From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 September 15 September >
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 merge to Pixar Short Films Collection, Volume 1. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Surprise (1991 film)

Surprise (1991 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance or notability. A Guy into Books ( talk) 14:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books ( talk) 14:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books ( talk) 14:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ( talk) 23:33, 14 September 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. speedy/snow delete, as a combination of promotionalism and sockpuppettry. There is no possible basis for an article here. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The Line Madder

The Line Madder (  | 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 book published through an on-demand publisher. The synopsis is a copy-paste from elsewhere. Largoplazo ( talk) 23:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete The synopsis issue is being resolved, the publisher is traditional enough to actually produce books, and in-depth coverage is difficult for a page editor when the content is being lost due to it being taken down quite often. It's a page that was created today. I know of at least three people currently on the task of making the page in-depth and all that. Stressinducedcoma ( talk) 00:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)— Stressinducedcoma ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Stressinducedcoma ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply
  • The level of depth of an article has no bearing on the notability of its topic. Notability relates to circumstances external to Wikipedia. Largoplazo ( talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Not for deletion. The publisher has a page. Why can't one of their books? There are pages for towns that have much smaller descriptions than this book. Would they not be in-depth too? What makes a book notable? Sales? Commonality? A major publishing house? Or is it just because you've never heard of it before personally? And is a copyright issue if the owner of the copyright solves it? If you would like to discuss these questions and more, please feel free to. I would like to hear your arguments. Shiroisnowflake ( talk) 01:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC) — Shiroisnowflake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Don't delete this As well as the above reasons, I don't think this should be deleted because its problems aren't large enough to warrant deletion. These are small issues and other articles are way worse for some of them. Maybe target those??? I don't know, you do you, but I still think that the only reason you're targeting this is because of the ACTRIAL talk page incident and that made it easy to hunt down. Enter the void 278 ( talk) 01:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)— Enter the void 278 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    I think a lot of people need to stop making wild accusations about the reason for this deletion nomination. I hadn't heard of ACTRIAL until after another editor wrote about it on Shiroisnowflake's talk page after I'd flagged the article for deletion. I flagged it because I came upon it during new page patrolling that I do nearly every day, and it clearly had problems of the sort for which articles are routinely deleted. It may come as a surprise to new contributors that Wikipedia has standards for inclusion, but it does. Largoplazo ( talk) 01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete If any copyright issues have not yet been resolved on the synopsis, I have provided a new synopsis that I just wrote up. I believe it to be accurate of the book's contents (I've read it recently which is why I looked to see if it had an article, which led me to this conundrum) and that it should avoid any copyright infringement. If there are any issues on accuracy, I ask that someone who read the book contribute to the synopsis to improve on it. Kintsukuroi3 ( talk) 01:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)— Kintsukuroi3 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete. Non-notable self-published book. Softlavender ( talk) 02:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non notable book by non notable author (no Ghits beyond sm). Fails both WP:NBOOK for the novel and WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE for the author. This page should clearly have first been CSD-G12. It also looks very much as if a sock or meat farm has been voting here. Such votes should be accorded minimum weight - if any at all if they are not clearly based on policy/guidelines. Nominator please get up to speed with WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE: A SPI has been opened here, please add any new arrivals. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and block the group that first user references as working on this promotional page about a self published non-notable novel. Legacypac ( talk) 16:53, 15 September 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 under WP:A3. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Liberalized Arguments

Liberalized Arguments (  | 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 unsourced article appears to be a personal essay and/or op-ed. Chetsford ( talk) 22:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Kevin Alyn Elders

Kevin Alyn Elders (  | 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 independent articles on the writer - references are either in passing, self authored or book reviews. CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 22:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • additionally doesn't google beyond private webpage and bookselling sites CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 22:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 23:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 23:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 23:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, seems notable enough as director / screenwriter of all these films. Lots of mentions in Gbooks (often as "Kevin Elders"). — Kusma ( t· c) 09:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Obviously a notable film writer and director. Note I didn't say a good film writer and director. But he meets WP guidelines.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 21:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per references provided. passes WP:FILMMAKER. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 15:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - not world famous but sufficiently notable to meet our criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:02, 18 September 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 under WP:A7. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Nader Mohamed

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

Putting this for wider discussion. This article has been recreated a number of times. It's about an author who has written a book. The only award mentioned in the article is "one of a thousand writers in the name of the 'Men of the Summit' in 2017". This seems to clearly fall short of notability. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:13, 15 September 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. "Should not be on Wikipedia" is not a valid rationale for deletion. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America 1000 11:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

High-intensity magnetic separator

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

Should not be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrasapuentes ( talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Saiwyn Quadras

Saiwyn Quadras (  | 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 CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:14, 15 September 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 speedy keep rationale: "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Article is already sufficiently sourced and was demonstrated to have even more sources. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 17:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Project Octopath Traveler

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

unreleased software. CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 21:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify (or Userfy) until release and substantially reviewed enough to meet notability requirements. Softlavender ( talk) 21:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Terrible failure of before. This game has received a ton of reliable source coverage, especially recently, since a widely publicized demo was released just yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Source list, all with a consensus for being reliable/usable per WP:VG/S:
  1. http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/demo-project-octopath-traveler-right-now-w503043
  2. https://www.vg247.com/2017/09/14/project-octopath-traveler-has-a-demo-out-now-check-out-this-trailer-to-learn-about-the-story-and-combat/
  3. https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/13/project-octopath-traveler-nintendo-switch-demo-today/
  4. http://m.ign.com/articles/2017/09/13/square-enixs-project-octopath-traveler-demo-available-today-on-switch
  5. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/switch-exclusive-rpg-from-square-enix-project-octo/1100-6453328/ Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Keep speedily (or at worst, restore redirect to List of Nintendo Switch games). It's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before coming to AfD. This topic is a useful search term. The sourcing in a video game reliable sources custom Google search is enough to support a small article. If the article's current referencing issues are insurmountable, restoration of the redirect would suffice, but I don't see how outright deletion would be warranted, nevertheless any policy-based deletion rationale from the nom. (not watching, please {{ ping}}) czar 21:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep: Definitely meets the notability guideline. Nominator's rationale for deletion is bizarre. AdrianGamer ( talk) 10:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Widespread coverage from reliable video game sources. Web source search returns over 300,000 results. With the demo releasing yesterday, we now have some in depth previews as well: [2]. There's enough coverage from sources to expand the gameplay and development sections into a satisfactory pre-release article. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 16:21, 15 September 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) 19:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Barbara Stanzl

Barbara Stanzl (  | 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:MUSICBIO. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 21:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:37, 16 September 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) Mduvekot ( talk) 15:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Nathan L. Bachman School

Nathan L. Bachman 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)

defunct school, no Google sources CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 21:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • The article isn't really about the school; it's about the building, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • hmm, shouldn't it be then listed under the current name (Bachman Community Center) or rewritten to make the point that it is a historic building rather than a closed school? CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 21:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

My rationale for this title is that "Nathan L. Bachman School" is the designation given to it by the National Register for Historic Places. Jcf1981 ( talk) 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a place on the National Register for Historic Places. The page name should refer to the government listed name. Create redirects for any other plausible search terms. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Listed on the National Register for Historic Places. That's enough per WP:GEOFEAT. And the name should be the one by which it is known as an historic building, which is this one. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per listing, Sadads ( talk) 15:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I added NRHP infobox and otherwise developed the article a bit. I redirected Bachman Community Center to the article and added Bachman Community Center in the lede. Having just one combo article about the former school as an organization/learning place, the historic building, and the current community center makes sense. If/when there is more development about the Bachman Community Center in the article, it could possibly make sense to move it to that name, but currently the notability developed is the historic notability and using the historic name currently is best, IMHO. The NRHP nomination document asserts its importance is in "social history as a Public Works Administration (PWA) project in an unincorporated community of Hamilton County" (so, interestingly, not about its educational function) and in architecture as "an excellent example of Colonial Revival architecture, which retains a high degree of architectural integrity despite additions to the building in 1955". If/when there is significant coverage about the place having some important role in community centering, a move indeed can be supported. Hope this helps. -- do ncr am 03:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - Zero proper AfD rationale given. "Defunct" is not a reason to AfD a topic. And yes this does show up on a google search, including its NRHP designation. I'm noticing the nom is speedy prodding and AfD-ing multiple articles with similar recklessness and no regards to our guidelines not to mention any regard for WP:BEFORE. -- Oakshade ( talk) 05:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - On the National Register of Historic Places. We're done. Carrite ( talk) 11:44, 16 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Femtech

Femtech (  | 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 a notable term, WP:NEO. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 09:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Google News results and WP:GNG. Hmlarson ( talk) 03:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the number of sources using the term suggests it is already a notable term. Pam D 16:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Not a neologism, but rather is well-covered in multiple independent sources, clearly GNG. Montanabw (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A neologism isn't negated by the fact that multiple independent sources use the term. See the definition at neologism. The google results are all trivial and discuss femtech in a less than significant way. But WP is already a random collection of neologisms so I don't see this being deleted. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please try to consider WP:DICTDEF as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  19:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Though its usage is relatively new, such usages (like "chick flick") do not go away once they have reached this level of easily demonstrable significant independent highly RS coverage. This is the digital age, and technology is only going to increase, not decrease. Softlavender ( talk) 21:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a new term, but clearly one that meets WP:GNG in terms of verifiability and independent sources over time. I learned something new by reading this starter article and gained access to useful, reliable new reference materials - and that's the spirit of the encyclopedia that I appreciate and would like to contribute to as I learn more. Shameran81 ( talk) 23:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Many terms in technology are pretty recent and so would it be sort of Neologistic like other technological terms. This one does not look much different since some reliable sources seem to be present for it (like Forbes and I see something from Berkley on it when I searched google) and the policy on that is that terms need to have very little or no coverage in reliable sources in order to be eliminated. Probably this term may gain some currency in the future as more women get involved with technologies. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 02:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep easily meets GNG, Sadads ( talk) 02:47, 22 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Stella Nyanzi

Stella Nyanzi (  | 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 notability under WP:PROF, or otherwise. WP NOT NEWS the entire section 4 and 5 is a BLP problem. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - the Guardian didn't publish a very flattering academic profile of her, that's for sure. Atsme 📞 📧 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG. I see multiple independent sources covering her in sufficient detail. Consider that Wikipedia has a systematic bias against people like Nyanzi as well.-- TM 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Major international news coverage for at least two different protests gives her a pass of both WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Whether the Guardian's profile was flattering or not is completely irrelevant, as is whether she passes WP:PROF. — David Eppstein ( talk) 09:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson ( talk) 05:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but honestly, I am conflicted. No doubt, she has been in the news in 2016 (for a nude protest) [3] and recently for being arrested [4]. She seems to be an academic and also a political (possibly opposition) activist. However, considering that Wikipedia articles are often used to defame and harass subjects, I am in an ethical dilemma about whether we should preserve articles about controversial individuals who have come into limelight once or twice (but otherwise, are not public figures). Articles such as these can lead to harassment of the individuals and it needs to be considered whether the need to preserve information is more important than the potential harm to an individual.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The need to keep an article is never more important than potential harm. The question is whether the additional coverage that WP can give will do harm, or whether it is trivial ccompared to the coverage already given from outside. I'm mentioning this at the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no notability other than for two related trivial "incidents" ("pair of buttocks" is not exactly a horrendous offence as far as name-calling is concerned) , neither of which amounts to more than a "mini-mountain of Limas." If we brand BLPs on everyone who has called the US President names, I fear that we should run out of air. A Uganda Shilling has a current value of .00026 $US, so "ten million" is still under US$2600 total. Ought we include everyone who faces a bail of that huge magnitude as though it were meaningful and important? I note that this is specifically a policy issue, and that the "I like the article" !votes have less weight. Collect ( talk) 17:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Fairly balanced right now. Discuss
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  19:38, 14 September 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. Consensus appears to be that the sources are not in fact sufficient to establish notability Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Yoga Vidya Gurukul

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

Some passing mentions, but no indepth reliable independent sources about this organisation. Fails WP:N Fram ( talk) 09:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
* Strong Keep - Yoga Vidya Gurukul is a 40 years old social organization in the activities of Yoga. There are more than 15000 yoga teachers in India, 3500 yoga teachers in foreign countries and more than 300,000 yoga students all over the world. The organization spreads awareness on Yoga and conducts many courses. This is one of the major and important organization in India in 20th century. I had already added few more references and information in both English and Marathi languages which confirms the notability of the organization and article. Pls. see the website of this org. www.yogapoint.com for more details. I need support to improve the article from other fellow Wikipedians.... Thanks Kautuk1 ( talk) 12:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I am not arguing that yoga isn't important: the number of yoga teachers etc. has no bearing on the notability of this organisation. I looked at your sources when I norminated this, and e.g. this is a passing mention, not a source which gives significant, indepth attention to this organisation specifically. Can you indicate which one or two sources you consider the most substantial, the most indicative of the notability of Yoga Vidya Gurukul? Things like a comment on a Tripadvisor forum [5] won't cut it. Fram ( talk) 13:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  19:34, 14 September 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. Time to put this discussion out of its misery. I am explicitly not closing this based on the argument of advocacy; while the article text was inappropriate in that direction such things can be fixed easily enough and are not reasons for deletion. Nor has it been deleted because the original author is a paid editor who is explicitly complying with the terms of use. However, there has also been a fair bit of ink used discussing the sources, but there seems to be a consensus formed that the references provided are either exceedingly local in nature, of dubious independence from the subject, or primary sources. While not universally accepted, this argument has not been rebutted and is the strongest view presented here.

I will restore this to anyone's user space upon request if they want to go ahead and try to salvage some content. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 22:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation

Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation (  | 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 non-profit organizations that reads like an ad: it is excluded by both points of WP:N, as it fails WP:NOT since the article solely exists to promote the subject, and it also fails the general notability guideline. The sourcing that exists in the article is almost all from the org or a related website. Google News search reveals only connected sources (PR or org personnel interviews) or local coverage that typically doesn't rise to the level we expect for companies. All of these concerns make deletion the most appropriate response under policy. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Hello, I would like to address the concerns about the Rainbow Housing page, so that it is not deleted.
    First, the article does not solely exist to promote the subject, but rather provide factually correct information that has been published in credible sources. As mentioned in the entry, Rainbow Housing is a non-profit entity, so there is is not a commercial motivation behind this organization. The article avoids puffery and it is not written to read like an advertisement since it is not intended to “promote or sell a product, service or idea.”
    Second, in terms of notability guidelines, the article does include citations to reliable news sources that establish there has been significant coverage of the organization from multiple publications. While the organization’s website is used as a source of information, the 12 other outlets cited in the article provide factual details. The news articles used in the citation include content written by independent reporters. I added more citations and sources the the article today, 8/14/17.
    When conducting a google news search for “Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation,” the first page of results does not yield any PR press releases. The search results include an article published by one of the U.S.’s largest daily major newspapers (Houston Chronicle), an online real-estate trade magazine (Commercial Property Executive), and an established national magazine (Affordable Housing Finance). In terms of Wikipedia’s policy on notability, I did not see any criteria related to what can be found in a Google News search. I do not see the connection between deleting a Wikipedia page based on your Google search, but please direct me to the appropriate Wikipedia guideline, since I found no mention of Google News Search in WP:N and WP:NOT.
    However, I do know that the notability guidelines state that “notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.”
    Perhaps notable news sources not already being used in citations can also be found outside of conducting only a Google News search. Since their is a concern for the sources currently being used, below is a brief overview of the outlets cited in the Wikipedia article. Upon reviewing these, it is clear that many of these citations come from trusted sources that are used for other published Wikipedia entries.
    • The Houston Chronicle “is the largest daily newspaper in Houston, Texas, United States. As of April 2016, it is the third-largest newspaper by Sunday circulation in the United States.” The Chronicle is also one of the largest newspapers in the state of Texas.
    • Affordable Housing Finance is a national magazine published by Hanley Wood, a real estate media firm that “is one of the ten largest business-to-business media companies in the United States, with the largest analytics and editorially driven Construction Industry Database of more than 2.5 billion records.”
    • Next City “is a national urban affairs magazine and non-profit organization based in Philadelphia.” (Next City Wikipedia page)
    • Arizona Business Magazine is the Arizona’s “leading monthly Business magazine. Published by AZ Big Media, the magazine covers a wide range of topics focusing on the Arizona business scene, and is aimed at high-level corporate executives and business owners.”
    • Bisnow Media is “a multi-platform digital media company that produces news and live events...covering 27 metropolitan markets across the U.S., Canada and the U.K. with a subscriber base of over 600,000, Bisnow is one of the largest producers of commercial real estate news and events.” (BisNow Wikipedia page)
    • Multi-Housing News is a real-estate magazine headquartered in New York that “became an online real estate magazine in July 2012.”
    • How Housing Matters is an online resource which conducts housing-related research projects. It was created by the Urban Institute, “a Washington D.C.-based think tank that carries out economic and social policy research.”
    • Shelterforce an independent, non-academic publication, that has been used as a citation in other Wikipedia pages, such as Gary Winkel and Susan Saegert.
    • In addition to large, established outlets, a number of smaller trade outlets are cited as well. They include the following. National Real-Estate Investor is a national magazine that had reported on real estate-related news for 50+ years. Commercial Property Executive is an online trade magazine with a focus on reporting about commercial real estate business across the U.S. Connect Media is an online commercial real estate news source.
Therefore, I do not think deletion is appropriate in this case. HannahVerg ( talk) 22:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)HannahVerg reply
  • That is quite a lot to process, but I'll try: first, the Houston Chronicle mention is fairly trivial: a smaller part of the larger article and a quote from a staffer. Even if it was more substantial, it was in the paper's local section, which is not as valuable as coverage in regional or national sections. The Next City Source is an op-ed by an employee of the NGO (see WP:SPIP). Trade publications and business journals are rarely considered to be reliable sources sufficient for notability on Wikipedia: they tend to reprint press releases and whatever they are told by the organization in question, and that seems to be the case for most of the things here. The language in the article clearly shows a promotional intent and tone as well, so in addition to the the lack of sourcing available that meets our standards, it would be excluded by WP:NOTPROMO. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note also, just noting for future readers HannahVerg has declared in compliance with the terms of use that she has been paid to edit this article. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Article content is neutral in tone and supported by credible news content from reliable trade and GCM media outlets with varied geographic reach. This article presents factual information regarding a valid non-profit organization. ctonih25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniharrison25 ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Struck vote per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toniharrison25 TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note I would like to clarify that I was not paid by this organization to create the article. I merely disclosed my employer to provide transparency on how I became aware of Rainbow Housing, not to declare that I was paid to edit this article. I will edit my talk page accordingly to avoid future confusion. I also edited the page to reduce "promotional intent and tone." In terms of trade publications, I could not find and Wikipedia policy stating that these types of publications are not credible. HannahVerg ( talk) 20:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks HannahVerg ( talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC), J 947( c) ( m) 03:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I've cleaned it up a bit and fixed some references. I searched newspapers.com and their housing units are all over the country. It seems likely there are local news articles and TV news segments that exist out there - see WP:NPOSSIBLE. I also added an article from the Albuquerque Journal about its partnership with a San Francisco company to make housing units more ecofriendly etc. I think it needs to be less promotional and more encyclopedic in its tone, but it's not that bad compared with the truly horrific promo puff pieces on here. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The local stuff wouldn't get it anywhere near the GNG even under NPOSSIBLE. Quite literally every local non-profit in the United Statss would be eligible if we held them to local only coverage. Re: spam. Yes, they aren't for profit but this is just as horrific a promo piece as many of the businesses I've seen on here. Combine that with the COI issues with both of the !votss above and deletion is the clear best option under policy here TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Local newspapers/television do not fail as reliable sources. That is only when the subject of the Wikipedia article has only coverage local sources, the point of which is to prevent people creating Wikipedia articles about their town's beloved 85-year-old librarian using the 10 articles about her in their town's newspaper. There are SIX NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS in the United States. That's it. The subject of this Wikipedia article is the organization itself, which is based in Phoenix. Therefore, the article in The Albuquerque Journal (the largest newspaper in New Mexico) about the organization working on a project in Albuquerque attests to the organization's notability. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • Yes: and we even hold the local sections of those six national papers to a much lower value than we do the rest of their coverage. It tends to be of significantly lower quality and cursory in coverage than stories of regional or national importance. The fact that the only sourcing that can be found here is local makes a very strong case that the subject does not meet our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
          • Hello, this is the creator of the page. Yes, the organization has received local coverage, but this is coverage that spans across the nation since Rainbow Housing has a national reach. The citations come from a variety of sources. There is also coverage from large national trade magazines, such as Affordable Housing Finance and Bisnow Media, so the sourcing is not only local. I have not been able to locate any Wikipedia policy that states trade magazines are not credible sources. Local coverage does not mean lower quality coverage. There are reporters who have received Pulitzer Prizes for local coverage, such as Lisa Falkenberg and Raquel Rutledge. HannahVerg ( talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY with no encyclopedically relevant content. The sources are either WP:SPIP or passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NORG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix ( talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per K.e.coffman. The majority of the sources are not independent (either directly with org's website or written by their staff). Others are just passing mentions. Insufficient in-depth independent coverage. MB 15:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know this has been here for a long time, but I'm in a quandry how to close it. So, I'm going to make my standard offer to the people arguing to keep. Could you list here the TWO OR THREE best sources, which discuss this from the point of view of WP:ORGDEPTH. Specifically, are there sources which talk about the organization itself, rather than mentioning it in the context of some project or event which the organization was involved with? Please limit it to just two or three; if you're willing to put in the effort to filter it down to a small number, I'm willing to put in the effort to read them. But, I'm not going to wade through a long list in the hopes something there clicks. There's no hard requirement that the sources need to be in national media, but the larger the audience scope, the stronger the source, so bear that in mind when selecting the best sources to review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep In response to RoySmith (talk). Below please see a listing of 3 best sources in the Wikipedia article.
    • 1. Albuquerque Journal: This 2008 coverage is specifically about Rainbow Housing's work. One main focus of the article is Rainbow's partnership with NRG Energy. This is reference #24 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. Link to article: [1]
    • 2. Connect Media Commercial Real Estate: This article is a Q&A with the director of Rainbow. The content focuses on how Rainbow's housing model works. Connect Media is an online commercial real estate news source. This is reference #21 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. Link to article: [2]
    • 3. Commercial Executive Magazine: This article's focus is that Rainbow Housing was selected as a service provider for a new Section 811 development in Arizona. Commercial Property Executive is an online trade magazine with a focus on reporting about commercial real estate business across the U.S. This is reference #21 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. This is reference #3 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. Link to article: [3]

References

  1. ^ https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/206801098/
  2. ^ https://www.connect.media/qa-affordable-housing-development-local-economy/?cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-White%20House%20Proposes%20Entrepreneurial%20Immigration%20Rule%20-_-News
  3. ^ http://cem-az.com/gorman-company-inc-selects-rainbow-housing-as-service-provider-for-one-of-the-first-section-811-multifamily-housing-developments-in-arizona/

Thank for taking the time to review. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional sourcing. HannahVerg ( talk) 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Two things: just a note for the closing admin that this user has already !voted above. Second, of the three sources, only the first qualifies as anything near a reliable source. The 2nd is an interview, so it is WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't meet GNG. The second is a press release style article in a trade publication that is now excluded as counting toward notability by WP:ORGIND. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: please find a better argument for keep, or it may end up as a delete close next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  19:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Fails the significant coverage requirement for WP:ORG. When asked above to provide the 3 best reliable sources, the article creator listed only one (The Albuquerque Joournal) which might meet the standard for significant coverage by an independent reliable source. The second ref is about affordable housing in general, not about this organization. The third ref is clearly a press release. Given that these are the "best" references presented after a month of searching, the page fails WP notability criteria at this time. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom but especially per User:CactusWriter. This may be a wonderful organization but that's not the question here. Is it notable enough for an encyclopedic article? No. Ifnord ( talk) 16:32, 22 September 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) 19:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Tommy Nelson (mayor)

Tommy Nelson (mayor) (  | 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 local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being the mayor of a town with a population of 4K is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about his work in that role to get over WP:NPOL #2 (local political figures who have received significant press coverage) — and one piece of purely local coverage of his indictment on a criminal charge is not, in and of itself, evidence that he's more notable than the norm for smalltown mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 15:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  19:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is some coverage of him (this CNN story picked up from wire services and local media like The Advocate) but he seems to be notable for being caught as part of a sting operation, so WP:BLP1E would apply. If there was an article about it, I would support merging with that, but there isn't. 331dot ( talk) 19:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Small town politician with legal problems. Fails the WP:POLITICIAN high bar. A bit of racist dogwistling in the lead as well, in my opinion. Carrite ( talk) 11:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Tara Chandra Chaudhari

Tara Chandra Chaudhari (  | 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 fails WP:V. I have spent all afternoon searching and have found nothing that can verify any of the facts stated in this article. The single source on the article is permadead, no Wayback Machine copy available. Same with the sources on the page of his political party ( Nepal Loktantrik Samajbadi Dal). None of the resources I can find about the 2008 Nepali election list this person as a member of the Nepalese Constituent Assembly, under any of the following variations of his name: "Tara Chandra Chaudhari", "Tarachandra Chaudhari", "Tara Chandra Chaudhary", "Tarachandra Chaudhary", "Tarchandra Chaudhari", or "Tarchandra Chaudhary". Google searches in Nepali under his Nepali name didn't turn up any election results either. There is no Nepali Wikipedia article to check for info or sources.

Sources checked are as follows:

Ultimately I don't know if this was a mistake or a translation error with the name but it seems fairly clear to me that Tara Chandra Chaudhari was not a member of the CA and therefore does not pass WP:NPOL. What I can't tell is if Tara Chandra could possibly be a mistranslation for Laxmilal since they have the same last name, or if it's the wrong political party listed for Tara Chandra (although I doubt that since I've been double checking everything by name not just by party). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 23:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 23:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- should the article be then moved to Laxmilal Chaudhary, if that's what the sources show for the 2008 election? K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I wasn't sure if a move was appropriate, given that it seemed to be two different people. In case anyone went through the history and was confused that an article about Person A had been changed to be about Person B. But I have no problem doing the work for that if it's an acceptable solution. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A move is being discussed, and that may impact notability discussions especially since the subject of the article is in doubt, so keeping open for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Spaceman Spiff 13:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Dwarika's Hotel

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

advertising CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This hotel is clearly notable, as Google Books and Google News searches show. I have expanded the article, added references and removed a blog reference. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:25, 15 September 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 as WP:OR. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Lactase persistence frequencies by population

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

Copyright violation: The table is taken completely from a single PhD thesis, with only rearrangement of rows and columns. Since this is a "creative listing", it is subject to US copyright law. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm not enough of an expert to judge the possible copyright violation. But the content of the article is largely from one unpublished thesis, which makes it original research. The topic is likely notable, but it needs to be written and sourced from independent reliable sources. I've never advocated deletion from WP:TNT before, but with possible copyvio and OR, this article seems to be unrecoverable without a lot of work. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Copyright law of the United States#Compilations of facts and the sweat of the brow doctrine Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The University College London (the publisher of the doctoral thesis) indicates that "from the copyright perspective a doctoral thesis is an unpublished work prepared for the purposes of examination. The inclusion of extracts from copyright works may be covered by the fair dealing exception for purposes of instruction and examinations as long as it is "fair dealing"." [10] More importantly, the lactase persistence frequencies are actually from many different analyses, which are enumerated in the frequency table (pages 215-223) as well as in the bibliography (pages 193-207 [11]). Each of these analyses can instead be linked to if need be, though that does not seem particularly necessary since the work is a literature review. Soupforone ( talk) 04:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Wrong. When a doctoral thesis is published it stops being ..er.. unpublished. Fair use doctrine applies for excerpts, not for complete pieces of information. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment An additional problem with this table is that these numbers are not absolute, but rather a result of some sampling of population and therefore of questionable stability. Moreover, the data are taken from various publications and there is no guarantee they have a consistent methodology. We have already had extensive discussions about dangers of putting statistics from various sources into a single table. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete More than anything, I say "oh. my. god." I always get surprised at the labor people put into these kind of hyperdetailed lists and tables. So the problem here is that is a work of original research that is compiled here in Wikipedia, and this is not what we do here. So this is a WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:OR thing. Maybe has a place in Wikidata. Jytdog ( talk) 04:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per Jytdog, for violating WP:OR. Ifnord ( talk) 16:35, 22 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Martin Senn

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

run of the mill business person, only outside reference is to his suicide. WP:GNG WP:BLP1E CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 18:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Easily meets GNG. There are a million articles about his suicide, from much higher profile sources than the one included in this article ( i.e. WSJ, Reuters, the guardian, etc), but there are also a bunch of sources from before he killed himself that cover him as well [12] [13]. Please try doing a google search before AfDing a new article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 18:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. Senn was an important Swiss manager.-- Ruedi B ( talk) 15:57, 17 September 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 Greenwich Library. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Cos Cob Library

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

Run of the mill library. No significant coverage in reliable sources. See here and here. Sorry. J 947( c) ( m) 18:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, tentatively, leaving a redirect behind. If there were more development, this could continue or be restored as a separate article, but currently there is only a sentence or two which can indeed be carried in the main article about the Greenwich Library system. It doesn't hurt really to have this article separately, but perhaps readers would be happier arriving at a bigger article which provides more context about all 4 of the Greenwich library branches.
At the redirect left behind, the categories ( Category:1930s establishments in Connecticut and Category:Public libraries in Connecticut) should be left there.
Note, User:HaapsaluYT is welcome to comment in this AFD. -- do ncr am 18:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from nom: I'm happy with a merge. J 947( c) ( m) 03:48, 21 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael Roney

Michael Roney (  | 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 WP:GNG CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 18:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 18:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 18:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 18:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable businessman. CEO of a FTSE 100 company for 11 years, now chairman of a FTSE 100 company and a FTSE 250 company. Article was a bit thin and somewhat out-of-date, and has now been expanded. Another case of WP:BEFORE? Edwardx ( talk) 09:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep See above. Zigzig20s ( talk) 09:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Edwardx. People need to stop starting AfDs on articles as soon as they're created. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No opposition to sources found. This could be reopened if someone puts forward a valid argument why the sources that SoWhy do not convey the meeting of GNG. (non-admin closure) J 947( c) ( m) 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Harry Sieben Sr.

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

I'm afraid I don't think this meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Not significant coverage and not an elected official. Boleyn ( talk) 18:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing here constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and there's no evidence that he received enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG. Having been a director of the Small Business Administration is where the potential notability might be sitting — but that's still not a claim that gets him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of much better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 06:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my standards. Again I stress that running for office does not make a lawyer notable. In this case, however, he also served as Federal SBA head under LBJ, and furthermore a Marshall and court clerk. Bearian ( talk) 03:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Sure, if somebody could show actual reliable source coverage about him in that role. But it's not an automatic inclusion freebie that would entitle an article to stand on this quality of sourcing. Bearcat ( talk) 18:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply
NOTE: Sieben was not the Federal Director of the SBA, but a Regional Director (Region V). (source added to article) — CactusWriter (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 04:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A member of an important Minnesota political family. My own sympathies are for keeping biographies of two-time Congressional candidates, but consensus is that being an unelected politician subjects one to a high bar for inclusion. A very notable namesake son, but the father is not, it would seem. I have not been able to consult Johhn Haynes' book on the history of the Minnesota DFL, buried in my stuff, that would hold the only potential source to save this piece. Carrite ( talk) 11:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Searching for him on newspapers.com nets quite a lot of coverage, such as [14] [15] and [16]. There is probably much more but one would have to sieve through all the false positives to find them. Personally, I think these are sufficient to show notability per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST but I won't invest more time now if the article is deleted anyway. If it's kept, ping me and I will check for more. Regards So Why 10:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per the clippings SoWhy found. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)≤ reply
  • Weak keep as there are a lot of claims to notability, it's just a matter of getting sources. Since I do not believe anyone thinks this is a hoax, it's a keeper. Ifnord ( talk) 16:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per SoWhy, there seem to be sources, just not ones that are easily available online, which is to be expected for this kind of topic. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 21:44, 22 September 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. While the existence of many articles about the subject was claimed, none were produced. So Why 10:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Bill Bayes

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

I'm not convinced he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG - no significant coverage, not an elected politician. Boleyn ( talk) 17:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – he was VP nominee of Prohibition Party which, while it admittedly isn't a major party these days, it was a historical force in U.S. politics. There are many articles about him as well. MB298 ( talk) 17:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • For me this is on the cusp of notability. An alternative might be a separate subarticle summarising every Prohibition Party candidate for president and VP, or breaking out the Electoral history section (merging similar details about every VP to Prohibition Party would produce a very long article). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 09:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Personally, I think this article should remain. Bayes is obviously a minuscule political figure, however I think his campaign for both the Prohibition and Constitution parties in 2020 (if he continues to pursue them) should be noted. Of course, the election is still very far away, but he has already been included in the United States presidential election, 2020 page. Also, I think that since Jim Hedges, Bayes' running mate has a page, he should be entitled to one as well. - Polopolus ( talk) 10:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keeping or deleting should not be based on personal preference, but based on sources and Wikipedia policy. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While being the vice-presidential nominee of a minor party can get a person into Wikipedia if he can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, it is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles him to have an article regardless of his sourceability or lack thereof. But the referencing here isn't cutting it at all: this is referenced almost entirely to primary (his biography on the party's own self-published website about itself, and ourcampaigns.com) and unreliable sources (three WordPress blogs and Newsmax), and the only two references that count as reliable sources at all are purely routine local coverage in the context of him running for and losing a city council seat. This is not even close to the kind of sourcing that it takes to get a person over GNG — it's so far away from the kind of sourcing it takes that it isn't even in the same galaxy as GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 06:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is nothing close to enough sourcing to show notability. Being the candidate for an unnoticed party that does not appear on most state ballots is not enough for notability. If the Prohibition Party had been on the Michigan ballot, I think I would have voted for Bayes. I did not like any significant candidates on the ballot, but as I said, these things are not based on what we like, and we should not keep articles based on personal preference. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 04:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 18:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nom. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Represents a minor political party, this is not enough for notability. The sources are not there for GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:18, 18 September 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 for current failure to meet notability requirements. (Similarly to the recent deletion of the artist's page). — CactusWriter (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Diary of a Supernatural

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

Song for a rapper whose main article was deleted. Talk page raises doubts about non-notability, so I'm bringing this to AFD instead of CSD. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Magog the Ogre: Did you try to assess notability yourself WP:BEFORE nominating? There are a lot of reviews cited. Did you look specifically at the 4 I referenced on the talk page. What is your assessment of these? ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Kvng: I did, actually! I am suspicious these might in fact be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN of self-publicity. But I admittedly don't know if these are genuine publicity or just a walled garden, since I am not up on the rap music scene. That's why I'm bringing it up for discussion. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 00:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Sources are adequate and reliable enough to establish notability. I have searched for these sources here on WP and a couple ( HipHopDX, HotNewHipHop) have WP articles. The others are used as sources for other hip-hop WP articles. Certainly not a WP:WALLEDGARDEN as suspected by the nom. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for points laid out by Kvng. Article clearly passes GNG MustaphaNG ( talk) 14:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails the requirements for WP:N (music) - WP is not the marketing arm for launching new careers in the music industry. Atsme 📞 📧 18:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep:Despite not having a strong interest in music generally lately, I still expect to have heard of all Nigerian musicians worthy of WP articles, especially Hip-hop. I consider it strange and to a lesser extent suspicious that I've never heard of the artist behind this album until today. That being said, the references in the article show coverage, but they are mostly non-Nigerian hip hop-related references, would highly benefit from coverage from mainstream newspaper and entertainment sites in Nigeria.
My reason for making this vote weak is based on personal bias judgement, not policy or guideline. Nevertheless, I'll love to know if Versace1608 has listened to any of his music or heard of him before now? Darreg ( talk) 10:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Darreg: I try as much as possible not to settle for what the mainstream offers and i usually dig deep to listen to quality hip hop. That way i catch up with artists who have been making waves in the underground. He actually has been covered by some newspapers. [ here] and [ here] and I've seen his works with the likes of Mode 9, Weird MC, Terry Tha Rapman, Boogey, A-Q etc. I think having international publications all depends on the target audience or maybe where the artist is based. MustaphaNG ( talk) 12:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Is he not based in Nigeria? Darreg ( talk) 18:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The album fails WP:NALBUM. I was able to find two sources that reviewed the album, but it appears that these sources are not reliable. The Creative-hiphop.com and Rapstation.com sources do not have editorial oversight. @ Darreg:, I have never heard of this artist. He's not a well known rapper in Nigeria. There are tons of rap acts in Nigeria without stand-alone articles that are more popular than this guy.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 07:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Please don't use an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Articles for other notable Nigerian rappers will be created in due course.
What leads you to conclude the sources are unreliable? ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Kvng: I am not using that as an argument. I was simply replying to Darreg who asked me a question. I am well aware that popularity is not synonymous with notability. A subject being popular doesn't mean that they deserve a Wikipedia page. There are currently eight references in the article. The first reference is simply a press release about the subject releasing a brief trailer for the album, and doesn't discuss the album. The second reference is an album review of the album. While it is a well-written review, the notability of the website itself is in question. For starters, the website's About Us page doesn't show the website having editorial oversight. As a matter of fact, the website is a promotional platform that has no criteria when it comes to the writers they accept (the website currently has one contributor and an editor-in-chief). Anyone who "got the plug on the latest hiphop happenings in their city/country, or is hungry and looking to create a name for himself/herself in the hip hop community" can become a writer. The third reference shows the album's page at AllMusic; nothing reliable there. The fourth reference is a highly-promotional opinion piece review of the album. Here is an excerpt from the review: "In a world where hip hop has been misconceived and abused, MCskill ThaPreacha resurrects hip hop (in Africa and around the world) on this epic Pan-African hip-hop "Diary Of A Supernatural" album. MCskill presents hip hop as a glorious magnificent craft risen from its ashes of commercialism and flabbergasted flamboyance and immersed in immateriality. It tells a tale of a gatekeeper (Master of the Arts) who rises from glory to glory in his quest to enlighten and break-the-chains of mental slavery in all peoples of the world through his conscious heart-throbbing music." How can someone who isn't known in his native country or around the world resurrect a genre that has been around since the 70s? The review cited above isn't a professional review in any way, shape, or form. It is simply a review meant to promote the album. Words and phrases such as "glorious magnificent craft" and "ashes of commercialism and flabbergasted flamboyance and immersed in immateriality" are not included in professional reviews. The fifth reference is an album review from SpitFireHipHop, an unreliable website with no editorial oversight. The sixth reference is a simply a music post. The HNHH post doesn't discuss the single whatsoever. The HNHH staff who created the page simply copied and pasted a promotional biography of the subject that has been circulated on various platforms. Evidence of the circulated bio can be seen here. The seventh reference is simply a music post about the artist's "Man in the Mirror" song. HipHopDX does not review or discuss the song. The eighth reference is a well-written album review. However, the notability of Rapstation.com should be brought into question because there is no information about the website having editorial oversight. Of the eight references cited in the article, only the second and eight can be considered for acceptance. However, in order for them to be accepted, proof needs to be shown that said references have editorial oversight. As it stands, the album fails WP:NALBUM. It didn't chart on any country's official music chart, didn't win nor was nominated for any notable award, and hasn't been reviewed by a reliable publication.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the detailed rundown. Sounds like your position on some of the more promising references is that they're assumed to be unreliable until there's evidence to the contrary. My own assumptions are a bit more forgiving. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Me i think when specific notability guidelines in wp:nalbums and wp:nsongs are clearly not met, we shouldn't be lenient in our interpretation of significant coverage and sources. If he passed specific guidelines, such as nom/won award, charting, etc. I wouldn't have had a problem with the references. Darreg ( talk) 10:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: a case of A9. Furthermore, cited footnotes are press releases and reviews from primary sources. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 23:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning towards delete, but... I think that this artist is not notable enough yet to be a wiki article. But maybe in the future he can become more notable and then return for a wiki page. The sources are very few considering that the album has been out for almost a year. Surely some more coverage would have surfaced by now. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 02:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for failing notability guidelines. Also, I'll dredge out WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord ( talk) 16:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

291 Broadway

291 Broadway (  | 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 building. No in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. It exists. It had some tenants. Onel5969 TT me 02:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 02:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The NYTimes article is substantially about it, and is in-depth coverage. It is a 19-story building built in 1911; there were obviously much taller buildings by then but this is still major at the time, i think. There's no indication in the article that it is a NYC landmark or has other designation, but the phos suggests to me that it is significant. Why has this article just been created though, I wonder. -- do ncr am 15:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - In-depth coverage with prime example of such from doncram indicating passing WP:GNG.-- Oakshade ( talk) 01:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 17:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Just to note that I've seen this, but I am at work at the moment. I'll comment when I'm home and have access to my references. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Given the full New York Times article, and the fact that it is still in the American Institute of Architects Guide to New York City, means it meets notability. Softlavender ( talk) 02:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • So, everything about this building is fairly equivocal. It's not a landmarked building, but it's across the street from the African Burial Ground and the Commons Historic District, and it's in an area that has a fair number of old but not landmarked buildings. It's listed in the AIA Guide to NYC, but the book doesn't have all that much to say about it; still I found it interesting enough visually to take the picture of it that's in the article. The architects aren't stars by any means, but they did a number of notable buildings in the city, and they have an article here. And then there's the NYT article. I think that if there wasn't that, the building would be borderline and I'd !vote "delete", with the NYT article, it inches over the notability line, and I therefore !vote:
  • Keep Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • A neutral pointer to this discussion has been posted on the talk page of WikiProject New York City. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per arguments above. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 04:28, 16 September 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. No valid deletion rationale advanced, and the claim that this is a copyvio (which would merit stubbing down or speedy, not AfD) has been debunked by the timing of the source publications. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Morris Janowitz

Morris Janowitz (  | 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 have been copied and pasted from several sources. Hakken ( talk) 17:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- this article should have its copyright issues fixed, not have the article deleted. You can help! And I encourage you to do so. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 19:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There's nothing in the nomination (or on the talk page) providing evidence or information about the alleged problematic copying/pasting. It may well be true, but it would have to be such that none of the content is usable per COPYVIO, since the subject is clearly notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, no valid argument for deletion advanced. Earwig's tool reports that a copyright violation is unlikely. In any case, copying can be easily fixed, no need to delete. –  Joe ( talk) 07:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Looking at the page history, it seems Hakken suspected copying from this PhD dissertation. The dissertation only mentions Janowitz once, and although there is a strong similarity between this passage and Morris Janowitz#Perspectives On Civil-Military Relations, that text has been in our article since June 2011 and the dissertation was submitted in 2014. So if any plagiarism has occured, it's more likely to be in the other direction which would be, well, a major oops for the author, but not our problem. And anyway, to reiterate, copyvio issues can be fixed without deleting the article. –  Joe ( talk) 08:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 09:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Joni Paladin

Joni Paladin (  | 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 declined the expired BLPProd and redirected as there appears to be no independent notability. There were sources in a prior version that were removed. Redirect was reverted to present unsourced version. My attempt to find sources was unfruitful. Delete as not meeting GNG, no reliable sources. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no notability. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The artist is better known as Jamie Bond, and her biggest claim to fame appears to be singing the song " Heart of Love", on the soundtrack to the 1985 film The Heavenly Kid. I'm unable to verify the claims made about radio airplay in the current version of the article, but it's possible there are offline 1980s-era sources that may provide more information about her. Chubbles ( talk) 21:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 09:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 17:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ) ³ 09:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Lloyd McCollough

Lloyd McCollough (  | 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:MUSICBIO. Some of the content also constitutes WP:BLP violations due to lack of sources. DrStrauss talk 15:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete WP:BLP isn't a concern since he died in 1976. However, I see no claim of notability and no secondary sources presented. Power~enwiki ( talk) 00:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 09:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 17:48, 14 September 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. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games Opening Ceremony

2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games Opening Ceremony (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by IP. Not notable enough for stand alone article, unsourced with very little content. PRehse ( talk) 17:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:59, 15 September 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. bd2412 T 12:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Criminal Records Keeping in Tanzania Police Stations'

Criminal Records Keeping in Tanzania Police Stations' (  | 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 appears, partly, to be a manual on the method for recordkeeping at local police stations in Tanzania. The other part is a personal essay on problems of said recordkeeping. Chetsford ( talk) 17:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • SNOW Delete for all kinds of rather obvious reasons. Softlavender ( talk) 22:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Essay, and a bad one at that. Un-sourced - PDF at bottom is for US police. The two other links to are to top-level organizations. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I don't think this can be saved with editing. Shelbystripes ( talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. We do not seem to have an equivalent article about police record keeping in any other country, and I consider it is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia,. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No reliable reference and the content of the article does little to support its title. Tecrum ( talk) 10:45, 20 September 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. bd2412 T 12:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hearts Beneath The Mountain

Hearts Beneath The Mountain (  | 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 on e-book was written by a new user whose username is identical to author's name. The e-book has made no bestseller lists, has not received any substantial reviews, and has not won any awards. Chetsford ( talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Self-published. Not sure why we can't make A9 apply to books. BTW I already tagged the author's article for speedy deletion: the mere fact of having self-published a book is no claim to importance. Drmies ( talk) 17:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as very clearly not notable. Almost no web footprint at all. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:39, 15 September 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. bd2412 T 12:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Litespeed

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

Can't find any WP:RS which even come close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a lot of passing mentions and unreliable sources such as blog posts. Most of the editing on this article has been done by two WP:SPAs, so I'm assuming there's WP:COI problems there. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Easy Keep. There are plenty of articles about Litespeed and its bikes in all the main bicycle publications and others that have nothing to do with bicycles:
    • Bicycling - Bike Gear Hall of Fame, October 2011 Merlin and Litespeed Bikes, 1986 (available online)
    • Bicycling - New High-End Road and Tri Bikes, September 2010 Litespeed Xicon (available online)
    • Bicycling - 2016 Buyer's Guide: The Super-Light Titanium Litespeed T1sl, March 2016 (available online)
    • Bicycling - Litespeed’s Newest Gravel Bike Does It All, May 2017 (available online)
    • Bike Rumor - Factory Tour: Litespeed Celebrates 30 years of cutting edge titanium bicycle by Zach Overholt, February 2016 (available online)
    • Cycling Weekly - Icons of cycling: Litespeed Vortex by Simon Smythe, February 13, 2017 (available online)
    • VeloNews - After a two-year hiatus, Litespeed’s TT bike is back and looks sharper than ever By Robbie Stout, March 13, 2009 (available online)
    • FinancesOnline - The World’s 10 Most Expensive Bikes: Cycling With Style #9 Litespeed Blade, March 21, 2016 (available online)
    • Times Free Press - American Bicycle Group rides into future, Litespeed, Quintana Roo maker shifts to Chattanooga location by Mike Pare, August 28th, 2016 (available online)
to list just the first ones I found. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 19:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Most of those are just routine announcements of specific products. That's not what WP:CORPDEPTH is looking for. Of the list above, the one that looks most useful as a source is Icons of cycling: Litespeed Vortex. But, it fails WP:AUD, specifically, media of limited interest and circulation; Cycling Weekly is only of interest to the cycling community. That's what limited interest means.
I disagree with your assertion that "Bike Gear Hall of Fame", "Litespeed Celebrates 30 years of cutting edge titanium bicycle", "Icons of cycling: Litespeed Vortex", or "American Bicycle Group rides into future..." are "just routine announcements". None of these fall in the list of "trivial coverage" given in WP:CORPDEPTH. So, let's go through them one-by-one to see just how many really are "just routine announcements of specific products".
  • Bicycling - Bike Gear Hall of Fame, October 2011
Definitely not an announcement of any product. In fact, no specific bicycle model is mentioned. Instead Litespeed and Merlin are recognized for their pioneering work in making "previously unobtainable metal grades available to frame builders."
  • Bicycling - New High-End Road and Tri Bikes, September 2010 Litespeed Xicon
Yes, a list of new products from several vendors, but it also contains the detail "Litespeed now has more carbon road frames in its line than titanium, but the company isn't abandoning the material."
  • Bicycling - 2016 Buyer's Guide: The Super-Light Titanium Litespeed T1sl
Yup. This is just a product announcement.
  • Bicycling - Litespeed’s Newest Gravel Bike Does It All
Yup. This is just a product announcement.
  • Bike Rumor - Factory Tour: Litespeed Celebrates 30 years of cutting edge titanium bicycle
Definitely not a product announcement. Instead this is an update on the company with some historical background. Also, Bike Rumor does call itself a "blog", but Zach Overholt is "Managing Editor for Bikerumor.com" and so the article falls under the exception "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff."
  • Cycling Weekly - Icons of cycling: Litespeed Vortex by Simon Smythe
Definitely not a product announcement. Instead it is a look back 15 years on the legacy of a frame that "would turn out to be titanium’s swansong in pro cycling, as well as its apogee."
  • VeloNews - After a two-year hiatus, Litespeed’s TT bike is back and looks sharper than ever
While this article does introduce a new model, it also provides a great deal of history of and detail about a bike that played an important role in the sport, such as how "the signature titanium airfoil tube shape was created by accident in the early 1990s and brought to widespread prominence when Lance Armstrong used one (disguised as a Trek) in the 1999 Tour de France."
  • FinancesOnline - The World’s 10 Most Expensive Bikes: Cycling With Style #9 Litespeed Blade
Definitely not a product announcement. Probably better described now as "click-bait".
  • Times Free Press - American Bicycle Group rides into future, Litespeed, Quintana Roo maker shifts to Chattanooga location
Definitely not a product announcement. This is an article all about recent changes to the company.
In summary, of the 9 articles:
2 definitely are just product announcements
2 do introduce new products, but also include important other details about the company and its history
1 is click-bait
4 definitely are not product announcements, and focus instead on the company and its history.
Thus, I would rate the assertion that "most of those are just routine announcements of specific products" as mostly false.
Plus, there is plenty of depth available in articles such as:
  • "At a bicycle trade show in 1986, two East Coast companies introduced titanium bicycle frames in an era where steel ruled the roost, and carbon was just a twinkle in the industry’s eye. One of them became Litespeed"
  • "that’s how Bill Lynskey started, with his small machine shop building high-end chemical and chlorine processing equipment for industrial, aerospace and defense projects"
  • "In the mid-1980s when David Lynskey was nursing a knee injury he took up cycling, got hooked, and quickly began competing."
  • "So with the help of his brother Chris, they welded up a bike and sure enough it worked."
  • "pro cyclists were riding Litespeed frames painted over with their sponsor’s logos. A certain Mr. Armstrong rode one painted as a Trek in the 1999 Tour de France."
  • "Shortly after Bill Lynskey passed away the family sold the company to American Bicycle Group."
  • "The team that turns titanium into bikes at American Bicycle Group's Ooltewah headquarters is 32 strong. They design and cut and bend and weld."
  • "Litespeed started in 1986. It was one of the first to use titanium to build bike frames."
  • "The company's carbon fiber Litespeeds and the Quintana Roo line are manufactured overseas."
  • "I have to make subtle changes to accommodate for components" being released in the industry, says Brad DeVaney, American Bicycle Group's head of product design and development."
to make the article much more than a "very brief, incomplete stub".
Finally, mainstream press articles, such as:
  • "the titanium-framed bike that helped propel Lance Armstrong to his first Tour win."
  • "Holt is the owner of Bicycle Link, a bike store in Atlanta and a Litespeed dealer."
  • "With its expertise in shaping titanium, Litespeed also makes missile wings for Lockheed Martin"
  • "built the chassis and suspension for NASA's new Mars rover, the Mars Science Laboratory, which is headed to the red planet next year."
  • "Based in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Litespeed claims to employ some of the world's leading titanium experts."
  • "the Blade is set to come back on the market as soon as Litespeed finishes testing the new design in the wind tunnel."
  • ""There's some new aero tricks that have never been done in metal bikes," said Brad DeVaney, Litespeed's head designer."
  • "The Tennessee-built bike offers Ti's legendary ride"
  • "Litespeed keeps the Hiwassee affordable by using a powder-coated finish"
  • "Litespeed Siena, WEIGHT: 17 pounds, PRICE: $4,000
  • "you can't beat a classic road bike like my Litespeed Siena."
  • "Litespeed Siena: A racing bike with striking looks and titanium-carbon frame."
  • "Aerodynamic, wing-shaped down tube, fork and seat stays. Unpainted titanium mainframe is durable, scratchproof. Carbon fork and stays cushion the ride."
  • "Weighs 19 pounds. "Price: $3,530."
demonstrate that coverage spans more than two decades and is not limited to limited interest publications. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Still more in print:
  • Bike!: A Tribute to the World's Greatest Racing Bicycles by Richard Moore and Daniel Benson, 2012, The Miegunyah Press, an imprint of Melbourne University Publishing, ISBN 0522861830, 9780522861839 available for preview on Google Books
  • "While most other manufacturers were experimenting with aluminum and carbon, Litespeed pioneered the use of titanium in bicycle frames and produced bikes that were as revered for their sumptuous silver finish as their durability and light weight."
  • "For a long time that reputation was linked to the frames that the Tennessee company produced for other brands, including Bianchi, Merckx, De Rosa, and Trek."
  • "In 2002--by which point David's brother Mark Lynskey had become the company's president--Litespeed stepped into the big league..."
  • "The secret to this success lay in Litespeed's use of 6/4 titanium, comprising 6 percent aluminum and 4 percent vanadium, as opposed to the more usual 3/2.5 mix."
  • The Racing Bicycle: Design, Function, Speed by Richard Moore, Daniel Benson, and Robert Penn, 2015, Rizzoli International Publications, Incorporated, ISBN 0789331012, 9780789331014. No preview available, sadly.
  • "Litespeed" pages 176-181
  • "Richard Moore, a former racing cyclist, is a regular contributor to the Guardian, Sky Sports, and Procycling."
  • "Daniel Benson is the managing editor of Cyclingnews.com, the largest online cycling magazine."
  • "Robert Penn is the author of It’s All About the Bike and writes for the Financial Times and Conde Nast Traveler."
  • The No-Drop Zone: Everything You Need to Know about the Peloton, Your Gear and Riding Strong by Patrick Brady, 2011, Menasha Ridge Press, ISBN 978-0-89732-660-5. Available for preview on Google Books
  • "Soon after, the company that is today the largest playing in the titanium market, Litespeed, got its start.
  • "Eventually, Litespeed's parent company bought Merlin.
and so coverage is international, deep, and not merely online. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This does not seem to be an encyclopedic topic, and is unsupported by adequate reliable sources. DaveApter ( talk) 15:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
In what way does it "not seem to be an encyclopedic topic"? Because it is an article about a company? Because it is not notable? Please indicate in which way the topic does not seem to be encyclopedic.
What is inadequate about the sources that support this article? The requirements that I can find are:
  • significant coverage in secondary sources, which must be reliable and independent of the subject. "Significant" is not defined, except that "single independent source is almost never sufficient," which leaves it open to interpretation.
  • coverage cannot be trivial or incidental.
  • coverage cannot be only local or of limited interest and circulation.
So here are the independent, reliable, secondary sources with non trivial or incidental coverage that demonstrate that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international" source exists:
1. Wired - Litespeed's Titanium Bike Looks Like a Stealth Bomber, Is Priced Accordingly by Leander Kahney, Sept 25, 2008 (available online):
  • Wired is completely independent of Litespeed.
  • Wired is reliable. It was founded in 1993 and has a circulation of 851,823.
  • Wired is a secondary source.
  • Wired's coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental. It is mostly about a specific product, but includes many details about the company.
  • Wired is not of limited interest or circulation.
2. Bike!: A Tribute to the World's Greatest Racing Bicycles by Richard Moore and Daniel Benson, 2012, The Miegunyah Press, an imprint of Melbourne University Publishing, ISBN 0522861830, 9780522861839 available for preview on Google Books and available for sale on Amazon:
  • Bike! is completely independent of Litespeed.
  • Bike! is reliable. It was written by established authors and published by an established publisher. It is not self-published.
  • Bike! is a secondary source.
  • Bike! coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental.
  • Bike! is a hardcover book and so its "interest" and "circulation" are unknown, but it is an international source. Are there some kind interest broadness and/or sales volume criteria for hardcover books?
3. Cycling Weekly - Icons of cycling: Litespeed Vortex by Simon Smythe, February 13, 2017 (available online):
  • Cycling Weekly is completely independent of Litespeed.
  • Cycling Weekly is reliable. It was founded in 1891 and has a circulation of 28,809.
  • Cycling Weekly is a secondary source.
  • Cycling Weekly coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental.
  • Cycling Weekly is of limited interest and circulation, but establishes international coverage.
4. Times Free Press - "See how Litespeed bikes are built in Ooltewah, Tenn." by Mitra Malek, February 23rd, 2015 (available online):
  • Times Free Press is completely independent of Litespeed.
  • Times Free Press is reliable. It is one of Tennessee's major newspapers.
  • Times Free Press is a secondary source.
  • Times Free Press coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental.
  • Times Free Press is of regional circulation but establishes coverage beyond limited interest publications
5. BikeRumor Factory - Tour: Litespeed Celebrates 30 years of cutting edge titanium bicycle by Zach Overholt, February 2016 (available online):
  • BikeRumor is completely independent of Litespeed.
  • BikeRumor is reliable. It describes itself as a blog, but the article is written by the managing editor of BikeRumor, and "content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff."
  • BikeRumor is a secondary source.
  • BikeRumor's coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental.
  • BikeRumor is of limited interest and doesn't have "circulation" numbers, but claims "more than 4.5 million monthly pageviews as of September 10, 2014 (per Google Analytics)"
6. Bicycling - Bike Gear Hall of Fame, October 2011 (available online):
  • Bicycling is completely independent of Litespeed.
  • Bicycling is reliable. It was founded in 1961 and has a circulation of 325,000.
  • Bicycling is a secondary source.
  • Bicycling's coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental.
  • Bicycling is of limited interest but not limited circulation and so shows national coverage.
So that's 6 reliable sources including a US publication with 851,823 in circulation, a hardcover book published in Australia, a British weekly cycling magazine first published in 1891, a regional newspaper, and a US monthly cycling magazine with 325,000 in circulation. Combined, they establish:
  • significant (6+) coverage in secondary sources, which are reliable and independent of the subject.
  • coverage is not only trivial or incidental.
  • coverage is not only local or of limited interest and circulation.
I look forward to your response. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 01:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Agree with the first comment, notability is well established. Article may need work but should not be deleted.-- INDIAN REVERTER ( talk) 22:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - despite the fact that the editor above was just blocked for voting keep on numerous articles in rapid fashion. I just hunted for sources and it appears that Litespeed is one of the top manufacturers of titanium frames, despite general sentiment that their quality has gone down over the last 10 years since they were acquired by American Bicycle Group. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 04:13, 21 September 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, WP:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Dale Copeland

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

tagged since December 2014. WP:BIO CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 17:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've fixed the article and added a ton of sources. She's a major player in Taranaki, & shown her art around the world. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Nominator is a new editor (8 day old account). A close per WP:HEY is appropriate, considering Megalibrarygirl's improvements. I urge CelenaSkaggs to withdraw the nomination. Mduvekot ( talk) 19:53, 17 September 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. So Why 09:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Shipyourenemiesglitter.com

Shipyourenemiesglitter.com (  | 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 company which was sold for $85,000. CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 17:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:44, 15 September 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) J 947( c) ( m) 06:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Jo Cribb

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

WP:BIO CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 17:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:46, 15 September 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 Move to draft space I shall close this AfD before time's up. I believe it is not helpful to discuss this for a whole week when we are six days out from an election. I shall move the draft into the project space of the New Zealand politics working group and if the person is successful, we can merge content to the draft entry that's already there for this candidate. Schwede 66 07:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Jack McDonald (politician)

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

Political candidate for upcoming election, doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. One of a number of such entries by user Nexus000 CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 17:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This may change after the NZ general election, depending on whether the candidate is elected as an MP, but at this point in time BLP currently does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Is there any reason why this couldn't wait a week, election is 8 days away so after that we will know if the pages Nexus000 has created are relevant or not and the ones created that didn't get into parliament can be deleted then? NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    We should move it into draft space until then. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    Agree, believe that would be better than deleting at this stage till after the election is over then a proper decision can be made NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    Agreed. Will make better contributions next time. User:Nexus000 3:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    There is also a Wikiproject draft already created. Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs/Jack McDonald (politician) Ajf773 ( talk) 08:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect this electioneering to the electorate page as a one-liner. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:10, 16 September 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 I shall close this AfD before time's up. I believe it is not helpful to discuss this for a whole week when we are six days out from an election. I've gone ahead with deleting the article as this action was supported by the article's creator. Schwede 66 07:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Damon Rusden

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as he is purely a candidate. Infobox is misleading, there's no such thing as an incumbent candidate. Doesn't meet general WP:BIO. CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN and based on list ranking is unlikely to after Sept 23. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, will make better contributions next time. Nexus000 ( talk) 03:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect this electioneering to the electorate page as a one-liner. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:10, 16 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

LogicManager

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Many of the references are dubious or trifling, example

  • The list of awards cited to non-notable publications, "Best Place to Work", N of 50 "most valuable companies", etc.
  • "LogicManager: Offering User-friendly ERM Solutions" published in CIO Review which is just a long interview with the CEO pumping this firm. That is his fiduciary duty but not ours to offer another forum to publish these things.

I attempted cleanup, but was reverted; so if this is an advertising magnet WP:TNT also applies. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clear to me that this is a promotional piece, architected to get this firm and its product to the top of Google searches (upper right hand corner). Best practices means that the leaders in a field are using the practice. There is no indication anywhere that the software or its methods are proven. The subject does well in interviews, but the claim is still empty. The same criteria should be used on RIMS Risk Maturity Model, another bogus article designed to support this one. The article promises that the Risk Model is free. It doesn't appear so. http://riskmaturitymodel.org/ is no org. It's a site controlled by LogicManager. Don't get fooled into participating in this well-authored promotional scheme. Rhadow ( talk) 16:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Hello, I have considered your concerns very carefully and have reverted the page back to a previous version that did not violate the terms you are citing, or at least were not flagged as violating any terms. I hope this will resolve the issue and that the deletion tag can now be removed. If there are any edits you wish to make to this version, please do so. ANicoleJ ( talk) 14:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment ANicoleJ, this is your first article, and a fine piece of work. I am not worried about violations. My concern is whether this company belongs in an encyclopedia. The underlying question is whether LogicManager, the company, has had any significant or demonstrable effects on the business world or life in Boston. Looked at in this light, what Forrester, or Gartner, or CIO magazine says are not compelling. Did you read the Forrester report? It costs $2,495. Journal of Risk, likewise, is behind a paywall. The CIO article was a puff piece, an ego-stroker. I recommend you read WP:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. After repeated references, paywalled publications, puff pieces, and links to LogicManager controlled sites are eliminated, the cupboard is bare. Rhadow ( talk) 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    There is no requirement that articles use freely accessible sources. The Forrester report is the best source in this article. While researching this earlier, I downloaded a pdf of a 2016 Forrester report (can't remember where I found it, but it wasn't by paying $$$$.) It scored LogicManager at 4.4/5.0 (not a perfect score) on "Customer references" which isn't exactly an "award" in any case. More relevantly, it also stated that LogicManager had more than 2300 GRC customers and that all vendors in the report had at least $15 million in 2014 revenue. That's something, but considering Navex Global (AfD) and BWise are listed in the report as having an even larger market presence and still got deleted, it isn't automatic grounds for inclusion. Furrykiller ( talk) 21:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- a wp:promo page on a private company that is not encyclopedically relevant just yet. At the moment of this iVote, the article content is strictly promotional, and I don't believe that the article can be improved through regular copy-editing, as the sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH. Part of an apparent walled garden which also includes RIMS Risk Maturity Model; both articles have been edited by the same single purpose account that created the Maturity model article. So, it's a "delete" all around for me. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, promotion piece, not notable company per WP:Corp for stand alone article. Kierzek ( talk) 15:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, violation of WP:NOTPROMO, would require complete rewrite to become encyclopedic and even then, the subject is unlikely to be notable. Rentier ( talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Rhadow, I would like to address your comment “The underlying question is whether LogicManager, the company, has had any significant or demonstrable effects on the business world or life in Boston.” I believe the company has had a demonstrable effect on the business world especially. The research study in Journal and Risk by Queens University has proven that organizations exhibiting mature risk management practices realize a potential value growth up to 25%, confirming the value of strong enterprise risk management programs. “Mature” in this context is defined by the RIMS Risk Maturity Model which the CEO of LogicManager authored and donated to RIMS. I believe this connection between enterprise risk management and every organizations’ value is a huge contribution to the business world.
As the current version stands, there are only third-party sources that are very notable and trusted in the GRC community. The study found in Journal and Risk is a peer reviewed academic study. Forrester and GRC 20/20 are independent research firms. RIMS is a non-profit dedicated to educating the community on GRC. Enterprise risk management is a growing field, not familiar to many, so I understand how discerning which sources have proper depth can be difficult in this case, but I assure you that these are preeminent sources in the industry that not only stand out as non-biased, but demonstrate the effects LogicManager has had on the business community. Therefore, the company is not in violation of WP:Corp which states “If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists,” because the company has received recognition from notable independent sources. As for the CIO Review article, it is only used in this context to provide objective information about what the company does, not how well they do it.
I hope this has allayed the main concerns of this discussion regarding the value and credibility of the information provided by LogicManager’s article. ANicoleJ ( talk) 20:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'm glad you mentioned "The Valuation Implications of Enterprise Risk Management Maturity" in the Journal of Risk and Insurance. Do you have access to it? For me they want six bucks to read it. It is indeed a legit journal and has costs to cover, I guess. Fortunately, I have access to a free PowerPoint by the same authors with the same subject in the title; I'm pretty sure it's a synopsis of what's in the full paper. They mention "Logic Manager" (as they spell it) exactly twice, and not in any detail about the company. Rather it appears to be a data point that the RIMS Risk Maturity Model is being adopted in business settings. So as far as this deletion debate goes, it appears to be null. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • In response to your question, Bri, “"The Valuation Implications of Enterprise Risk Management Maturity" doesn't seem to have any bearing here. can you clarify why you think it should?” I believe it does have bearing because Steven Minsky, CEO of LogicManager, wrote the RMM based on LogicManager’s framework. The study in question is based on the RMM. While I cannot share a peer-reviewed academic journal, I can point you to the landing page where the RMM resides, https://www.rims.org/resources/ERM/Pages/RiskMaturityModel.aspx You’ll see this in the footer: “RIMS Risk Maturity Model for Enterprise Risk Management was developed with the support of co-developer Steven Minsky, CEO of LogicManager, Inc. LogicManager is a leading developer of ERM solutions and creator of its own innovative risk maturity model. LogicManager, based in Boston, donated its intellectual property, expertise and services for the development of the RIMS Risk Maturity Model for Enterprise Risk Management.” As you can see, LogicManager donated the RMM to RIMS, which is why the assessment is hosted on RIMS’ website. Without LogicManager, there would not be Risk Maturity Model, which has made an immense impact on the GRC industry and the business world.
But this is only one of the points of evidence that makes LogicManager a notable organization. Let’s not lose sight of the others such as the company’s recognition by Forrester and GRC 20/20, which recognize the company for the software they created. The value award they received from GRC 20/20 was in recognition of how one company, Winona Health, was able to use LogicManager’s software to achieve a significant and demonstrable effect on their business performance. Source: http://grc2020.com/product/winona-health-value-achieved-in-risk-management/ ANicoleJ ( talk) 14:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sources for most of the article do not looks like reliable sources. Only the journal source looks more or less serious, but aside from that it does not look like it is a notable company/software provider. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 02:07, 22 September 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 procedural close.. No article exists in main namespace. The AfD template was placed on the draft article Draft:Jay Kaoshik, which has been deleted per WP:G2 as a test page. North America 1000 15:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Jay Kaoshik

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

Reason YOUNG BRAINS ( talk) 13:24, 14 September 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) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Tom Hinchcliffe (political strategist)

Tom Hinchcliffe (political strategist) (  | 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 notability - an MP is notable, their office staff aren't. Cabayi ( talk) 13:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 13:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 13:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Because it doesn't meet the criteria - in this case there's a case to merge with Hamilton's article or it's possible my google-fu is not very good. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Sockpuppet !votes Special:Diff/801277179

MergeI propose merging this with Fabian Hamilton as it seems extremely relevant to his page. Pigeon0999 ( talk) 10:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge Anything Hamilton does publicly is directed through him so should be merged

Merge Think a merge with Hamilton would be best as he, apparently, controls the whole media strategy and public affairs of Hamilton's office and Shadow Cabinet position Firefox09101 ( talk) 14:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge With Fabian Hamilton article. Not relevant enough for own page, but definitely notable enough to be linked if he is controlling whole media output of a Shadow Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thingthing11 ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Thingthing11 ( talk) 14:53, 15 September 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. Speedy deleted by consensus. Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, A7. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Edmund Olotu

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

Non-notable person. — Za wl 13:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete I was debating between an A7/G11 tag and an AfD myself when this popped up after I looked through the sources. Probably could be a A7 candidate since none of the sourcing is reliable and doesn't make an claims of significance, but letting the AfD play out is fine as well. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Note, as someone else concurs with my assessment here so quickly after it was nominated, I've tagged it as G11/A7. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as unambiguous advertising. Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  13:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:PROMO and WP:CS — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per above.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 16:56, 14 September 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) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Echo Chamber (RJ Thompson album)

Echo Chamber (RJ Thompson album) (  | 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:NALBUM XFhumu Talk 13:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All of the sources are self published, and the article fails WP:GNG. EMachine03 ( talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not released yet, this album is not the subject of many works, I could only found this article who talk about the creation and the content. So, it fails WP:NALBUM's first point; and fails all criteria. -- Lacrymocéphale 18:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now, with no prejudice to its recreation if more sources turn up nearer the time, but for now it's way WP:TOOSOON, and I'm not sure the title is going to be helpful as a redirect to the artist's article. Incidentally, I'm not sure any of the records with articles under RJ Thompson discography pass notability. Richard3120 ( talk) 00:12, 15 September 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) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Patrick McNally

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Currently fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a highly covered league for long enough (and recently signed to a lower league which will not add to his 94 AHL games, so he is a few years out), not a high enough draft pick, and only all-conference honors in NCAA Div. I, no AHCA All-Americans. Yosemiter ( talk) 12:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:02, 14 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Livetecs

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

I'm not finding sources on my own to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources cited in the article are mainly from the company's website. The rest are press releases, database-driven listings, one person's "top 10" list in a blog post, and reviews from the crowd on social media. Google adds download sites and providers of coupon codes to these. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Only a very exceptional company has a chance of passing CORPDEPTH, this company is not exceptional. Curiously the software package it makes could probably have an article. Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Aguyintobooks: So if it was titled "Timelive" and the company itself was only mentioned in passing, it would be more likely to meet criteria in your eyes? Richardaldinho ( talk) 14:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Not only does it not meet WP:ORG but it has been ostensibly written with the express intention of getting this company on Wikipedia. It reads like an advertorial and if I'm not mistaken, the author has a WP:COI. I don't flat out believe they've done enough research or reading our rules before editing the Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Kudpung: Absolutely no COI with me - I just want to publish a page. Please don't jump to unfair conclusions. Richardaldinho ( talk) 10:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • keep with conditions: I don't see any issue with the language; not advertising for me. Would suggest a redraft with the software as the focus 86.28.216.250 ( talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that advertising wasn't among the grounds I cited for deletion. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Creating entity fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the service fails WP:PRODUCT, and nothing indicates the significance of this product as opposed to similar products, which violates WP:MILL.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 04:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I cannot find enough reliable sources to satisfy me regarding the GNG. IDC whether or not it is an advertisment. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 09:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Suna Said

Suna Said (  | 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 demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx ( talk) 18:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ( talk) 17:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:45, 14 September 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, primarily WP:CRYSTAL. The 2017 North Korea crisis merge can be done outside the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Second Korean War

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

Per the closure undertaken by me at Talk:Second Korean War#RfC about WP:BALL.Purely procedural.No comments on merit. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Yes I think that policy says we should AFD this as it is clear that the speculation is about speculation "If a war were to happen (which it wont) this might happen". This is not sufficient for an article. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteRedirect this (as originally to Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69)) and delete similar articles on speculated non-certain future conflicts. Fails WP:BALL(1) and possibly (3). A war while possibly likely is definitely not certain and the date of said possible war is even less certain. Procedurally - I suggest moving this RfC to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (and discuss future possible conflicts in general, with the Korean peninsula provided as an example/test-case), and place this article in AfD - which I intend to doand restore the redirect in this article. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Moot
  • Not sure we need to do anything more then leave a message at Milhist. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I think it is a wider discussion - it really isn't specific to Korea. Should we create Chinese Invasion of Taiwan (speculated), War of the South China Sea (speculated), Shia-Sunni war of the 21st Century (speculated) (GCC vs. Iran)? The arguments for/against all of these (the more notable ones) are the same. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Ahh I see, yes I think an RFC on "speculated wars" is a good idea, but not this one war. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Do we not have WP:GNG? The judgement on these future wars seems pretty straight forward, as any other article on Wikipedia. Casprings ( talk) 15:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    It is presumed notable per GNG (no argument - copious reputable literature addresses the possible speculated future conflict), however GNG also states "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Specifically failing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not-> WP:BALL. Meeting GNG is not enough in and of itself - if you fail on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep article and expand it. The speculation itself meets Wikipedia:GNG. It has been ongoing since the end of the first Korean War. When such a possible event gets that much long term coverage from WP:RS an article should not just be allowed, it should be encouraged as it clearly meets the core purpose of Wikipedia. Casprings ( talk) 15:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Question If WP:BALL means WP:AfD for this article, does it also mean WP:AfD for Korean reunification? Casprings ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Well that would be a question for that pages talk page. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    You could discuss this there, however reunification is a NK and SK policy goal, with actual government ministries, talks, etc. I don't see how that would get deleted - at most name changed (perhaps - a process tacked on - but I doubt even that) - as this is an ongoing attempted process (e.g. similar to Israeli–Palestinian peace process, or other multi-year processes). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect, yes, but to where? Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69) or 2017 North Korea crisis? The problem with using a time-bound article is that it is or will soon become obsolete. And then, when there's another "crisis" in Korea, this same issue will re-emerge. Perhaps it could be redirected to Korean conflict, but that's not a perfect fit either...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Second Korean War and merge 2017 North Korea crisis to Korean conflict#The Trump era is a possibility..it seems a good fit. Irondome ( talk) 17:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I can live with that. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    per Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969) (where this was redirected previously before the usurpation) he Korean DMZ Conflict, also referred to as the Second Korean War by some,[2] was a series of low-level armed clashes between North Korean forces and the forces of South Korea and the United States, largely occurring between 1966 and 1969 at the Korean DMZ; - this was an actual conflict involving gunfire/etc - a few hundred dead on each side - a bit less than War of Attrition... Korean conflict is the first Korean war. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Nothing really is a perfect fit. But Korean conflict has the advantage that it is not timebound. At the same time time we could remove 2017 North Korea crisis link from the Trump era section and merge 2017 North Korea crisis into the Trump era section. Korean conflict is the closest we have to a political/economic/sociological/military overview of the whole 70 odd year conflict. Remember 1953-2017 is technically just a ceasefire. Irondome ( talk) 17:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Well actually this one Korean War is/was, a merge to Korean conflict (which discuses the whole history of the situation form the end of Ww2 to the present day) seems to fit this material, as pretty much this is all, part of the wider issue of the unending war. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Saying there might be a "Second Korean War" is naive. There have been lots of wars during the long History of Korea. This basically "new" article should be reverted to its original purpose, which was a redirect to the mis-named series of 1966–1969 conflicts following the actual/modern- Korean War. How future nK vs sK conflicts might play out is best set forth in Korean conflict. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC) To be clear, my !vote is merge to the original purpose – as a redirect. 18:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete pure crystal-ball gazing. It seems that every time NK fires a missile or explodes a nuke someone feels the need to create a "what if" page about a second (or third) Korean War. Stick to blogs, we are supposed to be an encyclopedia. Mztourist ( talk) 06:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Second Korean War and merge 2017 North Korea crisis to Korean conflict#The Trump era as per Irondome and Jack Upland. Borsoka ( talk) 04:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Second Korean War and merge 2017 North Korea crisis Article about a possible future event is not appropriate. Tornado chaser ( talk) 00:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Second Korean War This sort of page brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Gumsaint ( talk) 03:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is not enough WP:RS to meet the requirements for WP:N. It does not make sense to redirect to another article, as Jack Upland noted, it is a time-bound article. LPW22 ( talk) 16:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Moot !votes.
This is not that article. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Noticed just now and amended my comment accordingly. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
This was a redirect to Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969) for many years. It has been hijacked to create this crystal ball essay. The former redirect was correct (at least in my mind) - so AFDing isn't exactly the right venue. Note that the creator of the essay is the one who jumped the gun, so to say, and ran the RFC - and has been since been claiming that the RFC should run its course prior to restoring the redirect. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
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. by User:Yunshui as WP:G11, A7. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Mohani Tea Leaves

Mohani Tea Leaves (  | 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 independent source to indicate notability. Mar11 ( talk) 10:06, 14 September 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) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Wheel calculator

Wheel calculator (  | 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 a notable neologism. The references don't support any of the content in the article; I find [17] this version from 2010 useful to understand the history of the article. Power~enwiki ( π, ν) 08:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete -- A wheel calculator is nothing but a circular slide rule. This article happens to focus on ovulation, but it is only one of a thousand uses devised before electronic calculators became cheap and ubiquitous. They are used in flight planning (E6-B), dive tables, and artillery. I will add ovulation to the circular slide rule article. Then we can dispense with the article. Change it to a redirect if you want. Rhadow ( talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and put it out of its misery, especially per the above merge of information into Circular slide rules. A redirect to that section would probably be fine too. (Also note the linked online calculator is defunct). -- Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 15:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:55, 14 September 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) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The Lifestyle Times of Jenievie Tolentino

The Lifestyle Times of Jenievie Tolentino (  | 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 created by the same username on another website. http://disneychannel.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lifestyle_Times_of_Jenievie_Tolentino There is no sources to the article which will prove it's existence. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४० †ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • delete no sources probably because appears to be made up by user. I can only find it on wikia and a fake twitter account this. KylieTastic ( talk) 08:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as probable hoax. Trivialist ( talk) 10:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:40, 14 September 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. Speedy deleted per CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Harley-Davidson: Race Around the World

Harley-Davidson: Race Around the World (  | 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 video game with no hits for reliable sources in search. Appears to conflate directory listings with notability but fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:GNG. I'm the author and I requested speedy deletion. Videogameplayer99 ( talk) 21:09, 14 September 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) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Brian F. Martin

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

Contested Prod Fails WP:GNG and Declined AFC submission and a paid article created in violation of block and ban.Please refer to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seeknikkihi.Later edited by another paid editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori .Lacks WP:SIGCOV and The subject's notability is in question, as the majority of the sources cited lack any depth, only mention the subject in passing, or are user-generated content. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 06:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable, article is very low quality, and as the

nom said, created for the subject in violation of policy. Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  07:32, 14 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Mohammad Huda

Mohammad Huda (  | 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 politician who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article subject has not accrued the significant local coverage needed to be considered notable, as the only claim of signifigance the subject has is that he was elected alongside the first Australian Hijabi Councillor. SamHolt6 ( talk) 04:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "My Salaam - Nadia Saleh is Australia's first elected hijabi councillor". mysalaam.com. Retrieved September 14, 2017.
  • Delete Local politician with a couple trivial mentions in The Daily Telegraph, a passing mention in MySalaam, and a short piece on a dodgy-looking WordPress-powered website. Searches of the usual "find sources" types found nothing more significant. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 16:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet the GNG. The sources used are either unreliable, or not independent (the Daily Tele article merely republishes the candidates' own responses to a questionnaire). Kb.au ( talk) 18:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A politician holding office. Article is a stub but should be kept and possible expanded.-- INDIAN REVERTER ( talk) 22:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    Comment INDIAN REVERTER is a new account whose posting history is almost entirely "Keep" submissions to AfDs. sixtynine • speak up • 23:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Liza Koshy (actress)

AfDs for this article:
Liza Koshy (actress) (  | 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 subject is not notable. An article about this subject has been deleted about nine different times under various names, the last being in April 2017. See here: [18] The article includes various unreliable references including IMDB, facebook, instagram, famous birthdays, bustle and youtube. It is said she will be on two shows starting in October 2017. (In the future) Those two items look to be the main additions to the last deleted article, plus one minor web award. Antonioatrylia ( talk) 04:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Antonioatrylia ( talk) 04:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Since the last deletion discussion, Koshy
    • Continues her starring role in season 2 of the Hulu original TV series Freakish, after the series' award-winning success last year. Season 2 will be released in October 2017.
    • She recently received a recurring MTV hosting gig on the series reboot of Total Request Live.
    • Appeared as a recurring character in season 2 of the web series Escape the Night.
    • She played a role in the feature film Boo! A Madea Halloween, among other film appearances.
    • Her main YouTube channel is one of the most popular YouTube channels (also one of the fastest-growing in history), with more than 11 million subscribers to date, and even her 2nd YouTube channel is extremely popular, approaching 5 million.
    • Her Instagram following is also fast-growing, with over 13 million subscribers to date.
    • Her social media penetration is approximately 45 million followers across all platforms.
  • A Google News search shows 8,320 results, including articles by The Los Angeles Times, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, Teen Vogue and The Hollywood Reporter, among other entertainment industry news sources. These WP:RSs are now referenced appropriately in the article, *and* the article has been re-written for encyclopedic tone and is better organized than when it was previously deleted. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Info: At Liza Koshy is a deleted article about her, with 349 edits, dated from 23:11, 14 February 2016 to 11:00, 25 April 2017. It has been deleted several times, and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy; but Talk:Liza Koshy says "This person now has sufficient notability due to TV acting and hosting appearances and is, in addition, one of the fastest-rising social media personalities, with social media penetration of more than 30 million followers. All of this can be referenced by WP:RSs. Would an admin please unfreeze the page? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)". Liza Koshy (actress)'s history starts at 19:32, 6 January 2017, so the two pages are WP:Parallel histories and so cannot be completely history-merged. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: not sure why several entertainment press mentions and starring in a Hulu show is considered non-notable. The article is certainly as fleshed out as some for minor Canadian actors I've seen and no one is trying to delete those, so this feels like a bias against people who started on YouTube or social media. I'd be the first to jump in line to say "delete" if this person was only present in that medium and solely a self-promoter but that is obviously not the case here. She has held widely-recognized show business-related jobs that are documented by reliable sources. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 07:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets GNG (articles in Variety and Hollywood Reporter are a good pointer), as well as broader media. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Based on the acting and hosting credits shown in her article, as well as her unusually fast-growing social media interest and her web acting awards, I think she is clearly notable. Jack1956 ( talk) 09:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable, for all the reasons stated above. Somambulant1 ( talk) 12:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I strongly urge Antonioatrylia to reconsider this nomination. My reasons for reinstating this article are plainly detailed on the talk page for Talk:Liza_Koshy_(actress)#History_and_notability and I will excerpt them here now for ease of use.
  • A prior article at Liza Koshy was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2017, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy. Other than the nominator, it received two "delete" !votes, and one comment favoring a keep. The AfD was closed and the article was deleted on April 24. Five attempts at recreation in the 24 hours after deletion were summarily deleted.
  • Previous to April 2017, I can see that this article was deleted by admins 5 times in October 2016. Also, Elizabeth Koshy (actress) was deleted twice in October 2016. And Liza Koshy (entertainer) was deleted three times in April 2017 and three times in January 2017. (Note: ALL deletions except for the poorly attended AFD in April 2017 were without discussion -- and nominator's suggestion that the multiple deletions show some strong consensus is disingenuous)
  • I have reviewed this person's covera ge as of September 2017. I do not have access to the prior deleted content. I became aware of this article due to the fact that Hank Green tweeted today that he had worked on it. [19].
  • Since the last deletion in April 2017, Koshy has been named the host of a major MTV show [20] and won a teen choice award [21] among much other coverage. I think there is no doubt she is notable at this point, no matter what she was before. She probably was close to notability before, this reminds me of when I had to prove The Annoying Orange had become quite notable despite past deletions.
  • An additional comment- the youtube views for this person are quite amazing. Once again I see a case where mainstream press coverage was delayed compared to actual popularity among teenagers -- the same story of youth culture trends since the Beatles, really. This is why the article kept getting recreated by less experienced editors; they assumed she was notable without having a firm grasp of our notability requirements.-- Milowent • has spoken 13:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • comment One question Milowent. Why did you not publish the AFC draft for Liza Koshy in the usual manner and AFC process? Was there a problem with so many of her likely titles having been salted by admins? Instead uou just bypassed the AFC processes and unilaterally moved the draft into article space. It had been rejected by numerous editors since April 2017. I did read over the deleted article back in April. The two main additions to the current article are about her being named as the host of TRL. The source states sMTV's TRL reboot will bow Oct. 2 and feature multiple hosts including rapper-comedian DC Young Fly, Chicago radio host Erik Zachary, DJ-actress Amy Pham, TV personality Lawrence Jackson and writer-producer Tamara Dhia. Multiple hosts. The show has not yet even begun to air. The second it is a minor web award. Also, I note here there is some quick participation here, likely due to the canvassing and cross posting of this AFD at multiple editor pages, article talk pages as well as notices at appropriate WP project pages. I ask that any closing administrator will take the canvassing under consideration. Antonioatrylia ( talk) 13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
AFC is sometimes baloney, though it is a good thing for newbie editors sometimes. I have written hundreds of articles over the past 10 years and never had one deleted that I am aware of. I saw this subject was plainly notable when a friend on twitter posted about it; i also saw that the prior draft had been substantially rewritten and that bureaucracy creep had overtaken things. So I was WP:BOLD and thought the chance of an AfD was only 50/50 and that you were probably the only editor that would bring one if it happened. If you are right that the subject is not notable, consensus will go that way, and the closing administrator will judge all !votes on their merits, not numbers.-- Milowent • has spoken 16:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Please tell me this AFD is a joke ? ... If not then as per the above - Thousands of sources on Google establishing notability so meets GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 14:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • comment The statement above by Milowent, nominator's suggestion that the multiple deletions show some strong consensus is disingenuous is untrue. My exact words were An article about this subject has been deleted about nine different times under various names, the last being in April 2017. I made no suggestion of a strong consensus at any time. That untrue statement needs to be stricken. Antonioatrylia ( talk) 15:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't a court of law. We don't "strike" things. Your references to multiple past deletions of the article suggests that there is some prior strong consensus for deletion, instead of just a ton of speedy deletions and one poorly-attended AfD in April 2017. Let's just judge the article on its merits. The good thing is that this AfD will likely end the debate either way.-- Milowent • has spoken 16:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • comment People do commonly strike things out of their postings. I have seen it done many times. What you posted is not true, yet you do it again. I stand by my nomination. I would rather see a poorly attended AFD than one with many canvassed participants. Antonioatrylia ( talk) 18:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Antonioatrylia, given that the article's talk page already showed the efforts of two experienced editors to revive the article, it is outrageous that you nominated the article for speedy deletion. Your bringing this AfD, while I must assume it is in good faith, is frankly puzzling. This one is not even close to the line, if you would stop and look at it rationally. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Donald1659, No-one is relying solely on YouTube subscribers, but the GNG met by coverage in Variety, Hollywood Reporter, the LA Times, Deadline and Entertainment Weekly. Her career outside YouTube is as notable as the one on the channel. I'm not a fan of YouTube stars and I've previously voted to delete those that are only visible in that medium, but this is a bit different. Cheers. - SchroCat ( talk) 05:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per the above, the extensive coverage in reliable sources and the industry recognition, I agree that this article should be kept. UWS Guy ( talk) 06:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Of course I am sure you all know that for GNG to be met the subject needs to receive significant coverage in references deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards. Many of the multitude of sources here certainly do not have significant coverage of Liza Koshy. For instance, look at the 4 or 5 references listed in Variety. A reliable source no doubt. One article is a list of finalists for the upcoming Shorty awards. Koshy has a brief mention with her name once on a list of finalists. Second is an article about the show Freakish. Article is about the show not LK. She has brief mention explaining her role the show. Thirdly there is another article about YouTube red. Several different people have brief mention including LK in the piece. Fourth is one with a review of Freakish again with only a brief mention of LK. Fifth is another list from the Teen Choice awards where a brief mention of LK in a category of nominees and a winner of a minor award. That is just Variety. Most of the other references are brief mentions. This subject does not pass WP:GNG. Did everyone here that kept parrotting passes GNG passes GNG actually read through and check each of the plentiful references? I did. Some editors who may not have, should really do so now, and be really well informed. You may shocked by what you find. Donald1659 ( talk) 07:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I did, and I'm sure many (most? all?) others did too. Please WP:AGF about what others have done in regard to their decision making process. Several smaller references to a person build up incrementally to the point an individual passes GNG. We have a case here where the several references all build up to a position of passing GNG through those many, many references. Yes, she passes GNG not by virtue of being a YouTube presence, but that and her acting career too. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • comment I only asked a question. I made no accusations. I always show AGF. Please direct me to the policy you speak of that says it is OK to have mostly brief mentions if there are quite a few. No significant coverage needed? I would really like to read over that part of the policy if you have time to put a link. Thanks. Donald1659 ( talk) 08:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Donald1659: see WP:BASIC. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What is misleading is to change your posting here after it was replied to. And for the purpose of casting an aspersion at me by adding in "What Donald writes above is substantially misleading".
You need to comment on content not the contributors.
Something else that is quite misleading is the ongoing reference padding with brief mentions, names on lists and announcements and PR propaganda in order to attempt to make a subject appear to have notabilty when there is none. This article is beginning to be quite suspect and borders on promotionalism. Perhaps there is a problem with COI here. Who knows? Donald1659 ( talk) 09:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Im really, really struggling to parse "I always show AGF" with accusations of COI editing. I think, to quote something else you've written, you should "comment on content not the contributors". Personal attacks, even against an unnamed suspects, have no place in this discussion.
I'm also struggling to comprehend how all those articles about Koshy from reliable sources, many of which are about her, rather than just passing references, do not add up to GNG. Never mind, there are enough people who agree that's the sources weigh up to GNG, that we need drag thatquestion out no longer. - SchroCat ( talk) 09:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
I made no accusations nor any personal attack. I was just putting up ideas for discussion. BTW, we're you able to find a link to the "tons of brief mentions leaves no need for significant coverage" policy? Donald1659 ( talk) 10:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
No, you've made a sear against people who have worked on the article, which is very poor. Please do not quote things people have never said. If you want to use quote marks, quote the actual text. If you want to make things up, don't dress it up as a quote - it is something else misleading. I'm going to drop out of this now, there is littlesmileyone point in discussing your questionable approach, and when nearly everyone else also sees the GNG, I'm happy that my judgement that this passes the threshold is in line with others. - SchroCat ( talk) 10:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Make things up huh? Verbatim with a diff. [22] Still no link for the pretend policy? I thought not! Donald1659 ( talk) 10:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Eerrrmmm... Sure you got the right link there? It certainly does not link to the "tons of brief mentions leaves no need for significant coverage" you claim I have written. Please try to be honest when dealing with other people. (And to cover your much repeated point about sources, when there are several references that back up more heavy-weight references (as is obviously the case here) GNG is obviously satisfied. Do youreally need a link for that? - SchroCat ( talk) 10:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you have not ever seen an idiomatic phrase contained in quotes. I never said I was quoting you. You made a mistake with your understanding. I am always honest. Take your own advice. Donald1659 ( talk) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Balls. Quote marks are for quotes, not for things you like to make up. If you wish to 'loosely translate' something into a misleading statement, don't disguise it as a quote, use 'single quote marks', and make it clear you are not quoting. - SchroCat ( talk) 11:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh so now you admit there is no policy like that. I was wondering why you are so hostile, so I took a look at your block log. Five or six blocks for varied harassment, personal attacks, and even sock puppets. You are still well skilled in the personal attack department. I understand now. Good morning. Donald1659 ( talk) 11:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Again... "You need to comment on content not the contributors". I'm really not sure what my block log has to do with you being unable to understand the measure of GNG, but your passive-aggressive approach really is rather distasteful - (particularly as within your sub-450 edits, you've got no idea on how to 'read' such a log: once you've been here a little while and actually find out what you're talking about, you'll see how many of those were closed quickly because the admin erred in judgement (not that is anything to do with this and fuck knows why I have to explain this to someone like you) - SchroCat ( talk) 11:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relax, folks, please? I don't know why the heat over a fairly well settled question. There is no chance of this closing as other than a Keep, the support is overwhelming. We don't have to kill each other over this. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The notability of the subject seems to me to be thoroughly established by WP standards, and to be honest I can't quite work out from the claims set about above why a couple of editors are so energetically, and not perhaps all that emolliently, pressing a contrary point of view. Tim riley talk 18:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Lots of canvassing going on here, with Hank Green tweeting about the topic and everything. Sources are good, though. No reason to delete if there are so many sources about someone. She even won a pretty decent number of awards. Subscriber count is irrelevant, of course, but we don't have somekind of anti-Youtube bias going on on Wikipedia, do we? Basically a WP:SNOW keep right here. ~ Mable ( chat) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural comment: I have removed a series of "this editor was canvassed" tags from this AfD page because the template was used inappropriately. Several of the editors whose comments were tagged are among the main editors of the subject article, and would have been aware of the AfD from the notice on the article without any reason to believe they were canvassed. While general comments about outside publicity or unbalanced canvassing for an AfD may be appropriate, a specific editor's comment should not be tagged unless there is a specific reason to do so. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    Another procedural comment - to expand upon this, the second parameter of {{ canvassed}} is used for "evidence", i.e. the diff where they were canvassed. For the purposes of this rather contentious AFD, canvassing templates must have this evidence. Primefac ( talk) 21:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in fact, WP:snowball. What can't people get about: she. is. notable.? Antonio Tony X Martin ( what what? 13:17, 20 September, 2017 (UTC)
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. ansh 666 16:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Infernus (band)

Infernus (band) (  | 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:BAND. A7 declined on grounds of article age. DrStrauss talk 15:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete People are so interested in this discussion... (delete per nom) Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  07:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Can't find any suitable sources, notability was questioned in 2009 (per discussion on the talk page). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 22 September 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) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Gode family

Gode family (  | 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 a notable family. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete so far only one person seems notable and not anyone else in the family. [[WP:BIOFAMILY] says "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. See also § Invalid criteria." This family would fail criteria just because one person is notable. Capitals00 ( talk) 05:56, 21 September 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 Philip Powers. ansh 666 18:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

1M1 Records

1M1 Records (  | 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 PROD was removed but the issue remains the same. An editor added sources; however, after an investigation into them, one will uncover passing mentions: no significant coverage. There is an attempt to associate them with awards won by the artists for album work but that is both WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTINHERITED. Once we cross out all the sources that have these issues, all we are left with is the label's website -- a WP:PRIMARY. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Philip Powers, co-founder and main record producer for the label. I dePRODed the article after providing sufficient references to show the label does exist and does release soundtracks for archival film scores. If coverage from the refs is deemed to be not significant enough for a stand-alone article then a redirect to Powers' article will allow a subsection on his label to be created. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 22:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 05:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect name only to the article on the founder, Philip Powers. Not independently notable, and no need to preserve article history, which is promotional spam anyway. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:31, 14 September 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 In Death and disambiguate. (non-admin closure) J 947( c) ( m) 06:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Roarke

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

nn fictional character, no RS Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 03:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Make into disambig- there are enough real people named Roarke that this title is plausible as a disambig. Obviously the current content is unsuitable for the encyclopedia. If it seems likely that people will edit war to restore the fictional content, deleting first is an option. Reyk YO! 07:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into In Death and replace with disambiguation. The article on the series contains almost nothing but a list of books, and it's entirely reasonable to expect that the two characters who are the central figures and who tie the whole thing together (the other being Eve Dallas) should be principally described there. And the comment above is right: there are a lot of Roarkes— Mr. Roarke is surely better known. Mangoe ( talk) 17:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 05:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 05:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into In Death and replace with disambiguation seems like the most appropriate course of action in this case. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Raid (2018 film)

Raid (2018 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See film notability guidelines. The guidelines state that films that are still in principal photography are only notable if the production is itself notable. Neither the references nor a Google search indicate in-depth coverage of production.

Start of principal photography is a necessary condition to film notability, not a sufficient condition. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Nominator's statements are true but the three articles in two newspapers discuss the film directly. Keep, because the starring roles feature Wikipedia-notable actors, and further coverage is to be expected. Revisit one week after release. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now - Has enough references to support notability. Would revisit later based on whether film is actually completed and released. Shelbystripes ( talk) 01:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I didn't get the nominator's view !!! The reference clearly state that the principal photography of the film has started. There is no point in nominating for deletion of this article. I further included more references about the commencement of photography. NIKE 01 ( talk)
  • Keep With the added references this article passes WP:GNG and shows notability. Bythebooklibrary ( talk) 00:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No need for third relist; sourcing found and no rebuttals. (non-admin closure) J 947( c) ( m) 06:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Trading Partner Identification Number

Trading Partner Identification Number (  | 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, deprodded without comment, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I added some sourcing - and there is ample more sourcing. We have Taxpayer Identification Number (and the more notable Social Security number) - no reason not to have TPIN (save the OSE - mentioning to show we have other similar numeric id codes) - it is a valid lookup - which is important for anyone who is a US government contractor for the past couple of decades.06:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:04, 14 September 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. No argument was put forward for keeping which explained why the tour was notable per WP:NTOUR. This may be recreated if more independent secondary source material about the topic becomes available from which a non-promotional, encyclopedic article can be written. Anyone wishing to work on this may ping me for a userfied copy of the article. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 21:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

PSA Tour

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

Pure promotion with dates of tour for Fifth Harmony. Non-compliant with WP:NOT Atsme 📞 📧 14:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 09:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 09:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Co,ment "looks notable" is not really a valid argument. But I have no opinion on the article, which is out of my field. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is simply advertising on Wikipedia. This is a promotional announcement, like a TV ad. Same with the references. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. -- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - fails WP:IINFO Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
When did the encyclopedia become StubHub, Live Nation or Ticket Master? What makes a list of upcoming tour dates encyclopedic? The article represents exactly what WP:NOT tells us not to include. I also reviewed WP:NTOUR to make sure I didn't miss anything, and saw no mention that it was ok to list dates for upcoming tours, only that notable tours must provide adequate information like revenue figures, etc. and be sourced to RS to substantiate notability of the tour - that tells us the tour must have already taken place. If artists have been given the ok to use the encyclopedia to promote upcoming tours, where is the consensus for that or the AfDs that have set such a precedent? Atsme 📞 📧 01:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: In truth, very few tours are notable, even by established bands, and there is nothing in the article to suggest that this tour is notable. Robman94 ( talk) 22:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • comment: NotAdvertising is not a reason for deletion, and doesn't really concern deletion per se, it is about article content. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
L3X1, please read WP:G11, Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Atsme 📞 📧 01:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The difference between NotAdvertising and G11 is how advert-y the offending piece is. Hopefully the piece to be G11d would fail the GNG as well. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing notability guidelines plus WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Half the dates do not even have an artist, how can we predict this will happen? Does anyone think anyone will type in this in a searchbox after it's over? Ifnord ( talk) 17:43, 22 September 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America 1000 09:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hit Dem Folks

Hit Dem Folks (  | 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 non encyclopedic collection of trivia. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Cited coverage by MTV and USA Today. If current article content is an issue it can be improved without deletion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete nothing about the subject goes above the level of trivia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply
How do you define trivia? If multiple reliable sources are covering something you or I consider trivial, it is notable trivia in the eyes of WP policy and not subject to deletion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply
It's a well-known dance move that anybody under the age of 30 has seen or is familiar with. Zchris0783 ( talk) 00:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:01, 14 September 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) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Annie Cooper

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

Does not meet WP:ACTOR virtually no coverage in reliable sources, virtually orphan, no filmography listed. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 02:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 02:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is although there were WP:CRYSTAL concerns, the community believes improvement of the article is possible in all circumstances. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

BETSY (album)

BETSY (album) (  | 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 album that is not mentioned in any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and all relevant subject notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 02:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: the singer is notable, she's been mentioned in several reliable sources [23], [24], [25]... but she doesn't have an article of her own, so a redirect won't be possible. I suspect this is WP:TOOSOON and that in a month's time there will be plenty of sources to justify this article, but for now I'm not sure of the best course of action. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
I recently deleted the singer's article for being a blatant copyvio, but if anyone recreates it, it could be a valid retarget target.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 18:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can't see the point of deleting this - yes the bio should have been deleted as a copyvio, but I've just recreated as a sourced stub. When Warner Records gets behind an artist they and the album are guaranteed notability for as long as the association with Warner lasts. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I would have suggested merging it to the two-sentence article on the probably-not-notable-enough-yet singer, but there's no sourced content here and the article title is wrong (we don't try to replicate typography in article titles). Why on earth do people keep creating such crappy album articles? -- Michig ( talk) 07:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Michig: since the AfD was created, the article title has been changed to the correct title Betsy (Betsy album). I guess in answer to your question, there are overenthusiastic editors who are so keen to get the first possible piece of news up on Wikipedia and not worry too much about adding an RS, but I share your annoyance – if they had waited a little longer and not been WP:TOOSOON with this article, we wouldn't be having this deletion discussion in the first place. With the publicity and connections this artist has, it's very likely that within a fortnight there will be reviews and chart placings, so I understand In ictu oculi's argument... if this gets deleted now it's probable that it will get recreated almost immediately and with sufficient reliable sources to ensure it passes WP:NALBUM. I am aware that my argument is WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I have no strong feelings on keeping or deleting this article... in the meantime it's in limbo a bit, unfortunately. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Whether or not this album does receive coverage, since it's just about the only thing she's done, it can still be perfectly adequately covered in the article on the singer, which isn't going to get so large that it needs to be split any time soon. It would be much better to expand that article with any content from reliable sources rather than having two weak stubby articles. -- Michig ( talk) 19:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
What is the rush? The album will be released by Warner in 7 days. Why not just hold on and wait for Warner's giant press machine to pump out the sources. It won't break to wait a week. Besides there are sources enough now anyway. Keep. In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with the user In ictu oculi. The album will be released in a week by Warner Bros. so it will probably gain notability. Also the artist was featured in the Guardian's "One to watch" series in August. link AndreasAt ( talk) 22:59, 21 September 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 SNOW keep. Nomination of high school article by newly-registered SPA. This discussion should have been closed as Speedy keep a long time ago. (non-admin closure) Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 16:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Steller Secondary School

AfDs for this article:
Steller Secondary 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)

There are no indepent sources, this school has no evidence of being notable, and it also reads like an advertisement for the school Alright, so in response to the below commecnts: The fact that it is a highschool does not actually protect it from deletion if it does not meet notability standards, as per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) which also states that if information cannot be verified, then it may be challenged and removed from the article. As laid out is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), to be notable the school's article must have depth of coverage, using reliable sources. These sources may not be self published. It also needs to have attention from media to a certain extent, but coverage should be from something more read than local media. This article does not have any international coverage, it does not cite any independent sources, and if I was to remove all uncited material this article would be a candidate for speedy deletion. I do know that lack of sources does not indicate that the subject is not notable, but I also cannot find any sources from my research. (Which I think answers the other objection, because I have looked and I cannot find any sources for this information other that the school's own website.) And as for my being a new user, that's why I keep messing up and making work more difficult for the bots, and I'm really sorry about that) FluffyKitty999 ( talk) 01:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep and close High schools are generally held to be notable in and of themselves following a long standing consensus. Please direct any concerns about promotional tone to the talk page on the article. Has the article nominator made an attempt to improve the article before nominating it for deletion? Egaoblai ( talk) 07:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep and close - there's nothing wrong with this article. Note that the nominator is a new user with only 6 edits, 5 of which involved the attempts to start this AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • SNOW Keep - Per others. 47.208.20.130 ( talk) 22:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep probably meets the speedy keep criteria as a POINTy nomination by a new account (likely an old user who just got so used to Twinkle they don't know how to transclude). That being said, it pretty easily meets the GNG. It receives coverage in To Russia with Love (one paragraph viewable via Google Books, the description of the event seems to continue into the next page. Google News also brings up a few mediocre hits, but I'm also assuming we don't have the entirety of the Anchorage Paper's archives (probably one of the regions of the US that it is hardest to find sourcing on). There are a few other mentions in Google Books as well. This is enough to get it to GNG for me at least in how we typically apply it to other secondary schools (even post-RfC, we tend to be more flexible here). TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:35, 21 September 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 into Arc of the United States#Arc of San Francisco Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Arc of San Francisco

Arc of San Francisco (  | 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, to the extent of possible speedy G11. Only refs. from its own city DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bernick, Michael S.; Holden, Richard. The Autism Job Club: The Neurodiverse Workforce in the New Normal of Employment. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. p. 54. ISBN  1632209977. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

      The book notes:

      Today, targeted job placement efforts are underway throughout the United States by national nonprofits such as ARC and Goodwill and thousands of local job-placement providers. The programs often are funded through state departments of rehabilitation or federal disability funds. These targeted efforts generally utilize the same intensive job search assistance and follow-up as in "Jobs for All."

      The San Francisco ARC, for example, serves persons with a wide range of disabilities such as cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and wheelchair use. Like ARCs around the country, the San Francisco ARC has seen a sharp increase in clients with autism in the past five years so that now persons with autism form the majority of new clients.

      For nearly forty-five years, from the 1950s through early 2003, the ARC operated a sheltered workshop, a separate workplace in which workers with disabilities performed basic tasks such as packaging and mailing. Today, the emphasis is on workforce inclusion.

      Recent San Francisco ARC placements have been in supermarket chains, Safeway and Trader Joe's (clerk and bagger positions), retailers Noah's Bagels and Starbucks (maintenance, stocking), and the city's major law and advertising firms (facilities set-up and office support). Salesforce.com, the cloud computing giant, employees fifteen ARC placements, a mix of part-time and full-time, in facilities set-up activities.

      With ARC's growing autism population, a good number of whom have college degrees, ARC staff hope to expand to a higher pay and skill level of job in these companies and others. But ARC is still searching to break through to jobs above the lower-wage and contigent positions.

      ARC is the largest of the Bay Area job-placement entities for persons with autism and other neurological/physical conditions, but only one of the networks of providers.

      The book further notes:

      Terry Goodwin is the director of business development and partnerships at the ARC, where she has worked for over twenty-five years. She is in charge of ARC efforts to develop job placements in mainstream firms. This usually means convincing firms to at least try out workers with disabilities, who they wouldn't hire through the normal hiring processes. ARC serves the range of workers with disabilities, but, as noted in the Chapter 4, adults with autism now comprise the greatest number of new clients.

      The ARC adults with autism themselves comprise a range of abilities and skills. The easiest to place are those who have significant language along with a high school degree (or, in rarer cases, college or college degrees).

      ...

      Additionally, ARC has developed a form of supported work for the more severely impacted that involves project-based tasks. ARC, as the subcontractor, acts as the employer of record. It has developed contracts with a major assisted-living facility to do laundry tasks, with the local convention industry to perform labeling and bagging of convention materials, and with the federal Department of Health and Human Services to arrange file folders. The work crews are sent on site to perform the tasks and are accompanied by job coaches. Though the employment is irregular, the ARC as employer does pay minimum wage and tries to use the assignments as evaluation opportunities for transitioning at some future time into more direct employment.

      The book further notes:

      For over forty years, from the early 1960s, ARC operated a sheltered workshop (sometimes known as a "community workshop") for the more severely impacted. Like many sheltered workshops around the nation, it closed in the early 2000s, the result of both economics and policy shifts. But there are person in the autism community who are already calling for its return.

      Jack Fagan was hired as an instructor at the ARC sheltered workshop in 1993 and in a few years became its director. He stayed until it closed in 2003. He regards the years he spent at the sheltered workshop as the most satisfying of his career. He is among those who believe should return in some form.

      In the early 1990s, Jack recalls that the ARC had around 100–120 clients at any time participating in the sheltered workshop located on the second floor of the ARC building. The ARC had contracts for assembling products and sorting/filling merchandise bags—for example with Leapfrog, then a major manufacturer of educational toys, and Jessica McClintock, the garment and fashion firm.

    2. Casey, Laura (2007-06-07). "Service group expands, offers more for adults with disabilities". Daily Review. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

      The article notes:

      Founded by a group of parents concerned about the lack of services for their sons and daughters, The Arc of San Francisco has been serving clients with intellectual and developmental disabilities since 1951. The organization helps its 460 clients in San Francisco — 10 percent of whom are from the East Bay — find jobs and housing and participate in creative recreation within the city.

      Clients attend local colleges with the help of The Arc's programs. They work out at gyms like Crunch and the local YMCA — and work as employees there, too.

      ...

      The Arc of San Francisco's ArtReach Studios' classes are held there, too. The program, which started three years ago in Pacifica, is likened to an art academy or art school. Adults with developmental disabilities pursue art as a means of personal expression and as a way to learn new skills.

      The artists work with various media, from photography to sound sculpture. They sell their work at various gallery shows, too.

      ArtReach grew out of its modest Pacifica home after word about the quality of programming spread.

    3. "Willing and ready to work". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications. 2005-05-12. Archived from the original on 2009-02-18. Retrieved 18 February 2009.

      The article notes:

      THEY ARE GREETERS at SBC Park and the San Francisco Conservatory, janitors at the Courtyard Marriott, paper shredders, coffee attendants and mail clerks throughout San Francisco.

      And there are 100 more like them who are in need of a place to work.

      Since 1951, The Arc of San Francisco has been a resource that links people with developmental disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy and mental retardation with businesses willing to hire them.

      But now, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget cuts and President Bush threatening to cut Social Security income further, those with disabilities need jobs more than ever.

      ...

      The list of employers who hire through The Arc is growing -- Starbuck's, Albertsons, KRON Channel 4, to name a few -- but the number of potential employees is far greater.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 05:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A regional chapter of an organization does not inherit notability from its parent. Rhadow ( talk) 13:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge with parent organization: Per Rhadow, this article subject is a regional chapter of a wider organization, and this page is not significant enough to warrent it's own page.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 15:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This regional chapter received extensive discussion in the book source I quoted above. I think that's very significant coverage. But I am fine with a merge to Arc of the United States in lieu of deletion. Cunard ( talk) 17:19, 16 September 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. G12 deletion. Primefac ( talk) 13:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Muser movement

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

Failed the Google test.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 02:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 02:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 02:04, 14 September 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) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Bespoke Music

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

Company fails WP:GNG and there are no sources I can locate that establish WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 ( talk) 22:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ( talk) 01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom, a non-notable company. Possible fails WP:MILL given the subject company's scope is likely covered by other articles.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 04:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP, no indications of notability. -- HighKing ++ 19:30, 17 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

OfficerDown.US

OfficerDown.US (  | 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 only find trivial mentions of this website in independent sources. -- Pingumeister( talk) 09:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ( talk) 23:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ( talk) 01:34, 14 September 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. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Henry Radusky

Henry Radusky (  | 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 page previously contained a variety of controversies surrounding the individual's architectural projects, that do not necessarily reflect personal controversies. Furthermore, upon searching for information about the individual, little information (besides that from the NYC Office of Professions and a LinkedIn profile) appears. It is therefore my proposal that the page be deleted as its subject is not sufficiently notable. -- Hunterm267 Talk 21:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix ( talk) 16:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - most of the deleted content was not focussing on Radusky, but on a coatrack-y listing of projects he was involved in as architect - with lots of irrelevant details. Radusky is only mentioned in passing in his obvious role as architect, none of the sources offers additional relevant biographical information. The general problem with the underlying certification process is sufficiently mentioned in Self-Certification (New York City Department of Buildings), but a Wiki-article should not serve as a directory or "list of shame" of such incidents without sufficient topic-related context. On a sidenote, several other related articles have also been edited in an apparent attempt to raise more awareness for these problems in New York City ( WP:NOTADVOCACY applies). Removing these coatrack details, the remaining content and sources directly about Radusky are not sufficient to establish notability. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Pretty clearly a notable architect in NYC as a founder of Bricolage Design, see, for example THIS PIECE in the Village Voice and THIS PIECE in the New York Daily News would indicate. Meets GNG. Carrite ( talk) 18:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No discussion was generated by last relist. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ( talk) 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This appears to be a WP:MILL architect, and the article as written has no working references. Power~enwiki ( talk) 01:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE. After all the controversial material was removed, it is also became apparent the subject fails WP:GNG as well. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Fuck it, this has been held over FIVE times. Not supposed to happen that way. I will get out of the way. Carrite ( talk) 01:25, 22 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

St. Gallen Group

St. Gallen Group (  | 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 discussion group is real and has been covered, but the question is whether or not it is notable enough for its own article: my !vote is obviously no. The essential claim to notability is that they formed a faction within two papal conclaves (2005/2013) to elect the current Pope and in opposition to Pope Benedict XVI: this is essentially a conspiracy theory that would be common in virtually any papal election. They're secretive by nature, so no one knows what goes on as they are occurring and as of at least the 20th century, cardinals cannot actually reveal what occurred in the conclave, so the existence of any sourcing on it is by its very nature an unreliable source. We effectively have here a conspiracy theory about BLPs, and it should be deleted as such. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'll simply quote myself: "I don't think the group itself is notable". Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#St._Gallen_Group ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 21:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This "Group" had annual discussions, but inconsistent participation and no name we know of. Papal succession was one topic among many. There's no evidence the 7 (approx.) of them who participated in 2005 conclave did anything other than support like-minded candidates, which is no shocker. While the content of discussions was confidential, the existence of these discussions was not secret, as evidenced by the fact that the Vatican sent one of its own loyalists, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, to check it out. But the press gets excited by anything "secret" (not revealed until 2015!) and the joke about Mafia served as a multiplier. Then conspiracy theorists run with the headlines and try their damnedest to stretch the influence to 2013. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - reliably sourced topic with references from mainstream Catholic media (Catholic News Agency, National Catholic Register) and secular media (London Telegraph, Washington Post, La Stampa, Spectator, etc). The topic has not only featured in the international press and in officially approved biographies of one of the Cardinals involved, but has also been given a prominent place in the work of Austen Ivereigh on the Rise of Pope Francis. As well as this, it elicited a response from the Holy See Press Office in 2014 with a statement from Federico Lombardi. Given that the Catholic Church has some 1.2 billion members worldwide and this group of high ranking clerics have been described under this title in mainstream sources as having had influence in two Papal conclaves, it would appear to be notable enough as a topic. I don't think it would fall under "fringe" because it is mentioned by the mainstream media. Aside from that the main contention in the nomination that it is a "conspiracy theory" (whatever that slippery term is supposed to mean) is not stated in the aforementioned sources. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 21:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
The oft-quoted "1.2 billion" members line. They include me in that figure! Doesn't mean much. Once you're in, it seems you can't get out. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • National Catholic Register is the rough equivalent of The Weekly Standard and Catholic News Agency of the WSJ editorial page: also, they are both owned by EWTN, so hardly independent intellectually. As I said at the fringe theories noticeboard, this is effectively a conclave conspiracy theory: we get tons of those on here dating back hundreds of years worth of articles because conclaves are secretive events.
    None of the reporting on the conspiracy theories from at least the 20th century on meet our standards for reliable sourcing, however, because they are built on the Roman rumour mill: there is no such thing as an on the record statement about the internal workings of contemporary papal conclaves. A cardinal would be excommunicated by the law itself if he were to reveal what happened, so there are never actual names involved with the sourcing, and it is usually a friend of a friend of a friend of Cardinal Foo who tells it to the journalist. The secular sources above all generally reporting on what the other sources reported on: that means they are re-reporting that other people reported unreliable information. That doesn't get near GNG.
    The question is whether or not this particular conspiracy theory is notable or whether it just got a brief burst of press and is excluded by NOTNEWS. The most notable conclave conspiracy theory is the one about Siri thesis that spawned Sedevacantism. That is notable because it caused several (exceptionally minor) schisms by conspiracy theorists who have elected their own rival popes over the last 60 years, and thus it has received enough sustained coverage to be notable as a theory. It also doesn't really have any BLP issues since everyone in the 1958 conclave is dead now. This one, however, just received a brief blip of news, and involves living cardinals to whom association as a cabal within the conclave or college from non-RS could have a negative impact on. This should be deleted on BLP, NOTNEWS, and GNG grounds. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- concur with nom: the group is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand alone article, for lack of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BLP concerns are also a factor. The conspiracy theory does not meet WP:NFRINGE either. So delete. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The sources sem sufficient--that is,unless youreject all Catholic sources for topics dealing with that religion. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • DGG, of course not: I've certainly never made that claim (and actually fight against it in all religious AfDs for their relative religions). I suppose the argument I should have made here was WP:NFRINGE, which requires extensive coverage. This is a conspiracy theory involving living people that hasn't been extensively covered. That's the big issue, not the Catholic sourcing. If one considers the sourcing: CNA I would probably consider reliable. National Catholic Register it depends on the day where they fall on the "nutjob" vs. "good journalism" spectrum. A lot of what they publish is opinion pieces by sensationalist bloggers, but they do have some good content. It certainly wouldn't be up the the quality America (magazine) is regarded as, however. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
I wasn't thinking of you--I see we agree about the sources. I do not consider this fringe.The existence of factions with the Catholic church is real enough and sufficiently reported. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. The factionalism isn't the concern that makes it fringe so much as the idea that there was a organized faction secretly advocating against Ratzinger in 2005, and that it continued in 2013 in an organized manner. That I'd consider a fringe view not really held by any except those within the fringes of the relative Catholic political factions. There is room to disagree, however, and as always I appreciate your views. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ( talk) 01:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • keepI believe this is notable based off the above keep !vote and what i could find. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but yeah, it could use some improvement. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 08:23, 20 September 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 consensus has emerged that the article should be kept, but revised with a focus on "reducing the emphasis on in-universe description while possibly expanding on the real world history of the stories." Malinaccier ( talk) 15:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Bolo (tank)

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

Appears to be pretty much entirely in-universe content that violates WP:NOTPLOT with no indication of wider cultural significance. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 13:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment It could be refactored as an article about the series of books and appearances in other books. But 80% of the content is fancruft and would still need to go. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 14:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
@ GraemeLeggett:Care to give a revised opinion of keep or delete? Right now your statement amounts to WP:MUSTBESOURCES but I couldn't find any that would allow for a revising of the article that weren't WP:PRIMARY or not significant. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The page is quite popular, getting about 100 views per day. That's because this has developed from the original Laumer stories to become a substantial shared universe with stories by numerous established authors and with a variety of spinoffs such as board and computer games. Because it has grown beyond the work of the original author, it makes sense to keep this as a separate page rather than merging it into the author's page. As for notability, it's not difficult to find sources if one looks, e.g. A Guide to Popular Reading Interests. An additional consideration now is the fresh fears about the dangers of AI and military robots as unmanned drones and tanks are becoming real. Reference is typically made to fictional foresight in titles such as Well-Behaved Borgs, Bolos, and Berserkers and we ought to be able to explain these to readers who can't place the reference. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Bolos get a single passing mention in one sentence in the intro in Well-Behaved Borges, Bolos and Berserkers. Out of 9 pages. that's not sufficient for notability. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
And the guide to popular reading seems to be just a listing of themes and books with a brief note describing the subject in each case, the Bolo series is outlined in a couple of sentences. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:POPULARPAGE is not a sufficient rationale. Your other argument is WP:SOURCESEARCH, but what matters is whether it has more than WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. If one seeks to find information about unmanned drones, they should refer to military robot, not this. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 18:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
a) not really an extensive review, b) a blog by unnamed contributed. There must be more sources higher on RS scale for this series out there. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 05:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
I think the problem here is that you claimed it was a popular page, which I said was not an adequate rationale. I think that, objectively, it's not actually a popular page. 100 hits is pretty small, most popular pages on Wikipedia get thousands of hits a day. So if you're using comparisons of statistics to say it proves notability exists somewhere, then, well, it doesn't really prove much. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 10:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Recurring SF element and the basis of a shared world used by multiple authors. Artw ( talk) 23:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply
I would add that there is absolutely room for cutting a lot of cruft from this article, and reducing the emphasis on in-universe description while possibly expanding on the real world history of the stories. It's still a keep though. Artw ( talk) 16:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, since it's been picked up by writers other than Laumer. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Per WP:INHERITED, even if it appears in other books, it doesn't gain notability from those books. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 10:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ( talk) 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the article should be re-targeted to be about a series of books. It currently claims to be a type of fictional vehicle. Power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Power~enwiki:Comment That assumes anyone will bother to rewrite the article to conform to the book series rather than the tank. Better to use WP:TNT and wait for someone to write a suitable article on the books. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 03:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Several users appear to be engaged in good faith efforts to improve the article without the use of TNT. Artw ( talk) 12:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
I reckon there's about 50% more of the article to be excised yet. TNT would be cleaner. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:44, 15 September 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. If anyone wants the content userfied to create a different article that is more likely to meet WP:LISTN, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

List of composers who died before age 50

List of composers who died before age 50 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wasn't sure what to say about this list, now granted a list of who died before 50 is interesting for some (and kind of sad actually), but as you may notice the majority are hundreds of years ago-which is expected. Also the term most famous-most famous to who? Also seems like a original research project. For now I say delete. Wgolf ( talk) 00:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera and WikiProject Classical Music. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Move to List of composers who died before age 40, and retain only those. That would catch all of the significant early deaths (and let's face it, composers who died young is indeed a "thing"), and avoid the problem that age 50 was not unusually young to die prior to the 20th century. Softlavender ( talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Found a few that just link to DAB pages also. Wgolf ( talk) 01:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Additional comment: Moving the list to the younger cut-off of 40 would eliminate approximately half the list and make it a much more useful and readable and notable list. It might also be useful to make it a sortable table -- that is, sortable by age of death (which should be added for each), by last name, and possibly also by birth year. Softlavender ( talk) 02:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
That could work-also removing the bold font for "most famous" for sure. Either delete or move for now, need more comments of course. Wgolf ( talk) 03:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – subjective list. No references whatsoever. Untenable inclusion criteria. There's some literature about composers dying young: instead of looking up that literature (which rather would go in the direction of an article than a list), there's some discussion above about the cut-off age based on all sorts of editor preferences' arguments instead of the only thing that should count: what do reliable sources say? Why exclude John Lennon? Less famous than Fausto Romitelli? Not dead enough? Not a composer to the subjective editor's taste? How about Johann Gottlieb Goldberg? Less famous than Georg Matthias Monn (only known by his name according to the Wikipedia article – while Goldberg's compositions are still occasionally performed)? This is all beyond repair, starting from the article title. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Indeed, as it should be composed fewer than, and not less than. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Tx, corrected. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Lekeu? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Francis, there is nothing subjective about facts. Either a composer died before a certain age, or they did not. If they did not, they are excluded from the list. Softlavender ( talk) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • It aren't the facts that are subjective, it are the inclusion criteria (they were reworded a few times since I wrote my original comment above, but as said below, it only became worse). "Composers dying after age 13.5" is an objective cut-off age, but would make a terrible, subjective, inclusion criterion while no reliable source can confirm that dying at age 13.5 is a "thing" for composers. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Please stop your bludgeoning: you've made that argument below, I'll reply there. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Francis Schonken. Double sharp ( talk) 05:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • There is nothing subjective about facts. Either a composer died before a certain age, or they did not. If they did not, they are excluded from the list. Softlavender ( talk) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
      • But where are the sources declaring 50 or 40 or any other number as a somehow significant cut-off, when one can find them so easily for 9 as a number of symphonies? Any cut-off is going to be somehow arbitrary, and as your links show both 40 and 50, I don't see a good case for either. "Dying young" is just not a very clear-cut line. Double sharp ( talk) 09:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
        • [27]. -- Softlavender ( talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
          • I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by repeatedly posting the same link to a Google search without comment, but I can assure you that it does not become any more convincing by simple repetition. The very idea of either of these cut-offs to illustrate the phenomenon of composers dying young is anyway nicely ruined by this article by Tom Service linked below by Francis Schonken, which has among its "died young" list Gustav Mahler, who died at 50 (the article mistakenly gives 51), and is beyond the proposed cut-off. (And amusingly I already suggested him as an example in an edit summary). Double sharp ( talk) 15:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Move to List of composers who died before age 40 and edit accordingly. I'd also suggest limiting it to classical composers (perhaps with a title change to reflect that, i. e. List of classical composers who died before age 40. Per Softlavender, this is a potentially useful list which can be improved by simple editing. The cut-off date needs to be lowered to 40 for the reasons given above. The "original research" aspect can be easily fixed by not making judgements on who is the most famous in the list and bolding those names. I've started doing that now. Ditto "unreferenced". It's very easy to add references. There are references for all the entries who have Wikipedia articles (or there should be). I've added one as a sample. I'd be happy to do them all if the list is kept. Note also that there is nothing to preclude adding an introductory paragraph based on the literature in this area. Improve not delete is the way to go here. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • There is no literature whatsoever grouping composers who died before age 40 – that qualification attempts to introduce objectivity where there is none. "Dying young" (or synonyms such as " early deceased") appear in literature, not any artificial cut-off age, and certainly not a cut-off age where all reliable authors writing about composers who died young could agree upon. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
      • [28]. -- Softlavender ( talk) 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
        • this one looks promising. Any other reliable source confirming that "composers dying before 40" is a thing (WP:GNG does not consider a single reliable source sufficient, and launching Google queries without discrimination about the reliability of everything that turns up, without even checking which cut-off age, if any, is actually used by the source, is alas just missing the point)? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
          • Francis, if you do not believe that dying before the age of 40 is dying young, or that Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Chopin et al. famously died young, then I believe you are in the minority in classical music listeners. Your arguments appear to merely be a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because there is nothing that precludes List of classical composers who died before age 40 in WP:LISTN. -- Softlavender ( talk) 08:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
            • The only thing we need is enough reliable sources that confirm that 40 is broadly considered as a suitable cut-off age (and not too many other reliable sources that start from a different cut-off age): your Google search link turns up at least one forum (not a reliable source), the Wikipedia article we're considering for deletion here (can not be counted per notability guidance), etc. etc. Until now composers "dying young" (without giving a precise cut-off age) seems far more spread as a topic than whatever cut-off age for a composer's death. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
            • Compare also List of child music prodigies not List of music prodigies younger than 13 (the hard age delimiter in the article title doesn't seem to work very well for this kind of lists; also the "classical" delimiter is questionable when comparing with that list). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
              • None of your demands are factors in WP:LISTN. That's even above and beyond the fact that composers who died before 40 gets 4,000,000 web hits, 57,000 GoogleBook hits, 76,000 news hits, -- Softlavender ( talk) 09:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
                • I have no demands. My !vote is "delete", supplemented with a rationale, that's all. "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables" is a factor in WP:LISTN, thus WP/GNG's "received significant coverage in reliable sources" is a viable consideration. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
                  • Composers who died before 40 gets 4,000,000 web hits, 57,000 GoogleBook hits, 76,000 news hits: [29]. -- Softlavender ( talk) 09:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
                    • Again, raw Google searches are virtually unusable in this discussion. "Composers who died before 40" returns zero reliable sources as a Google search — none of that proves anything: that search doesn't even turn up the single book I'm thus far prepared to accept as contributing to the notability of the "Composers who died before 40" topic. Without more than a single acceptable source, this fails WP:GNG. Without a check whether other reliable sources use other criteria for covering roughly the same subject, the article title based on "age 40" would still be undesirable (per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Voceditenore: I think your recent changes to the page have acerbated the problem, instead of remedying anything, e.g. your latest which, besides producing a grammatically incorrect lead sentence, made the page fail WP:NOTDIR #7, which is explicit that "Simple listings without context information" have no place in Wikipedia. What is the context of a classical composer dying before age 50 (or 40)? Absolutely none, while ( WP:GNG:) classical composers dying before the age of 50 (or 40, or 30, or whatever) is not a topic that "received significant coverage in reliable sources" so that a context could be sketched. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I have re-added the word "died" which I had inadvertently removed when I copyedited the lede. It is no longer ungrammatical. I do not believe that the page fails WP:NOTDIR #7 which in my view you are interpreting too broadly. Some will agree, others not. That's why the page is up for discussion here. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
        • Yes, but WP:NOTDIR #7 is an additional aspect to consider now, which it wasn't before your change, whether you agree on that point or not, my main point being that most of your mainspace edits (apart from maybe removing the boldface) were hardly helpful for increasing the odds for this AfD. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Francis you are cherry-picking the wording of WP:NOTDIR, which prohibits or discourages "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions." That has nothing to do with a list of notable classical-music composers who meet a certain noteworthy criterion (and I've already established that this is a noteworthy and much-discussed criterion). Softlavender ( talk) 09:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
        • The current single-sentence introduction to the list lacks all "context information", such a why the topic has any significance to begin with, nor is any context information appended to the individual entries in the list. There was a tiny bit of (unreferenced) context information which was removed from the list intro: context information requiring a reference is imho better than no context information at all, while in the latter case WP:NOTDIR #7 needs to be considered. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
      • this suggestion added in the "further reading" section doesn't help much either: names a few that don't fit under a "classical composers who died before age 40" umbrella (Schumann: 46; Mahler: 51; Amy Winehouse and Kurt Cobain: not classical composers), and the main subject of the article (Whitney Houston) was neither a "classical composer" nor did she die "before age 40". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I have now placed three articles (including the one you noted above from The Guardian) in the "External links" section. They all contain information which can be helpful for writing an introduction to the article, and can also be helpful to the reader in understanding what the "big deal" is about composers who died young. Note that another one which you had summarily removed because only 2/3 of the composers discussed were under 40 when they died was from the BBC Music Magazine. It discusses the possible implications for the development of classical music of the early deaths of Mozart, Purcell, Schubert, and Gershwin). Voceditenore ( talk) 11:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
          • Re. "... what the "big deal" is about composers who died young" (emphasis added): as I said from my first comment above, the topic is rather "died young" than anything that can be circumscribed by a hard "age" delimiter. Any article title that mentions an age for this topic remains up for deletion as far as I'm concerned. While none of the listed external links refer to an upper limit for age, I've tagged the section as failing our external links guidance: these external links are not germane to the current article title, nor to the article titles proposed above, nor to any of the list definitions that have appeared on the page. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
            • They are highly germane to writing an introduction to the list. That is the whole point of external links. They contain material which could be usefully added to improve an article. Your insistence that they coincide with and/or contain the article's actual title is bizarre, but I'm quite happy to live with the tag-bombing. Voceditenore ( talk) 12:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
              • Re. "They are highly germane to writing an introduction to the list" – not this list, while not one of them combines "died young" with a hard "age" criterion. There's not really a coherent body of reliable source for that, and the suggestion thus kind of misses the point. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all the above. If there are any who died at 27, add them to the 27 Club. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm afraid - arbitrary (and very unfair to those who died at 50+). Smerus ( talk) 12:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, this title appears arbitrary/subjective, are there any books/articles that specifically discuss composers who died before age 50, not just about those that died young? btw, 4mill ghits doesn't mean much here is 2.1mill hits for "composers who died before 39" and 1.9mill before age 49 so i don't really see the relevance. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Due to likely OR. 47.208.20.130 ( talk) 22:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I feel that the article reads like someone's contribution to a casual conversation; it's an arbitrary pile of facts without any meaning attached to it (which is a no-no on WP). If "composer-lifespan-ology" exists as a scholarly field (which I really doubt!) then we should have an article about composer-lifespan-ology. But not a list. Opus33 ( talk) 21:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Composers who died young is definitely a "thing". I created this list because I often needed to quickly check which composers died young, and conveniently link to the Wikipedia page about them. My original list was limited to clearly notable composers. A number of lesser-known composers have been added. That kind of devalues the list for a broad audience, although I did find it interesting to see some of the composers added. I have not read all of the comments above, but may attempt to rebut some of the Delete comments a bit later. The suggestion about 40 years is interesting, but for now, I think 50 is valid, especially for more recent composers, since these days, dying before 50 in developed countries is considered dying "early". Tetsuo ( talk) 04:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC) BTW, do those of you favoring deletion make the same arguments about the many morbid lists in Wikipedia of pop-culture and even fictional deaths such as: reply
Re. "I think 50 is valid, especially for more recent composers, since these days, dying before 50 in developed countries is considered dying "early"" – This is WP:Original research 1.0, and should therefore be rejected as against policy. We don't make articles (and that includes list articles) based on a Wikipedia editor's opinions, but for which not a single WP:Reliable source can be found to support the idea. Further:
  • "...more recent composers..." – why would "more recent" all of a sudden be a principle on which the list is built? The list contains Jacob Obrecht (not a "more recent composer", not even sure he died before 50, and not even sure "before 50" was considered "young" in his day), but not John Lennon ("more recent", certainly died before 50 and certainly a composer).
  • "...in developed countries..." – this is definitely a no-no: Wikipedia articles, including lists, should not be built on such biased discriminations.
I don't think we can come to an agreement, anywhere soon, and built on what reliable sources consider to be valid, on a reasonable set of inclusion criteria for this, or a similar, list. I do consider "musicians who died young" a valid topic, which can be supported by plenty reliable sources. "Composers who died before age 50", with or without supplementary even more arbitrarily discriminatory inclusion criteria, is however not sustainable on any level as a basis for a list. Not a single external source has been brought forward which can be shown to have used "before age 50", i.e. 49 or younger, as a valid criterion in this sense. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:52, 21 September 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 per WP:G5 block evasion. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hendry Adii Magiic (actor)

Hendry Adii Magiic (actor) (  | 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:NACTOR -- No indication of any notability as an actor (only appearance was in a non-notable short film), no significant coverage for a stand-alone BLP. Both CSD and PROD tags were removed by an SPA IP account. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you @ Sro23: and @ Mr. MacTidy: for pointing out the sockmaster and SPI case. ("Long-term" is understatement.) I've blocked and tagged both accounts and deleted the page per WP:G5 for "clear block evasion". Appreciate your help. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:55, 14 September 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Bird Barrier America

Bird Barrier America (  | 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 -- the products mentioned are not novel, nor did they develop them The refs are mostly PR in trade jouranls. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Non-notable company, most of the refs are advertorials and not fit for use on an encyclopedia. Miles Edgeworth Objection! 00:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as promocruft about a non notable company. If this is a case of PAID, it was certainly well crafted. However craftily contrived, it is still a promo piece best suited for somewhere other than an encyclopedia about a non notable entity. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 17:37, 14 September 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 for lack of adequate sourcing. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Devatagal

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

Google search returns nothing and other tools are also showing nothing. No sources. If a source is found, I'll probably rescind the delete request and try to fix it. The Egg of Reason | ( Talk) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 05:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's more confusion here than meets the eye. The big clue in this very brief article is the mention of the Basava Sagar Dam. That dam is located on the Krishna River, which serves as a boundary between two districts in Karnataka -- Yadgir district and Raichur district. In Yadgir, there is a town named Devatkal, whose census listing here shows it to have a population of about 3,000. And in Raichur, there is a village named Dewatgal, whose census listing here shows it to have a population of about 1,000. (For both census listings, you need to scroll down a bit to see the list of towns.) So, which one did the article creator intend? If I had to guess, I'd say Dewatgal. But we can't be sure. And because there is so very little content here, the safer course of action is to simply delete the article. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 17:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • A1 Speedy. Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  23:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – I couldn't find anything about the town in my searches, but NewYorkActuary's noting convinces me to sway towards 'Delete'. This was a tricky one, because I was contemplating a move to Dewatgal, but it isn't a certainty that they're the same place. J 947( c) ( m) 03:58, 22 September 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_September_14&oldid=1142617430"