From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 April 29 April >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Missy Jay

Missy Jay (  | 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 musician, fails WP:GNG. The references are simply listings and advertisements for the musician. Lacks third-party sources MassiveYR ♠ 23:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete unless serious references to reliable sources are added before the AfD closure period comes around. bd2412 T 01:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the article is well-written and I can tell that a lot of work went into it's preparation, however the only listed sources establishing her notability are WP:QUESTIONABLE; in other words the only ones listed are promotional in nature. In addition, many of these "separate sources" are from different events listed on the same website. The author needs to understand that promotional (travel, leisure, etc...) websites have a vested interest in publishing material on artist that can attract attention to either themselves or a particular locale. For this reason, this is not a proper means of establishing notability, since this would by proxy open up Wikipedia itself to being used in this manner (see WP:NOTADVERTISING). If there were independent publications from established third party sources, and you can't go wrong with news organizations, then I'd support this article. As it stands, there aren't even any acceptable Italian sources listed here. I suggest trying look for acceptable references, otherwise this article is likely going to be deleted. I wish you luck. unak 1978 18:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sandy_"Mama"_Reinhardt

AfDs for this article:
Sandy_"Mama"_Reinhardt (  | 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 seems to fail to meet notability criteria and article does not make clear assertion of subject's notability. BodaciousTattvas ( talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article does indeed appear to meet the bar of WP:MUSICBIO, to which even the nominator agrees in discussion below. The article does need a bit of cleanup to remove some unsourced info. A Train talk 10:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Jean Johnson (singer)

Jean Johnson (singer) (  | 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 musician. Johnson is a backup and session singer who has had some minor success, but not to the level that rises to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Claims that Johnson was nominated for a Grammy are not supported by reliable sources (and a nomination, without a win, would not meet the criteria anyway). Claims that her "work on [ Sandra Crouch's] album subsequently won the Grammy for Best Gospel Performance, Female" can also not be verified. (Crouch did win the Grammy; what is unverifiable is whether any credit for that win can go to Johnson.) WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

All that said, WikiDan is correct that it doesn't seem that this person was, at least according to what I call a reliable source. Unless one is offered I would say delete as not meeting the notability guidelines. 331dot ( talk) 17:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

She is a Grammy nominated singer here https://books.google.com/books?id=tDYftTBTFyEC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=jean+johnson+and+sandra+crouch+grammy&source=bl&ots=eX0yfzcF5X&sig=9k0mYxyfFb1zQICQYDcAtKrOJcs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizodbQyLPTAhWFilQKHflwADUQ6AEIHTAB#v=onepage&q=jean%20johnson%20and%20sandra%20crouch%20grammy&f=false


Or what about the ever so popular Jet magazine. Oh wait u may be skeptical of them too - here -'

And here is bill board official newspaper sir https://books.google.com/books?id=ACQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT63&dq=jean+johnson+and+sandra+crouch+grammy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilmemZz7PTAhUJ64MKHcUDDjoQ6AEIIjAC#v=onepage&q=jean%20johnson%20and%20sandra%20crouch%20grammy&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyonne TalentSupporter1 ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I looked at the Billboard magazine linked to above this post, and I did barely make Johnson's name out(under 'Best Soul Gospel Vocal Performance by a duo, group, choir, or chorus'). I'll leave it to others to decide if that is sufficient or not, but it does seem to be there. That doesn't change the other issues with the article itself, as described by Walter above. 331dot ( talk) 18:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply


Here is another article- you would be able to see it if u just hit the zoom in button on google as they put it there for that reason. Here is Jet magazine where she was projected to win... https://books.google.com/books?id=NrMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA58&dq=jean+johnson+completely+yes+jet&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVx7ip4bPTAhXIqlQKHS4zAzkQ6AEIGjAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyonne TalentSupporter1 ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment @ Keyonne TalentSupporter1: Taking your points one at a time:
    • The book Uncloudy Days ( ISBN  9780879308414) notes that Sandra Crouch won a Grammy for her album We Sing Praises. It further notes that Johnson sang lead on one track of that album, "He's Worthy." It does not record that Johnson received any Grammy notice (nomination or win) for her participation in that album.
    • The Jet article from January 27, 1986 does verify that Johnson was nominated, along with Sandra Crouch, for "Best Soul Gospel performance by a Duo, Group, Choir or Chorus" for the album Completely Yes. It does not verify that this album was favored to win in any particular way.
    • The Billboard article verifies the same information.
At best, we have a singer who was co-nominated, but did not win, a Grammy for a single album. Under WP:BLP1E, I'd say that we might allow a redirect to the Sandra Crouch article, with a mention of Johnson's name as co-nominee for Completely Yes. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply


- @ WikiDan61: it clearly says official Grammy nominations- you are just being difficult. You are an expert in reading so why can't you see that. I clearly see your point. She was nominated period. maybe if her last name was Streisand she wouldn't have this problem. Even sag Aftra recognizes her as such. https://books.google.com/books?id=ACQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT63&dq=jean+johnson+and+sandra+crouch+grammy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilmemZz7PTAhUJ64MKHcUDDjoQ6AEIIjAC#v=onepage&q=jean%20johnson%20and%20sandra%20crouch%20grammy&f=false

  • Comment @ Keyonne TalentSupporter1: What clearly says "official Grammy nominations"? (Just trying to clarify your point.) As I have said, I have no doubt that Johnson officially received a Grammy nomination. And as such, according to WP:MUSIC, she is presumed notable. But Wikipedia requires reliable sources to verify all of the information in an article. At this time, the only information that we can verify from reliable sources is that Johnson received a Grammy nomination for an album on which she appeared. That's not a lot to build an article on. Wikipedia practice in cases where people are notable only for a single event is to redirect the article to the event for which the person is notable. In this case, I recommend a redirect to Sandra Crouch. I have already expanded that article to include Johnson's co-nomination for the album Completely Yes, using the Jet article as a citation. Unless we can find other published sources that talk about Ms Johnson in more depth, there's not much more to say about her. Any details about her early life should be deleted as unverifiable, and her involvement as a session musician for various other albums do not appear to be notable. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ WikiDan61: Are you blind!?! It says in big bold letters 28th annual Grammy awards final nominations. Get real. You should just retire and get off here. She was nominated whether you like it or not and it constitutes a notable person page. Sorry Charley. She was one of the few blacks that broke pass that wall your people put up :)

Please stop with the baseless racism accusations. 331dot ( talk) 20:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Keyonne TalentSupporter1: I'm tapping out here. I've made my points. You've made yours. Any further debate between us would just lead to anger. Let's let others discuss. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 23:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Johnpacklambert: As I state above, the notability criteria states that being nominated is sufficient for notability. 331dot ( talk) 07:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
There was initially some confusion as to whether this person was nominated, but it has now been cleared up. I can't speak for others, but consider me a 'keep' now. 331dot ( talk) 22:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
OK, you probably should strike your delete !vote then. St Anselm ( talk) 22:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I will, though my delete opinion was conditioned on a lack of further information. 331dot ( talk) 17:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Javier Sánchez De Felipe

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

Youth academy player without a top-level appearance. Fails WP:NFOOTY. May just be too soon for an article, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - There is no information or statistics outside of who he is and which academy he is a part of. There is no reference made as to whether or not he has even participated in matches for Real Madrid's B team. Only sources referenced are WP:PRIMARY sources from Real Madrid's website. Real Madrid has hundreds of academy players who never end up taking the field professionally. At the very least some WP:SECONDARY sources need to be included in order to establish verified notability. This doesn't even take into account the incorrect infobox used and lack of structure, no placement of relevant categories or even WikiProject inclusion so that it can be assessed and improved by other editors. I understand that this article is a stub, but any editor creating content, should be acutely aware of the need to provide enough content to establish the need for it's presence before leaving it for future edits for risk of deletion. I've been down the same road myself, and I learned from it. unak 1978 18:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ala Qubbaj

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

Disputed PROD. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. His biography seems typical of any university administrator or professor, with no claims to notability. I found no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources in the article are weak; they're primary, associated with the subject, or don't support the article's claims. Pburka ( talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

X Sharp

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

Lacks even a single reliable source to establish anything whatsoever, never mind notability. Googling and searching also at Amazon, I expected but was not even able to find the usual how-to programming books on the topic. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Msnicki ( talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

A number of sources have since been added, but all are primary and/or self-published as discussed below, still leaving us with nothing to establish WP:Notability under WP:GNG. Msnicki ( talk) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • The article was originally based directly on the relevant source code of the Cosmos project. COSMOS, a popular platform for building custom operating systems, uses X# primarily for writing snippets of native code that are called when a low-level snippet or program critical on performance needs to be executed.
The X# the deletion proposal above is referring to is a new project that does not bear any resemblance to the programming language that is the subject of this article. I am of the opinion that the overall structure of the article is good and provides basic information on the characteristics of the language, which is useful not only for the developers looking up the language for the first time.
I have notified the COSMOS developers.
FrewCen ( talk) 07:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Please do not "notify" anyone. That's called WP:CANVASSING. What's needed to keep the article are reliable sources discussing the topic in detail. I don't believe those sources exist and without the sources to demonstrate notability, the article must go, no matter how "useful". For more on how to contribute to an AfD, please read WP:AFD and WP:ATA. Msnicki ( talk) 09:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
You don't believe that there are reliable sources discussing X# in detail. What about the official source code I mentioned above, which defines exactly how the language behaves? There is nothing more reliable and descriptive when it comes to computer programs. I consider it to be a bit strange to point out to a lack of sources and simultaneously categorize calling in the X# developers as canvassing, since it's them who, if no one else, could provide those sources.
Let us turn this constructive - since it has already been proven that X# is a thing while not being related to xBase, and that this article is based on the publicly-available source code, I think that the description "Unable to find sources" doesn't mirror any current problem. What further action would need to be taken in order to emphasize this fact (e. g. adding citations, more pointers to the COSMOS article...)?
FrewCen ( talk) 10:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I had hoped you'd read the sections of our guidelines to which I provided links. To establish notability requires multiple independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail in reliable sources with reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Each of those words means something here on Wikipedia, as explained in WP:GNG. Basically, the essence of notability is that other people not connected to the subject must discuss it in depth and do it in reliable sources. You don't have that. The code for X# was (obviously) written by the people who invented it. That makes it WP:PRIMARY, meaning it does not contribute to notability. Msnicki ( talk)
  • Good morning I'm one of the Cosmos developers and I can ensure you that indeed X# does exists! We use it daily... I can admit that Cosmos has a "marketing" problem having only a GitHub website and so yes the only other source of X# is our code:
https://github.com/CosmosOS/Cosmos/tree/master/source/XSharp.Compiler
Let me know if you need anything to avoid the deletion of the article.
P.S. The other X# is using the same name but it is not the same thing.
FanoI ( talk) 09:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that FanoI ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. reply
  • Firstly, this deletion discussion is about the Cosmos component, not the xBase library. I simply brought that up as the xBase library appears to be better known, and I didn't want people to confuse the two. Secondly, nobody is disputing that X# exists. Finally, please review WP:GNG. If X# hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (e.g. books, academic journals, magazines) then it's not notable by Wikipedia's standards. It might become notable in the future, but it's not there yet. Pburka ( talk) 13:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • One more thing: when challenging deletion, many editors try to find other articles on Wikipedia which they feel are similar to the one nominated for deletion, and say "what about these pages?". Please review WP:OTHERSTUFF before following that path. If you want this article to be kept, the surest route is to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, per the policies at WP:GNG. Pburka ( talk) 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I add some external pages that talk of X#: Channel 9 interview of the lead developer of Cosmos: [1] Article on Codeplex: [2]
We put a lot of effort on write this page in the hope too to get more interest on Cosmos and X# itself if you remove it this chance is lost (and so the fact that there are not external sources regarding X# will aggravate), if you want to open the article on the other X# cannot simply add a disambiguation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanoI ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/On-NET/Chad-Z-Hower-aka-Kudzu-Cosmos
  2. ^ https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/220076/Csharp-Open-Source-Managed-Operating-System-Intro
Your first source is an WP:INTERVIEW with the the developer talking about his own stuff. That makes it WP:PRIMARY. Your second source appears to be a blog on a WP:USERGENERATED site. That's secondary, but it's not WP:RELIABLE. Neither of these count toward WP:Notability. Re: your other arguments, please consider the advice at WP:HARDWORK, WP:PLEASEDONT and WP:VALINFO. Then read WP:GNG. We have a fairly technical set of guidelines by which we decide whether to keep pages, so it's helpful to familiarize yourself with those guidelines when formulating your arguments at an AfD. Msnicki ( talk) 20:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki ( talk) 19:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete thrilled to know the thing exists. Does not have WP:RS from independent sources. Wholly sourced from "Cosmos team", who seemingly swooped into this discussion perform damage control. Quick scan leaves me w/ impression eligible for WP:CSD#G11. To quote from company rep above, "We put a lot of effort on write this page in the hope too to get more interest on Cosmos and X# itself" Reassurances from the people who stand to benefit from the article staying in terms of free advertising fail to reassure me that this is anything but blatant advertising. Dloh cierekim 02:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, a lot of sound and noise but not a lot of attention from anyone who isn't involved with the project. How can a neutral encyclopaedic article be written without sources from those who are not a part of the "Cosmos Team"? Does not meet WP:GNG. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Dmitri Nusinow

Dmitri Nusinow (  | 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:NPROF (nor is his skateboarding notable). While his work is interesting, there's no indication that he's more notable than the average scientist. The article may be autobiographical, as it includes details about his personal life and influences which aren't apparent in the sources. Pburka ( talk) 21:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 01:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

List of Squares in Minsk

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

Indiscriminate, seemingly irrelevant small list. No explanation on notability. Other issues as well. South Nashua ( talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Potentially could become notable some day, but right now consensus agrees that is not right now. Can be restored at WP:DRV should that day arrive. — foxj 23:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Susan Stamper Brown

Susan Stamper Brown (  | 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 appears to fail the criteria at the relevant notability guideline, WP:JOURNALIST. VQuakr ( talk) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • The subject fits the criteria of relevant notability guideline. Was ranked 41st best conservative columnist for 2016. Bill Kristol [1]was ranked #42. [2] Wikimeeeeeee ( talk) 23:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) The subject fits the criteria at the relevant notability guideline WP:JOURNALIST based on WP definition [3] "Depending on the context, the term journalist may include various types of editors, editorial writers, columnists, and visual journalists, such as photojournalists (journalists who use the medium of photography)." Wikimeeeeeee ( talk) 22:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC) The subject fits the criteria at the relevant notability guideline based on Google search hits on 2017 April 28 at 3,400,000 as compared to conservative columnist Michelle Malkin at 488,000 and leftwing Froma Harrop at 62,500. Wikimeeeeeee ( talk) 22:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ /info/en/?search=William_Kristol
  2. ^ http://rightwingnews.com/column-2/326270/
  3. ^ /info/en/?search=Journalist
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

It is wise to consider that WP loses credibility if bias (left or right wing) influences deletion decisions. Wikimeeeeeee ( talk) 19:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)— Wikimeeeeeee ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dloh cierekim 16:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Wikimeeeeeee:Doubt Wikipedia has any credibility to lose, as I am constantly told how unreliable it is. We discarded google-count or # of G-hits as a measure of notability a decade ago. Dloh cierekim 02:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom and per Bonadea. Links to her byline or the outlet she writes for are not reliable sources independent of the subject. Links to her writings ditto. The award is far less significant that it would appear, and does not appear unconnected to the subject. WP:Gale search was unavailing. This looks like a clever promotional piece designed to promote her and her work. it is not referenced to WP:RS. As far as our reputation goes, it suffers when we fail to remove articles about non notable subjects that are promotional by nature. And the hallmark of a correct decision is the cries of "BIAS!" from those who cannot see an article objectively. Dloh cierekim 03:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Brandon TTT Michaels

Brandon TTT Michaels (  | 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 the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Pichpich ( talk) 20:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hiren Chandra Nath

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

Only claim of notability is being police commissioner of a large city. That's not sufficient per WP:POLITICIAN, the closest specific WP:BIO I could find. Refs seem typical for a non-elected less-than-state-level position, and nothing beyond having this position. DMacks ( talk) 20:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Ethereal Plane

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

PROD removed without explanation, after searching for RSes it appears to have no coverage at all. Fails GNG and NFILM. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete as a hot spirit in the material world, I long for the ethereal. Alas, not this iteration. Oh, wait. "delete per nom" is so clichéd and yet so apt. made the checks. same results. NN no RS Dloh cierekim 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as the Keep votes have visibly shown this in fact satisfies the applied notability standards here, WP:PROF, and that's what it takes for acceptance; any concerns about primary sources is not applicable by WP:PROF nor relevant, and there is no current promotionalism nor have any evident signs been shown to support this (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Peter Smagorinsky

Peter Smagorinsky (  | 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 of this WP:BLP lacks WP:N. It's mostly developed by the subject or people related to him and doesn't meet WP:NPOV criteria. Distinguished professor is an internal recognition at The University of Georgia. Wikieditor1332 ( talk) 20:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I did close this as "delete", but according to @ Necrothesp: being an "internal recognition" does not exempt "distinguished professor" status from WP:NACADEMIC inclusion criteria. So, relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 19:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Giant of Hillsboro Bay

Giant of Hillsboro Bay (  | 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 sources provides do not meet the requirements for reliability as discussed at WP:RS. Even so, the sources provided do not appear to mention the "Giant of Hillsboro Bay". VQuakr ( talk) 19:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The story of the supposed giant skeletons found in Florida is probably worthy of a Wikipedia page, but the topic of this article, the Hillsboro Bay Giant, is only supported by a angelfire page. I can't find any reliable sources repeating the story. Pburka ( talk) 22:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • 'ConfirmThis is a folktale, a story of oral tradition that I heard at a cracker folktale festival. By their very nature folktales are not true. Is the debate here whether or not this is true or that it is a folktale? Im just trying to be nice and share something I learned about is not yet included on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp142 ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    • It doesn't need to be true, but the folktale must be notable to be included in Wikipedia. This means that the folktale has been discussed in reliable sources, such as newspapers, book, or academic journals. Pburka ( talk) 03:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Well, since the giant skeleton article was published in like 50 newspapers over 5 years, been on television program "In Search of Giants" etc...would you feel better if the page was called Tampa Giant Skeleton? I thought the most interesting part was the legend that I heard at the folktale festival and only could find the angel fire source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp142 ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I think that a page about the "Tampa giants" (or similar title) would certainly be appropriate, if it were carefully sourced. It could discuss the initial reports, reactions, and the subsequent debunking. However everything would need to be supported by references to WP:reliable sources. Pburka ( talk) 15:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Here is a related article suggesting that the giant is just a mythic Tampa Tribune a few years ago.... http://www.tbo.com/lifestyle/dont-be-fooled-by-these-old-tampa-myths-387168 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp142 ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Fp142: we do understand it is a folk tale; that is not why we are discussing the idea of deleting it. You mention "50 newspapers" above, but I get 0 hits on Google newspapers. VQuakr ( talk) 04:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two relists and no further arguments made to delete, there appears to be no great urgency on the part of the community to remove this article. A Train talk 10:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Journal of Specialised Translation

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. None of the databases in which the journal claims to be indexed are selective, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "MLA is the most selective index in the field". However, examination of the MLA website makes it clear that this index strives for comprehensiveness within its subject, so that it i snot a selective index in the sense of NJournals. Therefore, PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 09:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Specialized translation is a very small specialization. It would be amazing if such a small field would be served by multiple journals. The list you link to, "is open for editing; please feel free to add or correct details" and seems to be an exhaustive list of journals in the field of translation studies. Neither of your comments seems to indicate any notability. -- Randykitty ( talk) 06:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
No, the page links to another list that is "open for editing". St Anselm ( talk) 06:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep. Lack of indexing in major selective databases does not help in ascertaining compliance with WP:GNG. However, I suspect recognised journals in niché fields might not be much bothered with listings, and considering that Google returns around 670 hits of "specialised translation"+jostrans, I would give it benefit of doubt. Another issue I have is that the article successfully cleared AfC – it will not look serious if we first promote it from draft to mainspace and subsequently delete it. — kashmiri  TALK 00:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:GHITS? And are you proposing that for journals in niche fields we should "not be bothered" with any considerations of notability (or even independent sources)? And if some editor lets something slip through AFC, that means we have to waive all our usual requirements? (You apparently don't see the AFC-cleared articles that I sometimes see...) You can't be serious. -- Randykitty ( talk) 06:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with GHITS in principle, but as regards modern-day academic publishing I venture to say there is a direct correlation between influence (and therefore notability) of an online academic journal and its online presence. If a journal is widely quoted in a number of independent online sources, then we get a hint it may be notable. Do you work in the field of specialised translation? I guess not. Me neither. @ StAnselm: above pointed to a published academic book ( WP:SECONDARY) that clearly says this journal is an important one in its field. Me, then, I pointed to how widely it is linked to. See, we have been editing on the same subjects for a long time, so I am not going to fight nails and teeth about this article, but in all fairness I think you are mixing up a well-established, 13-years-old journal resulting from international co-operation of several state universities in Europe, albeit in a niche field, with some local initiatives of yesteryear we come across too many. — kashmiri  TALK 09:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This article is 99% promotional nonsense. That said, I'm not thrilled about deleting it. Aside from the obvious systemic bias concerns, I think it is not unreasonable to argue that appearing on the Forbes 30 Under 30 List passes the bar of the general notability guideline, however modestly. That said, no editors have seen fit to make such an argument in the discussion below. Combined with the obvious promotional nature of the article (which even includes dates for future speaking engagements), I think it is entirely within policy to delete. No prejudice against the article re-eappearing with a more modest length and encyclopedic tone. A Train talk 10:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Obinwanne Okeke

Obinwanne Okeke (  | 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've declined a speedy request on this as IMO it's not irredeemable spam, and there do appear to be some sources out there. However, I'm not convinced this is actually salvageable, so bringing it here for further opinions. Procedural AfD so I abstain.  ‑  Iridescent 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a case of WP:PROMO as it is not neutral and praises the subject in the voice of Wikipedia. As he may be notable IMO it would be best for this version to go and a new version started in draftspacee and going through the WP:AFC process Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete I partially agree with Atlantic306. A new unbiased, non WP:PROMO version should come through. But it can also be worked on current article without deleting it. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Spring Gel

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

Irreparable failure to meet GNG as its manufacturer also fails. — ATS 🖖  talk 18:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No references found for the product or the company, so fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Further the subject is covered (and this product is mentioned) in Energy gel. There are many reliable reference sources for the general subject of energy gels, such as this one. But nothing comes up for this specific product other than the manufacturer's website. Geoff | Who, me? 19:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mohamed Zakaria Boulahia

Mohamed Zakaria Boulahia (  | 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. Burning Pillar ( talk) 18:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

No Vacancy (OneRepublic song)

No Vacancy (OneRepublic song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a song released today. The only sources I could find were mentions in a couple of blogs. Fails WP:NSONG. - Mr X 18:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep - new single by a very notable band. Jdcomix ( talk) 18:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Notability is NOTINHERITED. - Mr X 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - already has coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, per Sergecross73's research. Rlendog ( talk) 14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Sergecross73's research. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above comments. It already has coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, as already show by Sergecross73's research. The "media machines" and "propaganda campaigns" claims are not appropriate for this discussion; please stick to Wikipedia policy in future AfD discussions and not your personal opinions; otherwise, I would simply suggest to avoid AfD discussions altogether if you do not want to constructively contribute to these types of discussions (especially as I have noticed issues with your contributions to AfD multiple times in the past). Aoba47 ( talk) 15:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Unais vt

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

Minimal coverage from secondary sources. Only references appear to be from a blog. Blackguard 17:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
...And I've re-added the AFD template someone took down. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A particularly sound argument by User:Ravenswing. A Train talk 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply

List of American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers

List of American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory on people commentating on sports games. T v x1 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply


  • Delete - Article violates WP:NOTDIR. XboxGamer 22408talk to me 17:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete clearly runs afoul of WP:NOT. LAroboGuy ( talk) 22:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Let's put it this way! Say you tune into ESPN Classic or any other outlet that is broadcasting an old sports broadcast (say prior to your birth or from a time in which you were either too young to remember or simply prior to you getting interested in one particular sport in the first place), and that immediately arouses your curiosity over whom exactly did the commentary for said game. Also, it must be stressed that many sportscasts up until about the mid-1970s were erased by the networks (such as the first two Super Bowls and many World Series telecasts) as a means of saving money and tape space. Therefore, it would likely be much harder to "learn" about who, where and how these particular events were covered (sure you could go to the individual articles of said event, but that's isn't exactly as streamlined and concentrated as the former). BornonJune8 ( talk) 23:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
That's an incredibly naive and shallow statement. You're in effect, devaluing the contributions of the respective sports commentators (by that logic, why should we delve deep into such a thing in the first place) and the networks at hand to have broadcast major events like the Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals, etc. Whether you like it or not, a broadcast (whether it be radio or television) of such an event, is incredibly vital and important to the mass viewing or listening public (especially to those who can't afford to be at the games in person) There are many other various lists that detail/document the historical account of specific entertainment occurrences and the like. In effect, it's just one factor (albeit an important or crucial one none the less) of a much broader spectrum or scope. BornonJune8 ( talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Could you provide some examples of these lists? It sounds like some of them may be candidates for deletion under WP:NOTDIR. LAroboGuy ( talk) 01:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
We would quite frankly and simply quickly enter a sort of "slippery slope" territory or perspective if you were to go that particular route! And since I've already been through this sort of thing before, rather than try come up with a quite lengthy retort, here's what I said in better detail (to just give you some better "food for thought") in regards to TVx1's own suggestions/argument several months ago: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ESPN_College_Football_on_ABC_results

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Monday_Night_Football_results_(1990%E2%80%932009)

BornonJune8 ( talk) 00:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Bare in mind that this article was created in the first place, as a "compromise of sorts" for a deleted template on the same subject. I know that I'm not going to immediately sway your opinion into my own favor, but I none the less, feel that somebody should give more time to consider something somebody else said before quickly jumping to conclusions:

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_9#Template:American_Stanley_Cup_Finals_television_announcers BornonJune8 ( talk) 19:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The reasons this article was created are, frankly, irrelevant. The only thing that matters is, does this article meet notability guidelines set out in WP:LISTN? Has this list been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"? It has not. It also falls squarely in the descriptions of "What Wikipedia is not". Therefore, delete. LAroboGuy ( talk) 02:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I didn't even create that particular article in the first place, so don't entirely lay it on me if you have such a major issue with it. And yes, I've been trying to "supplement" or flesh out (including sources to "back it up") the article by giving a greater detail for the corresponding lists. It isn't purely a simple "list" per se as it is a point-by-point television broadcasting historical documentation (hence the added material that I just mentioned). There are various statistical lists (for the players) regarding the National Hockey League, so how exactly is the broadcasting portion extremely or radically different? BornonJune8 ( talk) 23:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  1. 1 I haven't "laid it on you", as you put it; it doesn't matter who created the article or who maintains it; it's totally irrelevant. #2 See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for why your last sentence has no bearing on keeping or deleting this article. LAroboGuy ( talk) 14:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The deletion of that template should have demonstrated to you that this sort of content doesn't belong here. There was no need to put it somewhere else "as a compromise" at all. If the community decides that something needs to be deleted than that should be respected. Yes, television coverage of sports games has its notability. We have the relevant articles on the coverage of baseball regardless of the existence of this one. Having trivial, indiscriminate lists of commentators on sports games is utterly unnecessary. What matters most of all in sports events is who participates, who wins and how they do, not which exact persons have commentated on them. T v x1 18:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
And what, these said sports events aren't broadcast at all? I mean, how are the fans who aren't their in person going to exactly keep a close track on these events in the first place? And you bring up "relevant articles" on the coverage of baseball yet you on the same token seem imply that the coverage as a whole doesn't really matter (since that isn't the "core" issue, which is a rather blase and narrow-minded suggestion to boldly proclaim). You can't just have it both ways. And you may personally think that something like this is "trivial" or "indiscriminate" (it's way more time consuming anyway to look at singular events, one at a time and learn about the announcers and networks to have broadcast them), but you can't act like you personally speak for the majority. For example, please explain these blogs/sites tracking sports broadcasting history if something like this is none the less, dismissive. At this rate, we might as well not have individual articles in general for sports commentators, if we shouldn't be able to better learn about the significant events that they covered during their respective careers:
http://www.classictvsports.com/
http://sabrmedia.org/databases/network-tv-broadcasts/searchable-network-tv-broadcasts/
http://awfulannouncing.com/
BornonJune8 ( talk) 19:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Could you please actually read what an other user writes. It's quite comical that you come to my talk page to accuse another user of putting words in your mouth only to show that behavior here yourself. I never wrote TV coverage is not important. I just stated that it's less important than the sportive aspect of sports events. We have articles on the sports. We have article on its coverage in the media. Having lists on all people who worked on the broadcast of one sports event is just overkill. T v x1 10:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh, I am reading what others write, hence why I'm responding in the first place. And I went to your talk page because somebody else was talking about me (behind my back), hence why I felt the need to defend myself. Just because I may not exactly or necessarily agree with what others have to say right off the bat doesn't change that. And the broadcasters (or the lists of said broadcasters) is just one but still none the less, crucial component (like there aren't various other lists of some kind devoted to one particular major sporting event to pick off of) of the actual event or league (or even to be more centered, the network's respective coverage itself). The broadcasting aspect in some respects, go hand in hand with the sports event itself. If we don't have announcers and networks covering it (the list on their own, aren't exactly something decidedly "broad" and/or vague or generic), then we're for all intents and purposes (unless you actually purchase a ticket to go to the event in person) going to be left in the dark. BornonJune8 ( talk) x1 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
You do realize that most of these sport leagues actually predate broadcasting, don't you? Many of the leagues started well before the invention of television and even radio. People were kept informed through after-the-event reporting and through attending games. Those leagues were perfectly able to happen without being broadcast and people certainly were aware of what happened. T v x1 10:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
And likewise, you do realize that things evolve over time, especially the way that we keep track of sports? It doesn't make a lot of sense to try to purely see things from the perspective of what predated broadcasting. There was a time in which motion pictures didn't have sound (and either way, were in black and white as well as the early stages of television) to them, so I don't entirely understand that point of view. That's an otherwise, one-note angle to take. And that would be kind of like suggesting that we shouldn't have list devoted to television ratings since there was a point in time in which people didn't watch television (since it wasn't invented yet)! BornonJune8 ( talk) 11:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
It was just a reply to your claim that broadcasting is crucial to sports. The actual reality is that sports have always taken place, with our without broadcasting. T v x1 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Heaven knows I've been branded (with some justification) a deletionist, but I'm failing to see the valid grounds to delete this list beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It meets the requirements of WP:LISTNAME -- the names are overwhelmingly linked to extant articles, the list itself is heavily sourced, it's not at all an open-ended list, and I've seen above the argument for its being encyclopedic. BornonJune8 could stand to have a peek at WP:KEEPCONCISE and be a bit less combative, but the argument's not wrong. Ravenswing 06:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I will note that the "list" has changed considerably since my nomination. When I nominated this it was only a bunch of tables without any form of explanation. Even so, I'm still not convinced of its encyclopedic value. There is certainly enough Wikipedia coverage on the TV broadcasting of this entire sports league. This subject does not warrant a stand-alone article. What's worth mentioning should be put in the already existing articles. T v x1 10:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fred Penner. Redirect restored (I know that some search engines sometimes index different capitalizations so it cannot hurt to leave a redirect), BLP vios revdel'd and page protected to prevent future issues. Mifter ( talk) 01:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Fred penner

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

Seems to be a redirect that has taken a life of its own as a duplicate article. The article is also available at Fred Penner, which I presume is what it was moved too. Skamecrazy123 ( talk) 17:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 17:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Armand Arton

Armand Arton (  | 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 individual- I see that there are some press releases regarding his company, Arton Capital (well, the one cited in the article), but as ever notability is not automatically passed down to the CEO and there are no third party independent reliable sources that I can find on this person. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 16:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hiwot Health Science College

Hiwot Health Science College (  | 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 GNG, ORG. No external references, couldn't find any after a quick search. South Nashua ( talk) 16:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-r0elated deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Inayattullah Altamsh

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find sources demonstrating his notability. Saqib ( talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

^delete no entry at goodreads or worldcat. Dloh cierekim 04:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Naimatullah Hamdani

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find reliable and independent sources that can demonstrate his notability. Saqib ( talk) 16:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was Keep as sufficient notability.. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Xian Jun Loh

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

Trimmed lots of stuff poorly sources. Not sure if this person is notable or not. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Do student awards make one notable [4]?
I see one hits from google news [5] from 2015. Looks like a nitch publication [6] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
As the nominator, you have a responsibility per WP:BEFORE to explain why the awards and fellowships included in the article shouldn't count towards notability. As it is, you've provided no reason the article should be deleted. Pburka ( talk) 17:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• *Keep. Wikipedia:Anybio says about notability of a person: “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.” The article mentions these significant awards/honors: 1) 2011 – Elected Fellow of Fitzwilliam College 2) 1998 - National Science Talent Search Award Merit Winner 3) 2003 – Singapore National Institute of Chemistry (SNIC) Book Prize. The article also mentions a few other awards/honors but whether they are significant awards is a matter of debate. I do agree with User:Pburka who said: “As the nominator, you have a responsibility per WP:BEFORE to explain why the awards and fellowships included in the article shouldn't count towards notability. “ Please avoid causing others unnecessary work. desmay ( talk) 01:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hum good point. Well I would not consider the student awards as showing notability the "Elected Fellow of Fitzwilliam College" does.
Will withdraw. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sadaat-e-Saithal

Sadaat-e-Saithal (  | 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 in a series of WP:OR articles from User:SKZssZZ. I simply can't find any solid evidence that his many Sayyid/Saithal-related forks exist as he defines them. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
It was an A7 (see this). Yashovardhan ( talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I suggest to focus on content, not on contributor. Articles are not deleted from Wikipedia just because author has used bots or because he copies the content elsewhere. If anything, WP:OR would perhaps apply unless we are able to identify supporting sources per WP:PRESERVE. — kashmiri  TALK 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the reminder. I've clarified my comment to scratch out the discussion on the creator.
@ Shawn in Montreal: I think you could have nominated all the pages together under one afd. This could've simplified discussion as the concern in almost all the articles are same. Yashovardhan ( talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Kashmiri, I meant that the article creator has repeatedly been found to be transferring (copyvio) content from his website to this project, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. But no matter: of course the article should be judged on its merits. If anyone can find a coherent, encyclopedic topic in any of his creations I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ Shawn in Montreal: How can there be a copyvio when he adds here his own work? Also, you seem to misunderstrand what NOTWEBHOST is all about. Take a look at web hosting service please, it well describes hosting services that WP aims to be not. I say again: I see no indication this editor is using Wikipedia as a web hosting service. Such prohibited use, certainly, did sometimes happen, mainly when users tried to host images or other high-bandwidth content for their websites on Wikipedia. But creating articles in mainspace certainly does not fall under NOTWEBHOST. If anything, the article should be judged against WP:N and WP:OR. — kashmiri  TALK 10:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not going to waste time and space here, but content or articles can indeed be deleted as copyvio when one adds one's own work, if an OTRS ticket has not been acquired, unfortunately. This is a very common occurrence -- and it seems to have happened several times to this editor quite recently, judging by what one sees in the edit history and page log. As for the rest of it, of course, WP:N is at the heart of whether this article gets deleted. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I can't still get what grounds do you want this article deleted on: technical (copyvio/lack of OTRS ticket, bot use, hosting), notability of article subject, or creator's behaviour? Because discussion seems to be going nowhere. Note that I did not !vote either way - I am only trying to understand what problem do you see with the article or its creator. — kashmiri  TALK 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'll expand on the nomination statement this way: this appears to be another in a series of WP:Walled garden articles from this editor that which a) cannot be verified to exist as he defines it, b) is apparently composed of his own original research claims, c) cannot be found to be notable by any independent reliable sources and d) is such a sprawling mess that I daresay WP:TNT might apply, if there were an encyclopedic topic here. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Heavily prune -- We normally regard populated places as notable, but much of it is repeating material that I am voting to delete in other noms. The merge nomination for Sayyid is certainly inappropriate. Some 1300 years after the death of Mohammed, there are thousands of his descendants, who are often prominent among Muslims. That a town was founded by a descendant is hardly notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Peterkingiron: if I understand correctly, Sainthal, Uttar Pradesh, linked to in the lead, is the populated place. This is another of the author's family tree forks. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom - and salt. It's already been deleted once on 15 April. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt (don't forget Sadaat e Saithal without hyphens). The title suggests this article should be about a family/clan/community, not a populated place like Saithal. A subsubsub branch of an Islamic family is unlikely to be notable among the countless South Asian Muslim families/clans/communities. There are so many sayyids, that being one is hardly a claim of notability anymore. In fact, none of the sources even mention Sadaat-e-Saithal; they are all supporting other marginally related stuff. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 21:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sadaat-e-Sirsi

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

It takes a lot for me to bring a places article to Afd but it looks like we have another problem article from User:SKZssZZ, who's become a fixture at AFD with a WP:Walled garden of interlinked WP:OR articles. None of the references on the article seem to verify the existence of this "ancient village." And of course there's a massive coatrack section of near-gibberish, on "Syed Ali Arab Naqvi." Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was This was a hoax, pure and simple. The links in the article did not exist, and the news articles about the subject never existed. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 14:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

W. B. Baker

W. B. Baker (  | 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 very strange article. i came across it by chance when looking for articles with mentions of the American Biographical Institute. And there are so many things that are wrong with this article I think this is a hoax article built around a Walter Mitty kind of guy. It was created and edited by at least half a dozen SPA accounts. Almost none of the links check out. The claims about the MBE are false, the claims about the Golden Jubilee medal are false, the congressional tribute is full of errors here. the international peace prize was last awarded in 1957 when he was 3. the Queen's Jubilee medal is reserved for service personnel of the UK and Canade and not for service to literature. I could find nothing about the "Magistracy Medal of Honor", I could not find the BBC Hall of Fame, the Royal Star and Garter are homes for injured service personnel, the International Medal of Freedom does not seem to exist. He appears nowhere in the lists of honorary MBEs (see talk page). the Reverend Michael Greene-Butler and Lady Marion Brett exist only in his tribute in his books and a very doubtful obituary for Lady Brett. I can find nothing on him on the web either with W. B. Baker or William A Baker or William Allen Baker a part from his books. I could find no reviews for his books a part from Goodreads. This looks like a massive hoax. Regardless of it being a hoax none of the claims are backed up by reliable sources so it fails WP:GNG Domdeparis ( talk) 14:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Queen Juli Endee

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

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 14:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Absent DGG's concerns, consensus is clearly to keep. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 01:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Stockholm Resilience Centre

Stockholm Resilience Centre (  | 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 people who run the SRC seem to be notable people, but I can barely find any information about the org itself. Scant news hits, with content mainly being "said XYZ of the SRC." Everything else is just press releases and primary sources. Primefac ( talk) 13:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • What exactly is the problem with this page? Is it a matter of needing to include non-primary sources?
I was told by Primefac that I could create another Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) wikipedia page as long as it abided to the rules of Wikipedia commons. I did just that and formatted the page following a pre-existing wikipedia page for the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) which is an associated organisation (according to wikipedia). I used exactly the same kind of primary sources as can be found on the SEI wikipedia page. It only makes sense that a page for the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) exists.
Why is it that a Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) page is able to exist and not one for the SRC in exactly the same format? /info/en/?search=Stockholm_Environment_Institute
It would be much appreciated it you could explain and justify your reasoning on this issue.
If you google the Stockholm Resilience Centre you come up with almost 5 420 results. This is not scant sourcing for the validity of the SRC's work. If you type Stockholm Resilience Centre into Google scholar you come up with over 41, 900 results: https://scholar.google.se/scholar?as_ylo=2017&q=Stockholm+Resilience+Centre&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
Here is a brief selection of secondary sources which mention the Stockholm Resilience Centre:
There is plenty of secondary material and links out there to support the validation of this organisations and it's researchers work. Because of their obvious contribution to other wiki pages like Planetary Boundaries it seems to be a worthy organisation of it's own page.
I would like to stress again that the information presented on the page is purely factual information about this organisation, not promotion. If there is anyway to improve it to prevent it being deleted please let me know and I will do my best to improve it GriffithsHR ( talk) 14:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Let's see, where to start.
  • Stockholm Environment Institute's existence falls under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, i.e. just because one page exists doesn't mean we should have a second. Every page is treated on its own merits.
  • On that point, the SEI page is actually pretty terrible. Not sure if it could be deleted but it could definitely use cleanup.
  • You might get a lot of hits, but what do those references actually say? Do they talk about the SRC, or just mention it in passing due to the activities of one of its members?
  • The preceding point is valid for your four references - SRC isn't actually talked about. It is mentioned for hosting an event, defining a word, being in Stockholm, and giving someone a job, respectively.
While none of the coverage you listed is necessarily bad coverage, in order to demonstrate notability we need significant coverage of a group. I couldn't find any, which is why I nominated the page for deletion.
Also, for the record, I never told you to use primary sources. Not sure where you got that idea from. Primefac ( talk) 14:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
BabbaQ, sources like...? Primefac ( talk) 01:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Eighteen other Wikipedia articles currently link to this article. It a key international sustainability research institution which, as BabbaQ says, needs better sourcing, not deleting. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 02:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Uncertain I think they are likely to be important, and I wish we had sources. Almost all the refsare just to people whowork there or are on the board, etc.; That 's the sort of derived notability that is only an indication, not evidence. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Some sources:
  • "...highly performing institutions, such as... the Stockholm Resilience Centre... the centre generates new insights and ideas to improve eco-systems management practices and long-term sustainability." – OECD
  • "...advances the understanding of complex social-ecological systems and generates new and elaborated insights and means for the development of management and governance practices. The Centre advises policymakers from all over the world..." – Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town
  • "... the study on the future development of EU policies to 2050 by... the Stockholm Resilience Centre... attempt[s] to detect environmental, economic, social and policy challenges that have a crucial meaning for reaching a sustainable path... The Stockholm Resilience Centre is a new international centre that advances transdisciplinary research for governance of social-ecological systems..." – European Sustainable Development Network
  • "...advances research on the governance of social-ecological systems with a special emphasis on resilience..." – Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  • "...leading the charge to put global development on a sustainable footing... It is interdisciplinary, bringing together the expertise of researchers in all disciplines with something to add to research into The centre uses its research to advise policymakers from around the world on ways to put development on a more sustainable footing." – Stockholm University
  • "...a joint effort of the Stockholm University, the Beijer Institute of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Stockholm Environment Institute that now pool their competences, international networks and collaborators to further the advancement of interdisciplinary science for sustainability. ...The Stockholm Resilience Centre will continuously advice policy makers nationally, in Europe and internationally, and develop innovative collaboration with relevant actors from local social-ecological systems to the global policy arena." – Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research
  • "... an international interdisciplinary centre for research into socioecological systems, i.e. systems where mankind and nature are studied as an integrated whole. The focus is on the resilience of systems — their ability to cope with change and to be developed further. The aim is to contribute new insights and tools that permit ecosystem service production that is sustainable in the long term, and stronger resilience for human welfare." – Swedish Royal Court
-- Epipelagic ( talk) 08:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Rachel Brogan

Rachel Brogan (  | 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:CREATIVE and WP:GNG and i will be bundling a number of other connected subjects Domdeparis ( talk) 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hamlin (2016 Film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) fails WP:NFILM
Gemma North (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) fails WP:NACTOR
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) -- George Ho ( talk) 15:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Death of Ingrid Lyne

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

When this article was nominated for deletion last year, I voted keep due to a small amount of coverage of this as an example of the dangers of meeting people at online dating sites. Although there was one such article recently in local media, I was wrong about notability. We have now passed the 1 year anniversary of this murder, without so much as a 1-year later article in a local paper. Coverage appears to have dried up shortly after the AfD closed as "no consensus." I see nothing beyond the tragedy of an horrific but non-notable murder.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion was not listed on a daily log. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 28. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The title was previously "Ingrid Lyne", right? It was renamed due to WP:NCRIME and WP:BIO1E (not to be confused with WP:BLP1E). However, the event itself ("Death of...") still meets WP:NEVENTS, particularly WP:LASTING and/or WP:COVERAGE. Reading the whole article, seems it is one of online dating incidents gone bad. Well... it's sensational, but the content still has some value. George Ho ( talk) 15:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw deletion nomination. I took a closer look, and found teh Chicago Tribune summer 2016 writing that "media outlets across the country closely followed the story of Ingrid Lyne, ..." in a story about the dangers of online dating [8]. Withdrawing my nomination on the grounds that the fact that national media "closely followed" the investigation as it unfolded, and that it was used even in places far form the scene of the crime as an example of the dangers of online dating make it notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jacob Sartorius#Tours. North America 1000 02:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Last Text World Tour

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

Notability. This is not a notable tour or artist. There are only two sources on the page and none of them are independent which goes along with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wizardofoz30

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD was never added to log
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber ( Leave a message) 12:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber ( Leave a message) 14:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nominator appears to be referring to vandalism on the article, which he quite rightly removed. However we do not have a valid deletion rationale, per WP:SKCRIT. Vandalism on an article is not a reason to delete. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Ruairí Deane

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

recentinappropriateactivityandnegativepersonalchanges BP16 ( talk) 11:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Creating deletion discussion for Ruairí Deane (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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. Kurykh ( talk) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

U-Tech College Of Computer Education Akingam Kashmir

U-Tech College Of Computer Education Akingam Kashmir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Searches turned up no in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Monk Giel

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

This article is at heart a violation of not news. The tussel between the Belgian juvenial authorities and this person and his mother was a news incident, not an incident that made him notable. Thus this also violates 1 event issues, but the event is not notable enough for an article. Beyond this, the sourcing is horrendous. At present that article relies on facebook and twitter more than anything else, not reliable sources. The other two sources I can't quite figure out, but they may not be reliable. I was able to find another source that might be reliable, but nothing to show this rises above a news issue for a 15-year-old. Giel is now 18 or 19, but no one seems to have taken note of his actions in the last 3 years. Being a Buddhist monk is not a claim to notability, and the stand off with the Belgian authorities is not enough to create notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Also, the article has been tagged for BLP concerns of not having enough sources for a while. We need to reliably source material in biographies of living people, especially ones who are fairly young and have no strong claim to being public figures, and there is no sign of sourcing here in some cases outside of facebook. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Adam's Attic

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND for lack of reliable sources for anything beyond trivial mentions. - Mr X 11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Murphy Smith

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

A contested prod. A non-notable minor league baseball player who appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N Mattlore ( talk) 03:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Baltz

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

A contested prod. Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Mattlore ( talk) 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hatch Labs

Hatch Labs (  | 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 relationship with Tinder is not enough for notability & there is nothing else. It's already mentioned in the Tinder article, so there's nothing worse merging. . DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 17:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Adam Gilmour

Adam Gilmour (  | 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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 05:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 17:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Nick Ellis (ice hockey)

Nick Ellis (ice hockey) (  | 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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 05:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Lawrence Kandaswami

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

Insufficient RS to pass GNG, either cited in article or elsewhere. DarjeelingTea ( talk) 12:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Steve Christie (ice hockey)

Steve Christie (ice hockey) (  | 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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 17:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Chad Brandimore

Chad Brandimore (  | 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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 14:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Carter Beard

Carter Beard (  | 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 sources/references to verify information and to confirm notability of this person. Career section seems very detailed, almost like CV. Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 11:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 11:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. The article is a blatant hoax so falls under WP:CSD#G3. Additionally, the sole author of the article requested deletion by adding a {{ db-author}} tag. Mz7 ( talk) 02:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Ròstemwu Palace

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

Possible hoax, Bellun and Fuland yields no Google results. Neither does Rostemwu Palace, King Ota II or Cądytći Rołazya architect. Sources are all invalid. lovkal ( talk) 08:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The images in the article are not legitimate, as they are photos of other palaces, such as the Palace of Kozłówka. lovkal ( talk) 09:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  12:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Habib Haddad

Habib Haddad (  | 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 did what I could to remove the promotionalism here, but I can not get the article to a state that is not promotional but still shows notability--the notability is too borderline. His various roles have been most co-founder, co-... which does not make it clear his actual contribution. I left in the awards, but I think the two alumni rewards are utterly useless as far as notability is concerned--a person is not notable because his own university thinks he is. I see no reason to think the Arab Creativity Awards notable, and I would take the MIT award much more seriously if it had been from the university, not the university magazine, and not been under-35; and had not been limited to "pan-Arab". I cannot figure out how many people they called "top innovator" because the link does not work & is not the main university site or the magazine site. . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I went through the article and made edits to:

- removed what can be "promotional" - added links and citations to all claims - broke down & reorganized information for more clarity - clarified importance of contribution through citations & additional information (notability particularly related to Middle East, youth, entrepreneurship) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4880:5771:5D67:7F58:F9F2:A4DC ( talk) 19:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- still a promotional CV; Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Achievements / coverage are not substantial to warrant a encyclopedia article. The language such as "nascent entrepreneurship ecosystem" is typical marketing-speak. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The promotional elements have been removed, all that's remaining is appropriate reference to his achievements as required for notability. For contribution, it states he founded Yamli (acquired by Yahoo!), YallaStartup, and Relief Lebanon, besides the others. The MIT award was given through the MIT Technology review which is fully run and published by the MIT university, and also it is important as an award granted to young minority entrepreneurs. The specifications of "under-35" and Arab do not exclude the recipients of the award from being deserving and notable. User:ellco Ellco ( talk) 16:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- still highly promotional with copy such as Habib's work in the MENA region is credited with playing a key role in strengthening its entrepreneurship ecosystem. Still nn per available sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 07:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Vladik Kreinovich

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

Completing nomination per WP:AGF on behalf of an anonymous editor, whose rationale is copied from the talk page verbatim. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

This article fails notability guidelines. It also doesn't cite any sources. The contents are trivial and in line with non-notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:3:3F60:F946:E50A:573E:463F ( talk) 09:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. My personal opinion of fuzzy computing is not high, but his citation record looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1. The article contents are so minimal (current position and a well-chosen and small sample of his publications) that I don't think the sourcing issues are a big problem; there's nothing contentious here, and nothing that couldn't be sourced to a department faculty roster and library catalog. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Citations more than adequate for a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC). reply
  • Delete. There are literally zero independent sources cited (the three books listed that he co-authored cannot technically be considered WP references for an article about their author, and the only other "reference" - a link to his personal page - is by no means an independent source and wouldn't pass a muster of WP standards for secondary sources). So the above-cited WP:PROF#C1 is not applicable. To summarize the list of obvious reasons for deletion:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 07:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:PROF requires reliable sources, but not 3rd party sources--Indexes and bibliographic data bases are reliable sources for publications and citation, and so are official CVs--tho we normaly had something external as well. The guideline is deliberately different from GNG, and is one of our least controversial areas. Perhaps some other areas could do similarly and establish standards that fir the subject field. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, sources are not independent. How can we write a reliably neutral biography of this living person without access to sources that are independent of the subject? Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC). reply
  • Keep - Sorry, but the citation counts alone warrant inclusion. Sure the sourcing needs work, but that can be fixed. Onel5969 TT me 01:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jonnu Smith

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

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Delete as WP:1E Smith's notability appears to stem from his inability to continue playing as a result of an altercation with this partner. Nothing in the article goes beyond that event. Mduvekot ( talk) 21:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Can you fix the article to address that then, please? Mduvekot ( talk) 22:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete College football players are rarely notable as such, and no indication that Smith is an exception. A domestic dispute with his girlfriend that injured him is if anything a negative impact on his notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Agree with delete. But disagree with assertion -- completely -- that a domestic dispute lessens his notablity. Its just the opposite. Notable does not mean "articles about him compliment him." Notability means "there are sufficient articles about him -- good or bad is not at all relevant." 2604:2000:E016:A700:4817:7C35:95FE:6A92 ( talk) 21:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should consider the sources found by Yankees10?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 07:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Springyboy Let me get this straight: You agree that Smith does not currently meet our notability criteria, but we should handle this AfD as if he does meet them, because he will likely meet them at some point in the future? Is that right? Mduvekot ( talk) 11:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Samantha Ryan

Samantha Ryan (  | 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 PORNBIO and GNG. No awards, just nominations. No significant independent, reliable sourcing. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There's basically only one usable "delete" opinion here, by DGG. The others are so peremptory as to be near invalid.  Sandstein  12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Microtek

AfDs for this article:
Microtek (  | 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 Citations and Extrenal References Achintgupta2017 ( talk) 05:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Saxenian, AnnaLee (2006). The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 164–167. ISBN  0674025660. Retrieved 2017-04-28.

      The book notes:

      Taiwan imported its scanner industry from the United States. The founders of Microelectronics Technology (Microtek) were U.S.-educated Chinese engineers who worked together in the 1970s on document engineering, laser printers, and scanners at Xerox. They were also among Taiwan's earliest returning entrepreneurs: they established Microtek International in Hsinchu in 1980 with a liaison office, Microtek Lab, in California. Microtek's first products were in-circuit microprocessor emulators, which sold well and won a prize for the best product at Wescom (a computer industry trade show) in 1981. The founders soon recruited additional returnees from Xerox and by 1983 had broadened the product line to include scanners. Microtek went on to produce the world's first 300-dpi black-and-white sheet-fed scanner in 1985 and remained an industry leader throughout the 1990s by introducing affordable scanners using innovative software and design.

      One of Microtek's biggest initial challenges was the absence of capable suppliers for manufacturing scanners in Taiwan—an especially pressing problem because their main competitors were Japanese firms that had access to a sophisticated domestic infrastructure. Founder Robert Hsieh and his fellow organizers decided to nurture the development of local subcontractors and suppliers. They located a local company that was making low-end lenses and helped it upgrade its capabilities, first by developing a Microtek lens design and then transferring the technology to the firm (one Microtek founder holds fifteen patents in lens design). Over time, they helped to create an independent, world-class lens manufacturer. Similarly, there was no high-precision machining available in Taiwan in the early 1980s, so Microtek's founders worked closely with local machine shops to manually upgrade their capabilities. Hsieh reports that they couldn't initially hold them to U.S. standards, but they worked out ways to jointly develop products with lower tolerances that still achieved high performance levels. As a result, Microtek was the first company to be awarded ISO 9001 certification for its scanners.

      By 1988, when Microtek went public in one of the first technology IPOs in Taiwan (soon after Acer), the firm had helped to create a sophisticated domestic scanner infrastructure. The only components that were not locally available were charge-coupled devices, but the large numbers of competitors in the sector ensured continued supply for Taiwanese producers.

      ...

      Microtek alone accounts for over 20 percent of the world scanner market, and it has diversified into related digital image processing products such as digital cameras, LCD flat-panel monitors, LCD projectors, and PDAs. The firm's commitment to advancing technology is evident in its two R&D labs (one in California and one in Taiwan), which have facilities dedicated to optics design, mechanical and electronic engineering, software development, and product quality. ...

    3. Costello, D. (1998-12-01). "Taiwan Is the Tiger". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.

      The article notes:

      Some of the building blocks of the economy are on display at the Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park, a few hours drive south-west of Taipei. Microtek International, a maker of desktop image scanners and digital cameras, is typical of a successful Taiwanese company. It is compact, with 1200 employees and paid-in capital of $US109 million, but it has international reach with subsidiaries in the US and Europe and market presence with more than 12 percent of worldwide market share for desktop image scanners.

      Microtek is a product leader and in 1984 introduced the world's first image scanner for personal computing. But there is no room for complacency in a changing market, with the company experiencing a drastic fall in prices for scanners and computer monitors.

    4. Read, Richard (1993-05-17). "Taiwan's Business Presence in Oregon Remains Dull". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.

      The article notes:

      When a booming high-technology company in Taiwan called Microtek acquired a Hillsboro firm in 1990, Oregon pundits predicted a wave of Taiwanese investment.

      But the wave, expected as Japanese investment ebbed, never hit the Northwest. Taiwanese firms were too busy surging the other direction -- into mainland China, which suddenly opened for business.

      That doesn't mean that Microtek regrets acquiring Microcosm Inc., a spin-off of Tektronix Inc. and Intel Corp. ...

      A group of Taiwanese entrepreneurs with U.S. business and engineering degrees founded Microtek in 1980. The firm became one of the first occupants of Hsinchu Science Park, a landscaped oasis south of Taipei established by the government as a Taiwanese Silicon Valley.

      The start-up challenged Intel, developing in-circuit emulators for a fraction of the cost of those sold by the semiconductor firm. The emulators allow engineers to test and correct problems in computers and other electronics designed around chips made by Intel and other firms.

      Microtek opened offices in Los Angeles and Dusseldorf, Germany. Then the company acquired Microcosm for its expertise in emulating chips developed by Intel in Hillsboro.

    5. Murray, Geoffrey (1982-06-30). "How Taiwan plans to leap from shoes into software". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.

      The article notes:

      Once upon a time, there were seven extremely bright young Chinese computer specialists holding well-paying jobs with the Xerox Corporation in California.

      But all of them dreamed of returning home to develop their own company. So one day they quit Xerox and did just that. Now they are being hailed here as pioneers of a trend that could eventually plug the longstanding "brain drain."

      In 1980, the seven formed Microtek International Corporation, based in the new Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park. In the first full year of operation (1981) they earned around $700,000. This year the prediction is $2.5 million.

      Ten products have already been marketed, and 16 more are planned this year. Microtek's biggest success has been with a micro in-circuit emulator (MICE), which enables computer engineers to develop and evaluate hardware and software programs for microprocessor-based products

    6. Smith, Elliot Blair (1984-11-09). "Microtek puts chips on table". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.

      The article notes:

      Looking ahead, tiny Microtek Lab of Gardena thinks its new desk-top image scanner could play a big role in the burgeoning computer peripherals market.

      The MS-200 -- which enables the personal computer to grasp an outside image, whether photograph or chart, and merge it with internal text -- did not hit the chalkboard until last February.

      The first prototype was not rolled out until June.

      But Microtek will debut its image scanner at the Comdex trade show in Las Vegas next week.

      And among those who have already expressed an interest in the product are International Business Machines Corp. and Apple Computer.

      ...

      The four-year-old electronics firm, with only 25 employees in Gardena and about 20 more sales representatives nationwide, admits it could not muster a broad marketing campaign of its own.

      In fact, Hsieh -- pronounced "Shay" -- is one of just a handful of American-trained electronics engineers from Taiwan who are the nucleus of Microtek Lab in Gardena, and its corporate parent, Microtek International, in Taiwan.

      Several of the engineers, including Hsieh, worked together at Xerox Corp. in El Segundo and at other Southern California electronics concerns before the founding of Microtek in 1980.

    7. "Federal grand jury indicts high-tech company on Iran trade embargo charges". Associated Press. 1999-07-16. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.

      The article notes:

      A high-tech company that makes equipment to diagnose computer problems has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges it violated a 1995 Clinton administration trade embargo on selling computer equipment to Iran.

      Microtek International Development Systems, a division of Microtek International of Taiwan, manufactures computer-processor emulators, which mimic the operation of computer chips at a slower speed so operators can troubleshoot problems.

    8. "First Chinese foreign issuer stock application withdrawn". Taiwan News. 2014-07-04. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.

      The article notes:

      The Securities and Futures Bureau of the Financial Supervisory Commission has suddenly tightened foreign issuer stock policies. According to reports, this situation is rooted in the ongoing tug of war over Taiwan issuer stock negotiations in the cross-strait service trade agreement. China insists Chinese IPOs employ a “mainland” intermediary. Taiwan has refused to concede this issue leading to deadlocked negotiations. The fallout caused Microtek to withdraw from Taiwan to list in South Korea.

      Currently there has not been easing in foreign issuer stock policy. A number of other mainland issuers have also filed to withdraw their listing applications. According to reports, Microtek will list on the Korea Exchange and others are looking to the Hong Kong Exchange.

    9. Funabiki, Jon (1987-05-15). "Technology seen as the answer - The question being, what will extend the economic boom?". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.

      The article notes:

      Here, you will meet people like Bobo Wang, 40, a UCLA-trained computer expert who left a promising career at the Xerox Corp. in El Segundo, in the Los Angeles area, to co-found Microtek electronics. Started only six years ago, the company now designs and builds state-of-the-art computer-programming equipment, image scanners and computerized factory devices that are sold around the world.

      ...

      The science park made sense to Wang and his four Microtek partners -- all of them native Taiwanese who received graduate degrees in the United States.

      In addition, the Microtek partners were able to start the company on a $1 million investment borrowed from the father of one of the partners. Wang said they would have needed three to four times that amount to set up shop in California's Silicon Valley.

      "The money was planned to carry us through for two to three years with 20 engineers," said Wang. "The costs were lower here, and the chances of success were better."

    10. Lohr, Steve (1982-09-06). "Taiwan Developing High Technology". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.

      The article notes:

      Microtek International Inc. is the best example of Taiwan-born engineers who came home to set up shop in Sinchu. Of the five who founded the company in 1980, three had been senior engineers for the Xerox Corporation.

      Bobo Wang, the 36-year-old president of Microtek, explained why he came back. The seed money of $1 million goes a lot further in Taiwan than it would in the United States, he explained. Today Microtek's main product is a device used to develop microcomputer systems.

      Together, Microtek and a spinoff company that does the final assembly of specialized numerically controlled machines employ 75 workers. More than 50 of them are research and development engineers. "We could never put together a staff of this size and quality for so little money in America," Mr. Wang said.

    11. Sanger, David E. (1988-10-01). "Taipei Journal; Fishing for the Ones That Got Away". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-28. Retrieved 2017-04-28.

      The article notes:

      But unlike the vast majority of Taiwan's "overseas Chinese," Mr. Wang returned seven years ago, at the Government's behest. With four colleagues he founded a small computer company in the Government's high-tech industrial park in Hsinchu, an hour's drive from Taipei. In the next few weeks that company, Microtek, will go public and its founders and a few of its 400 employees will probably become overnight millionaires.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 07:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. for violation of NOT ADVOCACY. The article is essentially advertising. Advertising should be deleted, not fixed, when the article has no clean version.--it's particular folly to encourage it by trying to find reasons for keeping it when the notability is also marginal. Any gross violation of NOT is grounds for removal of an article regardless of other considerations. The rule for this is G11, and it should have been used. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Microtek seems to be a very important company that has had a significant influence on Taiwan's electronics industry. This would be like wanting to delete the article on Acer. This requires more Wikipedians to help rewrite and properly document the company's important contributions to Taiwan's industry and impact on the world. I am not experienced in writing articles but just now I read that in the year 1995 alone, Taiwan was responsible for making 60 percent of the entire world's scanners and Microtek alone accounted for 20% of that share so it seems important enough to warrant an article. Also Microtek helped establish Ulead Systems which is the first software company in Taiwan to be publically listed. Should Ulead Systems article be deleted as well since it is a stub article? I'm sure there are many more noteworthy details to be found about Microtek but maybe nobody is interested to contribute to the article. That would be a shame. — Czgsq ( talk) 11:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep appears to a notable player in the 1980-90's computer scanning industry. This and this are two book sources detailing its work. Fuebaey ( talk) 03:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are at least two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per Fuebaey and Cunard above. Although many of Cunard's do not meet the criteria, the two listed by Fuebaey are good. -- HighKing ++ 11:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Black Aura on an Angel

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

Searching shows that this film fails WP:NFILM. This article is a recreation of a page previously deleted via WP:PROD. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 05:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh ( talk) 05:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Barbara Havers

Barbara Havers (  | 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 IMO, no sources. This is a character in a book, belongs on the book's page (if there is one) if anywhere. Endercase ( talk) 04:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

^Book and BBC show. Endercase ( talk) 14:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The_Inspector_Lynley_Mysteries is a good place for a merge IMO if it is merged and not deleted or improved. I will notify that talk page too. Endercase ( talk) 14:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

*Delete as nom, per my above notability (uncited) argument. Endercase ( talk) 14:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn, sorry about this. Still learning, I guess the availability of sources counts as notable and encyclopedic even if not cited. I was blocked from editing or I would have withdraw earlier. I'm glad more experienced users commented on this. Endercase ( talk) 23:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Aoba47: If you add those sources to the article I would likely change my !vote to move or merge. As it is I don't think we should have an article for every character in a notable series or book, particularly when those articles are not cited. A long time ago sub-pages were used for such things. I also have a issue with the current article name as it suggest this is a BLP or historical person. I would suggest if kept on it's own it be moved to Barbara Havers (The Inspector Lynley Mysteries series) or something similar. Additionally, the article if kept should internally link to both the TV show and the Book series IMO. Endercase ( talk) 16:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Endercase: I unfortunately do not have the time to add these sources to the article. If you believe that these sources prove notability enough to change your vote, then I should not have to add the sources to the article for you to change your vote as I have already contributed the links to the discussion for the future use by other editors. I respectfully disagree with your suggestion to move the page to a different title. If there is no other article named Barbara Havers, then the article title is appropriate as it currently stands. There are plenty of articles about fictional characters that do not have a disambiguation (for instance, here is an article that I spent a lot of time working on Eve Russell.) The lead should immediately clarify that this character is a work of fiction to avoid the issue that you raise above. Again, I will leave this up to more experienced users as I am going to focus more on article creation and expansion and slowly phase out of participating in AfD discussions. Thank you for your response! Aoba47 ( talk) 17:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources found by Aoba47 seem sufficient, I just looked at first 3 and the second one seems to be an entire entry (at least half a page, then preview ends) in 'Mystery Women, Volume Two (Revised): An Encyclopedia of Leading Women Characters in Mystery Fiction: 1980-1992'. If she is good enough for a specialized encyclopedia, plus other sources seem to be the literary analysis, meaning it is not just in-universe fictional biography, she is good enough for us. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep My cursory search also turns up a lot of sources, GNG clearly met. Jclemens ( talk) 05:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per A7 . Materialscientist ( talk) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Rijon Khan

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

Other than being autobiographical (violates guidelines of WP:COI), article's single reference is to a web page at Reverb Nation where you can hear the subject perform (i.e., it is not "coverage"). Google search turns up the usual social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.) but no substantive discussion in reliable, independent, verifiable sources. There is no corresponding article in the Bengali Wikipedia. KDS4444 ( talk) 02:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Tom Van Avermaet

Tom Van Avermaet (  | 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:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Non-notable basketball who has never played in any professional league nor international competition necessary for notability. Article is unsourced and only contains a link to his Facebook page. A Google search provides nothing but the Wiki article or mirrors of it. CBS527 Talk 02:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC) CBS527 Talk 02:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 23:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Daegwang Elementary School

Daegwang Elementary School (  | 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:ORG. elementary schoools have no inherent notability. this one looks like WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. it was marked for notability and being uncited in June 2013. the Korean version of this article is poorly sourced too. LEt's see if the usual suspect turns up to this AfD. LibStar ( talk) 02:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment All articles are to provide information about their subjects; that's neither here nor there. Are there independent sources to show that it meets notability requirements? Ladyof Shalott 02:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
sounds like a WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar ( talk) 03:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Elementary schools have no inherent notability as per WP:NSCHOOL. Since this issue comes up repeatedly as far as AfDs, Wikipedia should emphasize in WP:NSCHOOL that schools have no inherent notability because the issue of elementary/High school notability is a reoccurring source of AfDs. Wikipedia should emphasize the "no inherent notability" criteria for schools or change the rules on school notability and make schools with a certain enrollment size or other obvious means of demarcation have automatic notability. Knox490 ( talk) 03:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lacks the independent reliable coverage needed to satisfy both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Gab4gab ( talk) 15:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per Knox490. XboxGamer 22408talk to me 18:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - On it's own it doesn't meet established guidelines for WP:ORGSIG notability. There exists, however, some precedent for small schools to be referenced in articles about larger and more notable organizations in which they are a part of. For example, my elementary school does not have an article, but the school district does and it is listed there. I would suggest you explore that route if you feel that this school needs to be referenced in some manner, but it doesn't warrant it's own article. Good luck. unak 1978 19:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ladyof Shalott 21:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ladyof Shalott 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ladyof Shalott 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  12:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

European Journal of Minority Studies

European Journal of Minority Studies (  | 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 journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 09:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ LibStar: You obviously didn't search for "Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen" as Cordless Larry mentioned two weeks ago. I see 1290 hits on Google Scholar. St Anselm ( talk) 08:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 05:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman

Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman (  | 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 pass Wikipedia:POLITICIAN criteria. bio created and expanded by the subject himself. one sources is cited which is not reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia. the subject holding a position within a political party's staff which is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass. Saqib ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Holding a legislative position only is not the automatic ticket to notability, in fact many politicians meet WP:GNG due to their activism or political work without ever being elected. I see the subject being mentioned in multiple sources. Mar4d ( talk) 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I have cited few sources but most of the references quote him (name checking) instead of discussing his life or work. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing here confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because he exists, and neither the volume nor the depth of sourcing being cited here are enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — as noted, three of the four sources just namecheck his existence in coverage of other things while failing to be substantively about him, and the one source that is actually about him is just a blurb which isn't substantive enough to carry a GNG pass all by itself. I'm willing to reconsider this if further sourcing can be added to strengthen his claim to clearing GNG, but what's here right now just isn't enough. Bearcat ( talk) 16:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. He appears to not meet Wikipedia's WP:NPOL standard. The Wikipedia article on Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman states: "Hafiz Naeem Ur Rehman (Urdu: حافظ نعیم الرحمن‎) is a Pakistani politician who is currently the chief of Jamaat-e-Islami in Karachi". Wikipedia's Jamaat-e-Islami article indicates: "Jamaat-e-Islami (Urdu: جماعتِ اسلامی) is an Islamic political organisation and social conservative movement founded in 1941 in British India by the Islamist theologian and socio-political philosopher, Abul Ala Maududi." So he currently holds no government position. And he previously was a politician at the district level - not the national/statewide/provincewide level. Knox490 ( talk) 03:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mike Lansing Field

Mike Lansing Field (  | 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 sports field only mentioned in small local newspapers where there are always slow news days. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 01:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
those are small local newspapers where nothing noteworthy happens. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article is informational even though there are no sources. Their Facebook page has been active recently with pictures and scheduled games, which demonstrates this place exists, making it notable. Bmbaker88 ( talk) 01:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. These local newspapers aren't enough( WP:NOTNEWS). Burning Pillar ( talk) 13:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. As Smartyllama comments, by long custom we maintain articles for the ballparks of teams in organized baseball; it's encyclopedic information and the completeness of this coverage is essential to its value. Moreover, plenty of reliable sources are apparent, including non-local ones, and the subject passes GNG easily. I've added a few sources to the article. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 21:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Smartyllama. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 05:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Eversheds Sutherland

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

Article about a firm which has a very large advertising component. If the advertising was removed there would one sentence left. scope_creep ( talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh ( talk) 05:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Rina Sawayama

Rina Sawayama (  | 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 supposed artist and model. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep ( talk) 10:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Weak delete some sources are reliable. The article can be trimmed. Man she looks odd. —usernamekiran [talk] 09:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the sources are in effect advertising and should be disregarded for notability purposes, or not.  Sandstein  12:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Grana (fashion company)

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

no evidence of notability -- references are only press releases and notices of funding DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Cerini, Marianna (2017-02-03). "The Hong Kong Brand Making Quality Basics Under $100". Racked.com ( Vox Media). Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.

      The article notes:

      At Grana’s Fitting Room, the brand’s flagship showroom in central Hong Kong, crewneck cashmere sweaters and silk joggers hang alongside poplin button-down shirts with mother of pearl buttons, nipped and tucked in all the right places. This is not a new scene — plenty of clothing brands sell nice things next to each other in specially-outfitted showrooms — but only few can keep the prices of every single item under $100.

      That’s exactly why Grana should be on your radar right now. In a market divided between cheap retailers and pricier labels selling elevated basics, Grana stands out with prices that are 20 to 30 percent lower than similar retailers with comparable — if not better — quality.

      ...

      Grana clothing can be described as a more affordable and less serious Everlane, or an upgraded boutique version of Uniqlo. It fulfills the needs of a growing millennial market seeking a casual luxe look. Items are simple with small functional details, like inverted pleats designed to enhance fit. Fabrics and materials span Peruvian pima cotton and Japanese denim, French poplin and Italian Merino. Everything feels soft, and sleek, and super neat. “Expensive,” suggests Grana (the person). “Except it’s not.”

    2. "Back to Basics: The Hong Kong start-up taking on fashion giants". CTV Television Network. Agence France-Presse. 2016-07-19. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.

      The article notes:

      Luke Grana arrived in Hong Kong with no contacts, cold-calling 'angel investors' he'd found on LinkedIn armed with only his CV, a business plan, and some big ideas to overhaul fashion.

      In little more than two years, his eponymous clothing store amassed $6 million in seed funding and has become the go-to shop for under-35s seeking quality staples for their wardrobe.

      ...

      Quality is his other pillar. The brand uses world renowned material such as Chinese silk from Huzhou or Peruvian Pima cotton, sourced from the same mills that work with luxury brands such as Ralph Lauren and Lacoste.

      ...

      The firm is now has backing by big name investors including BlueBell Group, distributors for the likes of Christian Dior in Asia, and Golden Gate Ventures, a leading backer of start-ups in the region.

    3. Traill-Nash, Glynis (2014-12-06). "Luke Grana goes from T-shirts in Peru to Hong Kong-based clothing start-up". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.

      The article notes:

      GREAT business ideas can come from the most unlikely places. For Luke Grana, it was Peru.

      While there visiting his brother, Grana was impressed by the quality of the local pima cotton. After buying up T-shirts that remarkably kept their shape and vigour after being put through the wringer, an idea started formulating. What if you could offer fashion basics in the world’s best fabrics at disruptive prices?

      And so, the 30-year-old entrepreneur launched Grana.

      ...

      The Grana formula has garnered the attention of investors. A test run in May, where 2000 T-shirts sold out in three weeks to customers in eight countries, proved to investors that the model worked and that customers were keen on multiple purchases.

      First on board was multinational retailer Bluebell Group, based across Asia, which markets, franchises and distributes luxury brands across the region, including Jimmy Choo, Paul Smith and Carven.

      Another 28 angel investors from Australia and Hong Kong followed. In September the company closed a $US1 million ($1.19m) funding round.

    4. Soo, Zen (2015-09-17). "As more online shoppers complain of clothes that don't fit, Hong Kongs Grana tests hybrid try-before-you-buy approach at first store". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.

      The article notes:

      E-commerce fashion store Grana launched a flagship brick-and-mortar store in Hong Kong over the weekend as part of its strategy to drive sales online by letting customers try on clothing before committing to making a purchase via the web using in-store computers.

      This tackles a growing problem amid China's recent e-commerce boom: many shoppers complain that the product they receive looks different out of the box from the image they saw online; others find the shoes, clothing or accessory they have just shelled out on doesn't actually fit them.

      Grana’s first store is located in trendy Sheung Wan district. It has a full product range in various sizes and colours, and a couple of dressing rooms so that customers can try before they buy.

    5. Kaiser, Amanda (2016-07-27). "Hong Kongs Grana Launches Swimwear". Women's Wear Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.

      The article notes:

      Grana’s business model is similar to that of Bonobos or Everlane — it uses the Internet to cut out the middleman and passes the savings onto the consumer. Founded in 2014, the start-up retailer ships to 12 countries, including the U.S., Singapore, Australia and much of Europe. The brand claims to travel the world to source the best materials, like Irish linen, Japanese denim, Mongolian cashmere, Chinese silk and Peruvian pima cotton.

    6. Salamat, Rishaad (2015-09-01). "The Hong Kong Clothing Retailer Revolutionizing Shopping". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.

      The video notes:

      Grana founder and CEO Luke Grana discusses his e-commerce luxury fashion brand, how the company is employing an offline-to-online retail strategy and where he sees growth. He speaks to Bloomberg's Rishaad Salamat on "Trending Business." (Source: Bloomberg)

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

    Cunard ( talk) 07:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG, per a review of available sources about the company. North America 1000 01:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I examined the sources above and yet only found such promotionalism as "While there visiting his brother, Grana was impressed by the quality of the local pima cotton", "Quality is his other pillar. The brand uses world renowned material such as Chinese silk", "more affordable or an upgraded boutiqe version", "That’s exactly why Grana should be on your radar right now. In a market divided between cheap retailers and pricier labels selling elevated basics, Grana stands out with prices that are 20 to 30 percent lower than similar retailers", "silk joggers hang alongside poplin button-down shirts with mother of pearl buttons, nipped and tucked" and such material is not "informative in encyclopedias", "his store....seeking quality staples" are a few, since it violates our main policy WP:What Wikipedia is not which states "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising". If anyone actually looked at the sources carefully as we should, they would see such material is not at all independent since a company's labeled pricing list is never the case at all. What WP:GNG actually says is "Wikipedia articles must have significant and independent coverage of the primary subject". The publications themselves are hosted in its "business attention" section which instantly violates WP:CORPIND. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Are we being asked to believe that an article containing "That’s exactly why Grana should be on your radar right now. In a market divided between cheap retailers and pricier labels selling elevated basics, Grana stands out with prices that are 20 to 30 percent lower than similar retailers with comparable — if not better — quality." is a reliable source for anything--let alone notability? DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The article is published by Vox Media's fashion website Racked.com. The article is a review of the company Grana and its products. It is not surprising that a journalist for a fashion website did a price comparison between Grana and similar companies and reported her findings to her readers. The article also says, "In terms of price and style, Grana falls somewhere in between Uniqlo and Everlane." The journalist indicated that Uniqlo is cheaper than Grana, which is exactly what an independent journalist would do. A non-independent journalist would not include that information because that information does not promote Grana.

    Cunard ( talk) 05:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

But it is explicitly an advertisement: it says in effect, shop at Grana. . And Loooking at the next reference "Quality is his other pillar. The brand uses world renowned material such as Chinese silk from Huzhou or Peruvian Pima cotton, sourced from the same mills that work with luxury brands such as Ralph Lauren and Lacoste." That's not investigation, that's copying their advertising. It doesn't matter who publishes it, an article advocating the store is an advertorial at best. Even a supposedly reputable publication publishing such ads is not longer a reliable source for that material. True fashion journalism describes, not urges to shop at a particular store. What you are in essence saying is that because traditional publishers print advertising as if it were editorial content, we should do likewise. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
What you are in essence saying is that because traditional publishers print advertising as if it were editorial content, we should do likewise. – I do not believe traditional publishers print advertising as if it were editorial content. That the journalist's review of the company and its products is very favorable does not make the source non-independent or advertising.

Cunard ( talk) 07:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

No undisclosed advertisements are being run in the very reputable sources Agence France-Presse, The Australian, South China Morning Post, which all provide international significant coverage of Grana.

Burning Pillar's account is very new. Burning Pillar's deletion review request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 24#Timeline of Amazon.com was closed as, "Administrative close. We're not doing a DRV from a WP:SPA created two days ago."

Cunard ( talk) 09:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I've reviewed the sources and without exception, they are all advertorials complete with interviews with the CEO. The references fail as they rely on PRIMARY sources for their data and are not objective articles. Cunard lists this WDD article as an example of a source that meets the criteria to establish notability. In my opinion, the article is a thinly disguised advertorial written to announce the company branching into swimwear, complete with photos featuring models posing in the new swimwear, an explanation of Grana and their business model, an extolment of the "high quality textiles and affordable retail prices" and a final mention of the latest round of VC finance. Reading the other references yield the same conclusions. -- HighKing ++ 14:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • When a source (such as the ones you mention) extensively quotes a company exec and builds an entire article around what that exec says (and nothing more) that the article is not objective and fails to be an *intellectually independent* source. There's no criticism in any of those articles and no quotes from independent sources and nothing to indicate that any independent verification took place. It is misplaced to take these sources as "independent" journalism and I don't believe for one second that the sources intend to promote these pieces as independent. It is literally the definition of an advertorial which is an increasingly common method for company marketing execs to "communicate" their corporate message. If this company was truly notable, sources that do not follow this pattern would exist. -- HighKing ++ 12:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've certainly disagreed with DGG in the past on matters like this, where significant coverage in reliable sources is to be disregarded because it is subjectively judged to be insufficiently critical and tarred with the label "advertorial" when there is no evidence at all that that's the case. We have more than sufficient coverage on the article and in Cunard's list to pass GNG. As for the above "I don't believe for one second that the sources intend to promote these pieces as independent" -- that's obviously an entirely subjective belief that you're entitled to. But it doesn't sway me. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Substantial debate on both sides by experienced editors after the relist suggesting that we're not close to coming to consensus on this one. A Train talk 17:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

AstroLabs

AstroLabs (  | 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 wvidence for notability -- just lists and brief notices DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Normally I would consider the references in the article as routine announcements common with startups, but they are rather in-depth like this one which was written by the editor in chief of Entrepreneur Middle East. So they are not just the normal "they launched" but actually go into detail about it. This one from Arabian Business is also in-depth. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 01:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • That one source is actually in the current article so it's no different and therefore because it existed before, it was analyzed as part of the original AfD. How are we ever differently viewing WP:N if we're not actually paying attention in the article has and not? SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I am not sure where your logic is going. Are you saying that since "that one source" (not sure what one you are referring to) is already in the article that it is not notable since the article was recommended for deletion with that reference already there? I also wouldn't be accusing editors of "not actually paying attention." If you focus purely on the article and what is there, then you are doing something wrong. You need to look beyond what is on the actual pages of Wikipedia sometimes to determine if references exist to establish notability. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- sources linked above are routine launch publicity, as in:
  • "Muhammed Mekki and Louis Lebbos, co-founders of AstroLabs, warmly welcome more than 300 guests at their new co-working space."
Just a tech startup going about its business; nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. after considering further comments. Yes, an "aspirational tone" is exactly what is meant by advocacy, and the rule about that is our fundamental NOT ADVOCACY. The arguments here are essentially: it advocates for something we all want, so let's keep it. A more obvious rejection of NPOV is hard to imagine. NOT ADVOCACY is more important than considerations of borderline notability . Accepting or rejecting borderline notability articles may damage the encyclopedia ,a little, but accepting advocacy destroys it. If people want to do that, it's easy enough to start a new wiki outside the Foundation. I have learned to be especially careful about advocacy I would support--it takesconscious effort to reject one's own biases. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC) ; reply
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG. See source examples below. Some of the sources include interview content, but they are not comprised solely of interviews, and also contain critical analysis and overviews about the company. North America 1000 00:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I examined the sources above and, not only are they clear advertising but they actually (visibly) consist of the ones currently here in the article such as The National, Entrepreneur and all of them have clear statements of either "The company says", "The company announces", "The company's employees announced", etc. and none of that satisfies WP:GNG since it explicitly says "Coverage must be significant and independent" which something having "The company's announcements said today" would not met our criteria. As usual, if the best that can be offered is the article's own current sourcing, there's absolutely nothing to examine. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Many articles in the press get their start that way. It is considered public relations. A company reaches out to the press with information and the press decides to run with the story or not. That doesn't mean it's promotional. There is a difference between press that is paid for and press that is influenced by PR. Most publications don't knock on the doors of companies and ask them if they have a good story to tell. It all starts with PR. Some companies do better at it because they can afford while others don't. I don't see how these references - unless you can point out otherwise - were paid advertisements. Would this (and the many others based on the same announcement) be considered promotional since the headline reads "SpaceX Announces?" -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Which by the way, the Fortune example above is a brief announcement. Compare that to the references I cited in my keep !vote and you will see a major difference. The ones published on AstroLabs are beyond brief mentions and general announcements. They are very in-depth and meet WP:GNG.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment in an attempt defending the article, an editor just above said "Many articles in the press get their start that way. It is considered public relations". They are perfectly correct. Many articles in the press do indeed start that way, and getting them written is indeed part of the profession of public relations. That's exactly why we cannot use such sources for notability and why their reliability is suspect for any other purpose also. They're not independent. The profession of public relations can contribute to society by getting the word out about new ventures. There is nothing wrong with doing that in a fair way in appropriate media. When I want to find out about new things that are not yet notable, I look for press releases on Google and everyone in the world knows to do that also. . But it is not our role here. If the venture succeeds to a noteworthy extent, then there will be independent articles about it. And then, and only then, can we justifiably have an article in an encyclopedia. When I look in an encyclopedia , that's what I expect to find. And people do know that, which is why the PR people like to try to convince us that their client is sufficiently notable to have an article in our encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the comment. Just to be clear, my reply to SwisterTwister above was not an attempt to defend the article, but an attempt to defend the references about the article topic. Also, I am NOT advocating for the use of press releases for notability - I am not sure how anyone could advocate for using a press release for notability. When I say “PR” I am referring to the profession of “public relations,” not the term “press release.” The point to my response above is that the majority of press is influenced by public relations in some form, which sometimes does include a press release. Now, simply reprinting a press release is churnalism and involves no fact-checking and is unacceptable. However, if a publication writes a story that contains quotes from a press release, this does not automatically make it churnalism, nor should it be discounted just because they quote from the press release. If we disregard any reference that was somehow sparked by the effort of public relations, we would actually need to discount the majority of press out there. Each source needs to be weighed individually and I don’t see how the ones cited above are advertorials (paid for by the company) or simple reprints of press releases. They contain independent information and come from reliable sources. They are also in-depth which in my opinion, satisfy what is needed to establish WP:GNG. But again, that’s just my opinion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
That's an excellent point that CNMall41 is making. The fact is that Press Releases do spark interest in a subject or topic. Then journalists pick up on it. If the journalist in a reliable source has used as their starting point of interest a Press Release, that's not bad journalism. That's just the starting point. I seriously doubt any of the above references like the Wall Street Journal are just "reprinting" a press release. They probably saw a buzz of interest and chose to write about it. Are we really going to deconstruct every article to determine just how much PR is involved? Do we need to phone up every journalist and have them give us citations? Is this really the direction we want to go with articles just so that we can discredit enough sources in a an AfD to get the result we desire? Determining somehow (through magic?) that an article is PR just because we feel like it is, isn't Wiki policy, nor good practice in an AfD. I'll be commenting later on the article, because there are other sources out there to add. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Megalibrarygirl: I agree we have to excercise our judgement here. I have read those articles and I side with the camp that they read too much like rewritten press releases - they seem to promotional, and the coverage doesn't seem much better than that for any other minor start up (they exist, yay!... Google connection, cool!). Sorry, for me that's not enough to make them warrant a page in an encyclopedia. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Piotrus:, please don't be flip. I said above that I would be commenting later because I found more references on HighBeam, etc. I've added them to the article. The point of finding and discussing more sources is to establish GNG, not to show that I know how to use Google. I appreciate you assuming good faith. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Megalibrarygirl: I am sorry we have a misunderstanding; I always assume AGF and I didn't meant to put any words into your mouth. When I wrote the 'cool' sentence, I didn't mean to imply it was your attitude, but that it was the attitude of the sources discussed (that's how I read them). I am sure you know how to use google, and implying otherwise was not my intention. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Piotrus: Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it very much. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The references provided are all, without exception, WP:PRIMARY sources and rely on the company or company officers for information and data, often repeated verbatim. None of the references are objective or can be rightly regarded as being unrelated from the company. -- HighKing ++ 14:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fail WP:CORPDEPTH and IMO doesn't pass WP:NOTPROMOTION (what Wikipedia is not). The source don't meet the standard for notability of being Reliable and Independent and contain significant coverage. Some seem to meet 2 of the requirements but I don't see any that appear to meet all 3 necessary to establish notability.
The purpose of "Public Relations" is to create a favorable impression of a company or individual. Press releases are a vehicle to do this and certainly do not convey a NPOV. Unfortunately in the rush to provide instant information, press releases from the organizations are often used by publications with minimal change. There is no requirement that a publication needs to disclose the information comes from a press release. The same information that is contained in an advertisement may be found in a press release. The main difference is one is paid for the other is not. Just because a source is not paid for doesn't necessarily make it more credible.
Press Releases, by definition, are primary sources and generally not suitable for establishing notability as they are not independent and in many cases may not be reliable. Many of our subject specific notability criteria exclude press releases and our WP:VERIFY policy considers press releases as self published, hence, primary sources. CBS527 Talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I have considered the references, but even the best ones (thenational, etc.) read like rewritten press-releases. We need to toughen up our guidelines on WP:CORPSPAM. Getting 1-2 articles about business-as-usual-look-at-us-we-are cool should not steer us into WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES territory. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Not only does this entity clearly meet GNG, but the work it does is unique, it supports women in the Middle East in a STEM field, and that is really kind of amazing. The standard is "substantial coverage in third party sources independent of the subject." There are major outlets covering this company. Per the concerns of Piotrus, if the wording looks like some of it was cribbed from company materials, that is, my friends, the state of the press today -- we could say much the same about the coverage of most modern politicians (once a meme gets started, everyone repeats it). For that matter, run earwig on older WP articles and they will flag as copyvio because later press articles mirror WP with close paraphrasing. Not only can substantial coverage consist of lazy writing, we also have to remember that some publications in Third World nations where English is not a first language may use less sophisticated writing and style. Montanabw (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The references provided above by Northamerica1000 and ones that I added to the article are in-depth, occur over time and are about the subject of the article. That's the standard for GNG.
Editors who are stating that these references are blatantly promotional and rewrites of press-releases are making some assertions that they need to defend:
  1. That they know that these are rewrites of Press releases. How do they know that? Do they have copies of the PR to compare?
  2. The articles they are trying to discredit as advertising or press-releases are, in fact, written as advertising. You can't just say that it "feels" like advertising. You have to show me that it's advertising. Otherwise I'm not convinced.

Article clearly passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Megalibrarygirl - I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider these sources that you added contain "in-depth" coverage of the subject.
The sources you added
  • 'Comment -- I still do not see how this topic is encyclopedically relevant. To start with, it's associated with a nn Google For Entrepreneurs which we don't really know anything about. Even with the new sources the content is:
  • AstroLabs was founded in 2012 by Louis Lebbos & Muhammed Mekki, the founders of [nn] Namshi.com.[6][7] In 2016, AstroLabs hosted the the Women in STEM (WiSTEM) Hackathon.[2] As of 2015, AstroLabs has received over 9,000 applications for startup businesses.[9] Etc.
All of the article's copy can be just as successfully housed on the company's web site. Thus, the existence of this article does not serve the readers, but instead (by necessity) is promotion for the company, which Wikiepedia does not do. In this case, WP:NOT overrides any marginal newsworthiness the company might have (because it's effective at PR). K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Meets WP:GNG, per Montanabw and Megalibrarygirl. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets GNG. It is encyclopedically relevant because per Forbes "Dubai is investing in billions to make the emirate an innovation hub for global technology businesses and entrepreneurs". Coverage then, of organizations like AstroLabs explain how that is happening and why. [24], [25] To make our coverage of such initiatives encyclopedic, by definition articles must be comprehensive. To be comprehensive then, they must include relevant (not minute nor promotional) detail, covered in RS over time. For all the reasons stated above by @ Northamerica1000, Montanabw, and Megalibrarygirl: SusunW ( talk) 19:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment ", but the work it does is unique, it supports women in the Middle East in a STEM field, and that is really kind of amazing. " is a classic example of the unacceptable reason for keeping an article: " It's important to society". Keeping an article for that purpose is a direct violation of WP:ADVOCACY. This applies no matter how generally accepted the cause. In fact, it's an argument that shows up here only when the cause is in fact generally accepted, especially when it's a cause of particular strong and merited concern to WPedians. (Nobody sensible would use the argument for a cause that most people here would reject). The question is not whether it is trying to do something excellent and much-needed, but whether its work in doing this is notable. Once it is, there will be sources uncontaminated with PR efforts. Using sources so contaminated is almost as bad as ourselves using WP to promote our own causes--and an argument like that comes to doing exactly that. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
DGG, I think first you have to adequately show that the references are "contaminated" with PR before you can dismiss them. So far, editors !voting delete are relying on how an article "feels" or "seems." That is not how we decide we should delete. The subject of the article passes GNG... unless you decide that the sources feel or seem like PR. That's unacceptable until you can adequately prove that the articles in reliable sources are indeed only advertising. Other factors brought up as "it adds to society" are indeed tangential to the question of GNG. The fact is that the article passes GNG... unless we are changing the rules for this article and allowing feelings to trump facts. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources from User:Northamerica1000. Stuartyeates ( talk) 00:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure that the sources offered by Northamerica are all that great. For example, one headline proclaims: "For Entrepreneurs, By Entrepreneurs: AstroLabs Sets Out To Vitalize MENA Tech Startup Ecosystem" -- this is clearly aspirational and such "vitalizing" has yet to occur. This coverage does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; there's no transformational analysis or indications why this subject is significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Indeed. Sadly, it seems some editors are mesmerized by the cool factors (Google-connected lab in Middle East supports women!) and ignore the fact that the sources we have read like slightly rewritten press releases :( If we had an independent source, analyzing the impact of this company on women's lives and careers in the region, not based on company's marketing materials, I'd be very happy to vote keep. As it is, I am afraid I see this entry as too promotional and based on too unreliable (marketing) sources to be encyclopedic. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Going to jump in here, too. You need to prove that these articles are promotional, beyond how you feel about it. K.e.coffman brings up a good example, calling an article "clearly aspirational." Does that make it advertising because it has a positive tone? We can't automatically assign positive-toned articles to unequivocally equal advertising. Many articles about places and people are positive without being advertising. Piotrus brings up marketing materials. How do you know, Piotrus, that the articles are based on the marketing materials solely? Can you demonstrate this? If those saying the references are too promotional can prove that all the above references are advertising beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll reconsider my !vote. But it has to be based on facts, not feelings. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Several editors have already given clear reasons why many of the references display the signs of a press release. Press releases do not have to be available online.
The only thing I can add is -
  • if a large part of "the source" contains direct quotes from a company official or someone associated with the company with no evidence that the writer has communicated with that person, (ie: conversation, email, etc.) then it's very likely it came from a press release and not independent from the topic regardless where it is published.
  • Is "the source" about an announcement of something? - this type of information almost universally is disseminated through a press release. The source may be useful for verifying material in the article, but is not useful for establishing notability.
Whether or not we keep an article is based on policy, not if something exists, not on content, not on inherent notability or whether "like it/don't like".
The guideline, WP:GNG is not a free pass for inclusion. Even if an article appears to meet this minimum standard, the article is only presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article and not guaranteed as the article may violate a policy of Wikipedia per WP:GNG. When a guideline and policy conflict, the policy takes precedence. A number of the editors, myself included, feel this article violates our core policy WP:What Wikipedia is not for the reasons stated. It's fine if others disagree after all that's why we are having this discussion. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia. I'm confident the closer of this AFD will give appropriate weight to each of the comments. CBS527 Talk 04:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Cbs527, yes, plenty of editors have claimed they somehow know that the reliable sources above are "clearly" PR. I disagree that the articles are PR and have invited them to definitively show that their claims are valid. GNG is a standard for inclusion, period--no one is saying the article should get a free pass. The sources used in the article (most of which are in-depth), show that Astrolabs has been covered over time. We don't get to change the criteria for GNG just because we feel like it. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I've included commentary of each source and why it fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability by directly referencing the relevant policy/guidelines below. You say that some editors have claimed they "somehow know" that the "reliable sources above are clearly PR". My position is easy to understand. A source must be "intellectually independent" in order to establish notability. That means that the journalist or publication has fact checked the data and stands over their work (or has voiced a personal opinion based on some other work) and doesn't blindly accept positively spun messaging from an organization. When a journalist uses extensive quotations and/or attributes data to other people or surveys, the only integrity that the article has is that the included quotations are accurate and that the people/organizations/surveys quoted said what was quoted. They don't stand over the content of the quotation, just the fact that the quotation was provided. For me, that's the Big Red Flag. Each of the sources provided to date follow this (lazy non-journalistic) pattern. -- HighKing ++ 13:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While it's nice to want an article to meet inclusion criteria, it's pretty clear that the sourcing for this particular subject is clearly based on public relations. DGG's, Swister's, and particularly CBS527's are spot on. Onel5969 TT me 01:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I already !voted Delete above but I notice that some Keep !voters are simply saying "meets GNG" or "as per references posted by X" with no further explanations or rebuttals to other discussions. I've examined each and every source and I'm using a variety of policy and notability guidelines to assess those sources (but especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND).
  • Bloomberg articles can sometimes be thinly disguised "advertorials" - that is, an article that poses as an informative independent article but in fact relies completely on the company providing the information. Bloomberg articles that follow the formula of "describe problem -> how the idea/company was born -> photos of founder -> quotes from company officers/founders/CEO -> funding/customer wins/awards" are easy to spot and I consider them to be advertorials. This is one of those articles. There are no criticisms and nothing negative is written about the company or their "opportunity" and there is a lot of hopeful forward-looking aspirational statements. It is not "intellectually independent". This article fails to establish notability because it uses "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:ORGIND because the content is "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization".
  • The Gitex Technology Week reference provided is by subscription only. Here's one that isn't. This fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR announcement for GITEX that mentioned Astrolabs in passing (the co-founder will be a judge for one of the competitions) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization".
  • The National article is another advertorial and if you have read the Bloomberg article previously, this article is eerily similar - even uses the same quotes from various people. For the same reasons, this article fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and is not intellectually independent.
  • The WSJ source fails because it is a blog and is therefore not considered a reliable source.
  • The Entrepeneur article is another advertorial and follows the same formula including "problem -> idea -> photo -> quotes -> solution". It relies completely on company quotations and cannot be considered "intellectually independent". It fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • The Wamda article is also an advertorial. Follows the same formula. Relies on quotations from company officers and data provided by the company. It even profiles two of the startups starting there but they *gush* about Astrolabs with comments like "Enthusiastic to become a member of AstroLabs Dubai", "We were impressed by the organized speed of growth ... We are also convinced that AstroLabs Dubai is the suitable platform for such growth", "We are impressed by the division of work-stations. In other words, AstroLabs is greatly aware of the needs of startups". The article is not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • The Video at DMCC is missing and returns Page Not Found
  • The Google page cannot be used to establish notability as it is not independent since Google is one of AstroLab's partners.
  • The Times of Oman article (also available without requiring a subscription here) is a profile on a founder of shoponclick.me and AstroLabs is mentioned in passing. Since the article is 1) An advertorial 2) About a different topic and 3) Only mentioned AstroLabs in passing, this article cannot be used to establish notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • The Times of India article is a Press Release about a different topic (Nasscom) and mentioned AstroLabs in passing. Notwithstanding that Press releases cannot be used to establish notability, there is no depth of coverage and therefore the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
An article requires "multiple" sources to meet the criteria for notability and this topic does not even have a single source that clearly and unequivocally meets the criteria. If this topic was truly notable we would be able to find a reference that was intellectually independent. -- HighKing ++ 16:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note - I have removed the two sentence in the article that were referenced by the Times of India article as well as this source.( "Here".) The statements were counter-factual to what was contained in the source. CBS527 Talk 00:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh ( talk) 00:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Me and My Grandma

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

This article cites two sources which I consider generally WP:RS - The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. However - one citation is dated November 01, 2016; the other two are undated, but were retrieved on October 23, 2015 and March 15, 2017; whereas, the series which the article is about debuted on March 22, 2017. I cite WP:GNG, WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERT.

I am also concerned about the other bluelinked articles in Template:YouTube Red. I haven't gone into them in any detail, but I get a smell of WP:SPAM for a subscription service. Narky Blert ( talk) 20:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. One month open and only two participants -- there's no great urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. A Train talk 22:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mobile 2.0

Mobile 2.0 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. This phrase is closely related to Web 2.0 and always appears in the same context. The phrase was originally coined by Jaokar and Fish (2006), or by Holmquist (2007). See this and this. There is simply not enough academic papers or other in-depth sources that discuss the phrase. In comparison, we do not have an article for Learning 2.0, but we do have one for Library 2.0.

Redirectifying or merging to Web 2.0 would be satisfactory results too. However, I am not sure if this phrase is notable enough to even be mentioned in that article. Ceosad ( talk) 19:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – WP:NEO states, "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted...", but this topic has received significant coverage and usage in reliable sources. As such, this is not actually a "member of the subset of WP:NEO". North America 1000 02:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America 1000 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Otley Run

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

Promotional article on non-notable pub crawl consisting almost entirely of original research, with the sourcing comprised of blogs such as this and promotional websites. Interestingly this article in the Telegraph, listed as a source, focuses on the pubs of Otley yet it does not mention the "Otley Run." Article was nominated for deletion 11 years ago resulting in no consensus. No discernible improvement in sourcing and article weaknesses since then. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep 

- The Otley run is the best known pub crawl in England. It is undertaken in a specified order (which should be reinstated to the article) by thousands of people from across the Yorkshire region and further abroad each weekend. Hundreds of thousands across each year.


Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Train talk 22:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply

List of Criterion Collection UK releases

List of Criterion Collection UK releases (  | 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 independently notable. Doesn't add anything that can't be included at List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases simply by adding a footnote for all the releases that have also had a UK release. (Also, the spine numbers are incorrect, but that isn't a reason to delete!) -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree that everything in the article can be merged with List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. Numbering, however, is not by spine number (even though that would have been useful in the UK article too) but instead by the order of release in the UK marketplace; and this in itself is useful info, and should be included in case the two articles are merged. The same goes for having the information on announced, upcoming UK releases (many of which are already released in the US). As a result, I would not use footnotes but instead create a new column in the table for the UK releases (i.e. the title of the column would be "UK release" and the lines list either a date or nothing (or a colour-coded date for an upcoming release). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teehex ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The UK numbering is WP:SYNTH. There were six releases on the same day (numbered 1 to 6), but they have been arbitrarily numbered here. The US Criterion release dates aren't mentioned, so it would give WP:UNDUE weight to the UK release dates if we included them. A footnote with "also released in the UK" (or similar) should suffice. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per criteria 1 (nominator withdrawals nomination) ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Trichy Teppakulam

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

Proper information is not given at all. Trichy Teppakulam, the article is. But nothing refer about it and describes about surrounding areas. It must be cleared or expanded with the description about the topic alone and not any other. wiki tamil 100 ( talk) 11:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate ( talk) 01:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate ( talk) 01:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The nominator should clarify whether the article should be cleaned up or deleted. As such, it is not a hoax and articles on places definitely fulfill Wikipedia notability guidelines.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 04:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep it-Let it be. Don't want to be deleted. But must be cleaned up. The information must be about the temple tank only.-- wiki tamil 100 ( talk) 07:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 00:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep, nominator does not want article deleted and as WP:NOTCLEANUP... Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_April_28&oldid=1142620126"