. G6 was not really applicable, but the article probably should have been deleted under WP:CSD#G4. If Lee Vilenski disagreed with the prior closure, the best recourse is to WP:DRV. I was tempted to re-delete the page under G4, but since we've gone to the trouble of starting another AfD, we may as well let it run its course.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources introduced over what was previously included/discussed in last AfD. czar 21:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not usually one to badger, but Czar I'm curious about your thoughts on the sources presented underneath, many of which are very SIGCOV in sources already vetted by the community. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!, not badgering at all—I might not have seen otherwise. Ya, some are good, but I'd sooner say "few" than "many" when referring to the below sources' vetting... Just Vice, gry-online, Komputer Świat/Gamezilla, right? The latter two are the best and can be build out with the Vice interview. Between those, I can see enough stuff for an article. Nice sleuthing, @Coin945. gadzetomania.pl lacks editorial info but is in a reliable media network. Not seeing any ready reason to rely on sources like http://polygamia.pl for statements of fact, though. Based on some of the previous sources, might make sense to have a wider article on Polish gaming magazines to house sections on the other Polish mags and for potential summary style split. Keep. czar 13:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator. Magazine is clearly notable. Some sources:--Coin945 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Polish gaming magazine Top Secret raised a whole generation
  • Iconic Polish computer magazines. Bajtek, Top Secret, Mikroklan and others
  • 10 magazines that shaped gaming journalism in Poland
  • TOP SECRET - A HISTORY OF THE CULT MAGAZINE IN 9 COVERS
  • History of console magazines in Poland
  • Gaming magazines in a history of pictures
  • Cult newspapers - Top Secret
  • The legendary Top Secret magazine will return during Pixel Heaven 2017
  • Interview with Marcin "Borek" Borkowski.
  • Interview: My beginnings in Top Secret
  • Łukasz Czekajewski and Top Secret
  • History of Top Secret
  • That's how it was written - the history of the press about computer games in Poland
  • MAGAZINE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES IN POLAND. HISTORY AND PRESENT MARKET SITUATION

P.S. There should also be articles on magazines like: Świat Gier Komputerowych, Gry Komputerowe, PC Gamer Po Polsku, Oficjalny Polski PlayStation Magazyn, Reset, PSX Extreme, NEO, PC Games CD, NEO Plus, PSX Fan, MAN!AK, Konsola, Cybermycha, Play, Komputer Świat Gry. :)--Coin945 (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Coin945 - Bias against non-English sources is a difficult beast to defeat but the coverage presented here represents high example of SIGCOV in RSes: lengthy pieces discussing the publication's legacy, impact and history in VICE and many other Polish sources already vetted at WP:VG/S#Reliable checklist) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Still not sure why it was deleted when I created it the first time. Polish sources are as good as English equivelents. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Gry-OnLine is absolutelly top service, one of the bests in polish viedo game journalism and source on polish version Wikipedia. I think "Komputer Świat" is also good source. There are avaiable datas from Top Secret about number of released copies for few numbers (over 100 thousands). I don't own them, I can't confirm them. Eurohunter (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reliable Polish sources are obviously fine, though the language barrier can make it harder to evaluate them for non-Polish speakers. However, the information here and at WP:VG satisfies me that there are enough reliable sources.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:23, 31 March 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. Per the later, uncontested Keep arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smriti Nagpal[edit]

Smriti Nagpal (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)

Another BBC 100 Women biography article whose main notability is being on that list and being on Forbes 30 Under 30. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment article creator is currently blocked for creating promotional articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2018#BBC_100_Women for discussion on the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I'd support a rule whereby sanctions are imposed on repeat creators of promotional articles in Wikipedia. They cause a significant amount of time to be wasted. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly not alone in that sentiment. I think we would definitely need an RfC though, not only to be sure of community consensus for it, but also to make sure it's evenly applied (rather than testing it out piecemeal in individual AfDs). Innisfree987 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Strong keep: Nagpal is included in the BBC 100 Women and Forbes 30 Under 30 listings, and has received significant coverage (Hindustan Times, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle) as a result of the former. She has received further coverage in Deccan Chronicle, ScoopWhoop and WION. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deccan Chronicle, Scoop Whoop and WION were all posted in 2017, after the 100 Women list was assembled for 2015. But yes, more articles like that and especially if they were dated pre-100 Women and pre-Forbes would be helpful. This one posted in 2015 is not helpful. [20] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upped to strong keep following improvements to the article. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Puzzled by the nom. She has two substantial profiles in major national outlets--the Times of India and the Hindustan Times--as well as the other recognition, including internationally. I realize the entry is not very well-developed in terms of drawing on those sources but AfD is about available secondary sources, not how they've been used to date... Innisfree987 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India refers to her listing in 100 BBC Women. Hindustan Times refers to her appearing in 30 under 30. Are there sufficient secondary source articles about her that show notability independent of her being listed? Not at the article as currently presented. The ones presented by Bilorv are potentially good sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Short answer: yes the sum of these sources is sufficient. I don't see why noting of this international attention in the profiles would be disqualifying. It'd be a problem if these outlets had simply run two-sentence pieces noting this recognition and nothing more, but instead they ran substantial profiles--detailed coverage rather than trivial mentions, which is our test.

I'm confident I could (and perhaps later this week will) prove the point that we have sufficient secondary source coverage by significantly expanding the entry based on the information these sources offer, but I'll admit I get fussed when it comes to that, as it amounts a major and non-community-approved revision to the standards of AfD, in which showing the existence of sources is supposed to suffice; they do not yet have to be incorporated into the four corners of the extant entry. That's only the standard for CSD. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit based on the sources already there and those I listed above – though more expansion would of course be welcome. I agree that whether sources are included or not in the article is irrelevant for AfD, and WP:BEFORE gives clear guidelines on the level of searching for sources that is expected before bringing something to AfD. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the recently presented articles are helpful as they show she can be notable without having to be on those lists. If it were riding solely on BBC 100 Women and Forbes, it wouldn't survive the AFD.I'll go ahead and pull this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC) updated 21:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about going with anything post-BBC and post-Forbes would be that the notability would be circular. She's famous because she got listed which would then enable her to garner articles and press coverage about her which would then make her famous. I want to ensure she can be Wikipedia-notable because of what she is doing, that she is getting coverage not in response to the list. That the 2017 Deccan and later articles doesn't even mention her placement on such lists is helpful, but if there are any significant coverage articles pre-BBC list, pre-Forbes, let's get some of those added. Like Pieroni's article in 2014 [21] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As our policies currently stand though, that cycle isn't relevant to the worth of the sources. Discounting them on that basis would be a violation of WP:NPOV, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We're not to substitute personal opinion for the editorial judgment of reliable sources. A given Wikipedian may personally think sources should not pay attention to the Forbes or BBC lists, but if one really objects to that, the place to take it up is with the publications in question--or, I suppose, with a differently structured encyclopedia. Wikipedia's project, though, is merely to summarize what reliable press and research journals see fit to cover. By our own declaration, we are not a reliable source, and instead we depend on those that are. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that they raise promotional concerns. WP:SPIP Forbes and BBC 100 Women articles are considered primary and it can be argued that 30 under 30 is promotional, and the articles immediately written afterwards are being scrutinized for short-term notability WP:NRV and WP:NOTNEWS. Is that scrutiny of discounting those considered editorial bias? If a reporter writes a "where are they now" article in 2017, that's fine, in fact, those are the news articles that are now serving as the basis for sourcing this Wikipedia article. They are removed from the promotional cycle of 2015 and are coming from a variety of newspapers that aren't influenced by Forbes or BBC Women or those related news agencies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This exemplifies my bias concern. Forbes and BBC 100 Women articles are considered primary--by whom? They would obviously be primary if the subjects were publishing in Forbes about themselves, but we just received a helpful RS noticeboard opinion noting that the list is written by Forbes staff--and that independent notice is exactly the barometer you cite at WP:SPIP. The proposal we repeatedly depart from policy in handling this entry is concerning to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are primary in the "Here's the list that I made" sense. The news articles in reaction to it is secondary. The only thing that we can do is add a single line about it, and I have to apply my editorial bias in that I don't believe being on 30 under 30 or BBC 100 Women makes her notable for ANYBIO as discussed below. So I removed that line from the lead paragraph as consistent with the Forbes List query and response. But these are giving grounds for more RS articles to be written about her. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to soon tap out because the outcome is so clear, but before I go, "Here's a list I made"--or "here's an essay I wrote", "here's my journal article"--could be primary sources, but only if we were debating an entry about the person who made the list/essay/article. But instead we are using them on one of the topics of the list, not its author. For that it is a secondary source, and RS per noticeboard to boot. It and all related coverage in RS are valid secondary sources to contribute to WP:BASIC, and there's no need to meet ANYBIO if BASIC is met. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added additional citations to her article. There is extensive in-depth coverage of her in newspapers and on major websites like BBC, Forbes, Times of India and Hindustan Times. Easily passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." She passes WP:ANYBIO for "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" due to her work with people who are deaf. She passes WP:TEACHER because "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" while teaching Indo-Pakistani Sign Language. This impact of her work has been noted worldwide, which is how she ended up on so many lists of notable people. Lonehexagon (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd love to change my opinion but I still see nothing of substance out there. The subject of the article is a teacher of sign language, the owner of a coffee shop, and a TV news presenter. And, no matter how many bits of text about her appear here and there, practically that's all there is to it! Trivial coverage of the subject in sources is not be sufficient to establish notability. Can we seriously claim that she's a notable person just because she does admirable work for speaking-and-hearing-impaired people? -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is in-depth and not trivial; whether or not you think the subject is trivial is irrelevant. Any of the three of the jobs you listed can qualify someone for an article here – see Category:Disability rights activists by country, Category:Coffeehouses and Category:Indian television presenters. Claiming that a subject is not notable "no matter how many bits of text about her appear here and there" is almost exactly the opposite of the actual notability definition of "those [subjects] that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", which is judged by "evidence from reliable and independent sources" (WP:N). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sporadic and often suspect bits and pieces, and similar material, do not for notability make. You offer as retort to my argument about what the subject actually does in life the category of "coffeehouses", but this AfD is about a coffee house owner or sponsor; not a place. As to "TV presenters" and "activists", you misunderstood. I did not say she's not qualified because she's in these fields of activity. I object to her inclusion because, in my view, she's a TV presenter and an activist who's not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. That's all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does she qualify for WP:TEACHER when she is not an educator in the classroom sense or an academic? The TED talk describes her as an entrepreneur, or CEO and founder. And I'm not sure what you mean by disabilities activist. Do you have RS articles that indicate her occupation as teacher and activist? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't think she qualifies for WP:TEACHER, don't you think she qualifies for WP:GNG due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject? [22][23][24][25] Lonehexagon (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WION article - "Smriti Nagpal, the owner of Atulyakala," (implies entrepreneur, not teacher)

  Deccan Chronicle - "says the young social entrepreneur." (social entrepreneur)

  Times of India - "started a social enterprise" (social entrepreneur)

  Hindustan Times - "She is a sign language interpreter working tirelessly for the emancipation of people with hearing disability." (sign language interpreter)

  So if she isn't going in as a WP:TEACHER, don't apply those criteria. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is worth pointing out, that Forbes which is an advertising platform, produces 41, 30 under 30 lists, every year. They are clickbait, and having checked with the Notable References noticeboard, they are non RS for BLP. They are not the high quality refererence that are required of a BLP article.scope_creep (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Please can you provide a link to the noticeboard discussion? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also like to see this discussion. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Me as well. I would really appreciate it. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Scope creep — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Here it is Forbes Site Subdomains as a Reference There is 41 of these lists produced every year, they are clickbait, and worth consideration. scope_creep (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Although reading it again, it does say she is on the staff of Forbes, which makes it a valid ref. But I still think they are clickbait. When you have 41 of something, it is of zero value. scope_creep (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay so the discussion actually just cites a Wikipedia article saying there are 41 lists (which I can't even see in the article, but I'll take it as true anyway); the "clickbait" and "non RS for BLP" are your own words and nothing to do with the noticeboard. Your argument "When you have 41 of something, it is of zero value" is patently absurd (I'm sure there are more than 41 New York Times articles published in a week and all are of value). Using the buzzword "clickbait" is not an argument. Besides, the article has 12 non-Forbes sources. Do you have any policy-based reasons to support your delete opinion? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the point is that per WP:ANYBIO, being listed on Forbes or BBC 100 Women is not a "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No one has argued keep on the basis of ANYBIO. The BBC and Forbes pieces are merely two additional pieces toward WP:BASIC's requirement for multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. And Scope_creep has offered us an RS noticeboard opinion that the Forbes 30 under 30 list is RS, and written by staff independent of the subjects. (And of course BBC and Forbes are independent of one another!) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just wanted to add that I think she qualifies for WP:GNG due to "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject." [26][27][28][29][30] Lonehexagon (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bilorv I wasn't commenting for a delete, and I think it is a wee bit disingenuous to compare Forbes.com with the New York Times. From the Forbes article, Forbes.com uses a "contributor model" in which a wide network of "contributors" writes and publishes articles directly on the website. Personally I think anybody who work for the public good is deserving of an article, particularly on such a scale. scope_creep (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies; your edit summary confused me. I also wasn't intending to compare Forbes with the NYT, just to show by analogy that I disagreed with your argument. Also, Wikipedia does not right great wrongs, so thinking that Nagpal deserves an article is not a valid reason to keep. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The current article speaks to notability backed with sourcing from various media outlets over more than one topic. Willie d troudour (talk) 22:38, 2 April 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. No better sources were found. Other keep !vote did not give an indication of notability. Just because an article is well-written does not mean the topic is encyclopedic. I wish the inverse were true! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zamani[edit]

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

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in WP:RS. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Provided better sources can be found.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect – To Caspio. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Page content has been updated and meets WP:BIO guidelines. BEMMBA (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely a keep. It's a well-crafted WP:BIO page. Cas Anya (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer: Cas Anya has stated: "I’m part of Caspio’s Content Marketing team." -The Gnome (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for being a promo piece as clear as they come, on a subject that does not meet notability criteria, and, naturally, with bad sourcing. Plus, whenever one watches contributors suddenly making a rare appearance out of the woodwork with the single purpose of defending the existence of an article, one has to get extra suspicious. -The Gnome (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Are you saying that editors need a minimum amount of contributions before stating an opinion? I always believed it was the quality of a User’s contributions not the quantity that carried more weight. ShoesssS ^Talk 08:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have exactly the same opinion as you do. And I keep defending the same position about contributors. There is only one difference and that concerns sudden and single-purpose appearances in debates, i.e. RfCs, AfDs, and the like. Knowing about episodes of concerted efforts to sway Wikipedia towards this or that direction makes me suspicious. We've seen canvassing, phony accounts, kamikaze accounts, you name it. That is all I'm saying. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet WP:ANYBIO & significant RS coverage not found. Not independently notable of Caspio and there's nothing better. I would oppose a redirect / merge, as it's not a good practice when it comes to BLPs. The company may get renamed / acquired, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 25 March 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 16:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jackson (political adviser)[edit]

Richard Jackson (political adviser) (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)

Richard Jackson doesn't meet the GNG; without substantial coverage in reliable sources. His role is not high-profile enough to justify an article by virtue of office, covering the Prime Minister's visits and media operations. Ralbegen (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the refs are about him. A relatively recent article which should not have been created. Szzuk (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he's an MBE and notable as a lwyer. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: My understanding was that per WP:ANYBIO, honours aren't sufficient for inclusion, though they can indicate notability. Very few of people awarded MBEs in this year's NYD honours list would meet inclusion criteria. And I'm not sure how he's notable as a lawyer? It doesn't appear that he's ever practiced law... Ralbegen (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honours are sufficient for inclusion per WP:ANYBIO, but in Britain this is accepted to include the CBE and above, two levels above the MBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Changing my !vote to delete. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing the general-notability criteria. Notably, we have pictures of two prime ministers but can hardly locate images of the article's subject, something that, in our day and age, rather fatally undermines its notability claims. Terminate without stare decisis: There's always time in the future. -The Gnome (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - easily meets WP:POLITICIAN with articles by the BBC, The Times, The Guardian and The Independent. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: In the references in this article, the BBC reference is a caption to a seventeen-second video. I don't think that constitutes significant coverage. The Guardian lists him for his honour, which definitely isn't significant coverage. The reference to the Independent does not mention or cover Jackson at all. The Times piece is the only one that constitutes significant coverage, but it's not independent of the subject as the GNG requires. The author is Jackson's old boss, as she mentions in the article. Ralbegen (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the article creator was blocked as a sock, voting multiple times in this afd. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strike the sock votes ?? already done ?? look only at the article to see if salvagable; WP:POLITICIAN states: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office qualify his office handling media relations for PM and other offices he held in the past meet that requirement. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a politician and never has been. He's an adviser. Szzuk (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...a similar argument is over at Donald Trump. Oh, and the article under discussion here clearly states: "Jackson returned to politics as part of the 'Remain campaign’s media team.[5]" He made politics his career - and i would think he'd have to be enough of a politician to be a political consultant. You don't have to agree. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - but for the purpose of the close I'll say he's never been elected to any office in the UK. Szzuk (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ralbegen's forensic work above is quite conclusive on the issue. -The Gnome (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nope. Per Who's Who In Cameron's Resignation List? "Political allies and spinners, a "stylist" and the referendum campaign losers - the full list of those honoured by David Cameron." Jackson was a Member of the British Empire (MBE), honored by PM Cameron which satisfies verifiability and adds to stacking for notability. He was Head of Operations under 2 PMs, Cameron and May; a rather notable task. The Times writes about him, "Ms Perrior says her “fixer” Richard Jackson, second right, helps the PM avoid campaign pitfalls". There are other RS to stack for multiple coverage over his career - example: BBC, "Tory spokesperson complained about Mark Clarke in 2008", and Telegraph. Also see WP:GNG & WP:NNC which states:

1. ...it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
2. ...There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online...
3. ...The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

He meets the requirements of both GNG and POLITICIAN. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: The GNG says that a topic needs to receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the sources presented meet those criteria - there's some trivial coverage in independent reliable sources and some significant coverage in non-independent reliable sources. So I don't see how he can pass GNG? And I don't think that his office gives him notability by WP:POLITICIAN. It's not so much national political office as working for a national politician, and there are plenty more non-notable staffers that would be covered by such an interpretation. Regardless: at the head of the additional criteria it spells out that "meeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Ralbegen (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme Sorry but Jackson is not notable enough according to the criteria for a mixed martial artist. Yep, those criteria are about as relevant to the subject of the article as is WP:POLITICIAN. Mr Jackson is not a politician. (I've no idea if he's into karate chops.) As to the quotes from the rules you copied above: The 3rd one is irrelevant, and you omitted the important portion from another, i.e. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material (emphasis added). Perhaps significance is in the eye of the beholder. To me, this is a background actor in an ensemble play. (Should we try WP:ACTOR?) -The Gnome (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I do not like voting without adding something new to the discussion but Ralbegen has covered every reason why this subject fails our notability guidelines. Difficult to honestly challenge the rationale.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. And per above discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very strong keep - clear references. He is an advisor, and line manages the director of comms, Robbie Gibb who also has a page. Clear notability through references

— 81.139.166.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Canvassing aside, notability is not remotely close to being established as the consensus indicates, and there is no point to continue any further. Alex Shih (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Tech Mela[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)).

Google Tech Mela (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 a promotional article on a single event and is titled inaccurately. The event was supported by Google but it was not "Google Tech Mela" as this article claims. This single event received some routine press coverage (obviously) but clearly fails to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:EVENT. Both the duration and depth of press coverage was limited. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability... Saqib (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Satisfies GNG. The article title is irrelevant because the page can be moved to the correct name. If the article contains some promotional language, this can be fixed by editing: WP:SOFIXIT. James500 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC) No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: I agree the page can be safely renamed, but please do not ignore the fact that many references cited on this page are not even considered RS. Seemingly the event passes GNG but If you scrutinize the sources closely, you will found most of them are press release sites who copy each other (for example [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]). And then some of the material is backed up by RS but is not relevant such as "The trend of getting online and using ..... Pakistan half among them are present on Mobile." Similarly, "Entire Grand Diwali Mela" section is irrelevant in this article, in my opinion. Coverage about the event in the Pakistani RS (such as Dawn, Nation, The News and Daily Pakistan) are published pre-event and are merely press releases if you look at them closely. For example, all the coverage about this event in Dawn is sponsored and paid. See the bylines [39], [40], [41], [42]. The same can be true for press coverage in other Pakistani RS. If indeed this had been a major event, Dawn would had definitely ran a couple of unpaid news stories but they did not. --Saqib (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:, There is sufficient references in it to be keept, and I wonder how Grand Diwali Mela is irrevalent. Jogi 007 20:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No sufficient references available. See my above statement. Under the section, you wrote "Grand Diwali Mela in India which was like Tech Mela" however the cited source does not say anything like that which means you have added OR to article, like you've done in the past. --Saqib (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In view of what you have said, I will strike my comment for the time being and re-examine the sources more closely if I have time. James500 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, There are sufficient references and if some one thinks its a promotional then edit that promotional content please, The Google Tech Mela is titled and it can be verified in the references. Jogi 007 21:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

First thing first, this is non-notable. Please establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. Can you provide here a single RS which verifies the name of this event "Google Tech Mela" as you claims? --Saqib (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are references you may go through, and here are ref Tech Mela,Tech Mela , [43] in which Tech Mela is clearly written.Jogi 007 08:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The above provided sources have a poor reputation for facts checking, and has no editorial oversight.. They copy each other and are more like news aggregator sites so I would count them as RS. Daily Pakistan source is okay, but the piece is a pre-event press release. And by the way, this is a Google-supported event. Your own provided sources fails to verify your claim. --Saqib (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, This article has good coverage and references. Arif80s (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please give reasonable justification to keep this page. Where is so called good coverage and references? --Saqib (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For notability, please see the comment of Mr. James500 Arif80s (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, @James500: has struck down his support. --Saqib (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep There is no problem with the referencing. If the article requires improvement, that can be achieved through editing. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@And Adoil Descended: More than half of cited references are not even reliable while many others are paid press releases. --Saqib (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib, You have any proof of paid press releases? If yes please share with us. Arif80s (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the bylines [44], [45], [46], [47]. --Saqib (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You showed only 4 paid press releases out of 25 references. What do think about other references of this article? Arif80s (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my above comments. Half of the sources are not reliable enough. The rest are merely press releases and pre-event announcements and they fails WP:ORGIND because the information in those press release stories are announcement by the organisers. --Saqib (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear you had pointed out only 4 press releases out of 25 references. Wait for decision of Admins. Arif80s (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the closing admin should take into account the fact that this AfD, along with two other (Amb Jogi and Iqbal Jogi) are very much convassed and contains some arguments without arguments. In-fact most of the users who chimed in never participated in AfDs before. On a similar note, a user has requested speedy deletion of the page under G11. --Saqib (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took down the G11 tag, as it is clearly inappropriate and serves no purpose except to circumvent an on-going discussion which is clearly pointing to the preservation of the article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@And Adoil Descended: Perhaps your judgement was wrong and thus your NPR has been removed. Merely voting !keep is not enough to rescue AfDs. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A highly childish response to an appropriate removal of an erroneous G11 tag. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not a google event, so the name is incorrect. Per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and this article is precisely that: unambiguous promotion. I also found the sources (even though they are all from well known media outlets (Daily Pakistan, The News International, The Express Tribune, Boy Genius Report,Zee News and The Nation (Pakistan)) suspiciously similar. With the exception of the Tribune, they're virtually identical, and there is no reason to cite them all other than to give the impression that the event has received much attention in the press. I suspect they are all minor rewrites from release by a news agency, probably INP (inp.net.pk). That's not a lot of independent reporting, that's one piece that got republished a number of times. Given the state of the media, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was paid for. It certainly reads that way. Vexations (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  (expand) another point I want to make is that all the coverage in the media precedes the event. For a truly notable event, one that received much critical attention and was the subject of in-depth analysis, one would expect to see a lot of coverage AFTER the event took place. That's not the case here. We have announcements, and then nothing. Vexations (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--Echo word by word of whatever Saqib and Vexations said.Clear paid-PR-spam.See also the new guidelines, which has been adopted for usage at these cases and the rigorous vetting of sources.I will further not e that, none of the participants over here, seems to have got even tangential ideas about the existence of WP:ATA, which may be a quite-prudential read, in the circumstances.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)I was alerted of this AfD, at my talk-page, which consisted of a notification, sufficiently neutral, to not fell afoul of our canvassing guidelines and neither have I and Saqib, crossed our paths, significantly, ever before.[reply]

How ironic that Winged Blades of Godric is complaining of "canvassing" when his participation in this discussion is blatantly based on Saqib canvassing him to participate [[48]], despite his holier than thou insistence that this is not the case. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I believe the G11 was appropriate. artspam.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  PS fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Mr. Saqib invited User:Winged Blade of Godric to participate in this discussion which is clearly conflict f interesrt. --Arif80s (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mr. @Saqib: has no interest in deleting these articles except moving people away from contributing to sum of knowledge, whenever they raise any question to his actions. One such clear example can be found my talk page at English Wikipedia when (in September 2016) I removed list of Karachi from WLM project as Karachi is part of Sindh and he had separately made list for the city and did not do so for other provincial capitals of Pakistan. Then he did not found my significant contributions on English Wikipedia thus he nominated my contributions for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Here is my talk page on Commons where dates and times are very similar to English Wikipedia talk page. Google Tech Mela was created in 2015 but Mr. Saqib has realized it now, otherwise non notable articles articles are deleted within minutes. This clearly shows there is some hidden cause for it. I request WMF supervisors to kindly ban his account on immediate basis, in order to keep contributors from Pakistan attracted towards Wikipedia.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - it was highly inappropriate to remove the G11 tag, this is unadulterated promotion for a non-notable event. --bonadea contributions talk 14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - this requires a fundamental rewrite to become an encyclopedia article, this is blatantly promotional. "...exclusive deals and discounts of up to 30%..." is encyclopedic how? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If article needs a rewrite then it must be rewritten; deleting article is not going to towards a positive contribution.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete perfect G11 Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Minor event and G11. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 3 April 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.