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.
A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film series. Does not meet
WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant.
First AfD closed as "Keep" in 2016, but the arguments for keeping were not compelling: "many awards, notable" etc. Two years on, it's a good time to revisit.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - A movie with only graphical pornography will never pass in WP:NFILM, except with a notorious prize like as best movie or with a characteristic that is the difference of the hundreds of scenes recorded annually, as for example the pioneer in a video format or form of distribution, etc.
Guilherme Burn (
talk)
00:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. This film's only claim of notability per WP:NFILM is "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." An award win in a niche category needs acknowledgement by reliable sources independent of the award giver for it to be considered major. Lacking non-trivial reliable source coverage, it fails the notability test.
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. As I wrote in my original nomination, "Fails NFILM and the GNG, and violates WP:NOTDIR. "Best Solo Release" (aka something like "Outstanding Achievement in Masturbation") falls well below the NFILM standard of "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". No independent sourcing, reliable or otherwise. Just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of castlists. The article just bristles with unacceptable content -- original research inaccurately conflating three different video series with similar titles into a single line, cut-and-pasted promotional copy, wretched sourcing. It also achieves new depths of porn related stupidity: among its listed notable female performers are male professional poker player
Kenna James and former major league baseball player
Randy Moore, who is apparently masturbating posthumously. There's no reason to salvage anything from this mess"; the article was cleaned up a bit, but what remains demonstrates the lack of reliable source coverage.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (
talk)
18:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep It is sourced from independent media, I am not sure if that's enough if someone just contributed once because Wikipedia is available to public and no one is bound to edit again and again, I think it's wrong if we base our deletions on this scenario, I may be wrong please guide. I read in terms and services and policies that Wikipedia is a result of contributions from ordinary people like us. This is being used in 35 countries (as per the claim and references), so I think not bad in keeping. I also found these 2 references from The Entrepreneur 1|
https://www.entrepreneur.com/video/284675 and Fortune 2|
http://fortune.com/2016/08/11/term-sheet-thursday-august-11/ The Mirror and A magazine, I am now updating the article. Thank you
Mia Watson (
talk)
17:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak delete I think this article from the
Irish Times is a significant writeup, but its the only one I've been able to find, and its from 2016. The rest of the sources look like churnalism, because the
WP:NORG standards are so high — another option would be to userfy without prejudice to recreation, in case more sources become available in the future. It's not so promotional as to be unsalvageable, but I'm not seeing enough in-depth coverage right now.
Seraphim System(
talk)12:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)reply
DeleteNo usable sources for notability The Irish Times article is essentially a press release from the company and theIrish Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, , whose position has the purpose of promoting companies in Ireland--even one that does so little as establish a branch office with 33 people. The Fortune reference is a mere mention of an investment in a list of recent investments. The Entrepreneur item is a shopping recommendation. DGG (
talk )
13:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet
WP:PORNBIO /
WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Award categories of "New Stud" and "Best Male Newcomer" are not significant.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The page is about a non-notable subject. It is listed as a commissioned piece by a paid editing firm called "Wiki Professionals Inc",
see
this. The firm creates ten pieces of press release coverage "to establish notability", as was confirmed when I spoke to them, so I do not trust the sources. The sources seem to be primary and paid for.
Agnes Khan (
talk)
22:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This doesn't seem to be a notable band. The article still mentions a planned EP release and tour in 2009 and the only significant edit since then has been to change the name of a member. There's only one reference not published by the band or a record label and that's a radio interview which is not an independent source for the content for which it's used here. Search doesn't find any good sources and many results are for the British band, or a band from Los Angeles.
Peter James (
talk)
20:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BAND. Appears to tick every box on the lists at
WP:YAMB and
WP:GARAGEBAND – they don't appear to have made any more records after the 2009 EP mentioned in the article. Their page at the Purevolume site
[1] (note: this website is shutting down on June 30) mentions a vocalist, Chase Novick, who isn't in the Wikipedia article. I can't be 100% certain these are the same people, of course, but given that they have the same distinctive names as the band members and are based in the same city, it appears founder Maloney and singer Novick still occasionally make music at home and upload their songs to Soundcloud
[2] and
[3] – Novick also now appears to work in sales as his full-time job, according to his LinkedIn profile
[4]. Given that Novick started university in 2010, the year after the band's final EP, it seems likely that this was a high school band which ended when the various members went to university or got jobs, and never had more than a couple of singles/EPs out on non-notable record labels. The EP's producer has a better claim to notability than this band
[5].
Richard3120 (
talk)
16:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Very small (less than the size of a house), most citations, and things written about them are by them, only 3 google news results, of which all of them aren't even specifically about the land trust but happen to mention them due to pipeline in the area.
ShimonChai (
talk)
17:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment 147 acres is larger than most houses, If size determined notability, and 147 acres were too small, then we'd have to delete at least 61 towns or cities, including
Vatican City. And if coverage by Google news were a requirement for notability, then probably half of Wikipedia ought to be deleted.
Vexations (
talk)
00:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
My point was that coverage is that external coverage is extremely limited and it's not big enough as a land trust to be notable on it's own for that. I don't see exactly how it is notable.
ShimonChai (
talk)
02:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The nomination for deletion is based on two claims regarding notability. A) that area matters (too small) and B) that the number of google news results determines notability (only three). Both are false. If you want to argue that the article should be deleted because the information cannot be verified or because it lack significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then you can try that. Don't bring up reasons to delete an article that have already been solidly rejected by consensus, i.e. size/area and the number of google hits.
Vexations (
talk)
12:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: I don't know how I found my way here, but I think Wikipedia has room for OWL. I looked around a little, and immediately stumbled upon an academic comparison of OWL and C18 "Capability Brown" type landscapes, so clearly examplars of
women's land serve their purpose in the academic grist mill. ("Women's land and garden history: art, activism, and lesbian spaces". By Lisa L. Moore in Disciples of Flora: Gardens in History and Culture.)
Carbon Caryatid (
talk)
16:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails notability guidelines for people. Only covered in the context of his relationship with Mandela. Released a book in 2014, which sparked a small but not significant amount of additional coverage. Possibly BLP1E as well, but probably not a low-profile individual (from reading descriptions of Brand's behavior in the sources).
Enterprisey (
talk!)
19:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Can you elaborate? This list already contains around 30 entries, and it's the most recently, ongoing iteration. The older iterations, like
List of games with DirectX 11 support, lists hundreds of entries, suggesting that this one, the newest entry, is probably eventually heading in that direction (or missing a lot of entries). The
Direct X article says it's "widely used", which is consistent with my observations on its use.
Sergecross73msg me14:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Denied DirectX games are very common, however DirectX 12 is a special and sensitive topic, because it only supports exactly one operating system, namely Windows 10. Mainly for this reason, but also because the documentation of the DirectX 12 interface does not excite developers very much, there are very few games opting for DirectX 12 compared to the whole market, even if they are being developed right now. DirectX 12 would solve a main issue - using multiple CPU cores for the graphical interface - but as it's not suitable for the mass market with all the Linux/Mac/Windows 7/8/8.1 Users, most developers opt for DirectX 11 even nowadays. You can google discussions on games like Planet Coaster and DirectX 12, and see that people are really upset about not using the latest tech, however the producers have good reason to dismiss DX12. Microsoft tried to position DirectX 12 as a good reason for gamers to switch to Windows 10. It seems that history will show that DirectX 12 as a closed standard will remain a footnote of a relatively tiny spot in the huge gaming market because of this business behaviour. There are some alternatives to DX12 as close-to-hardware interfaces, mainly AMD's Vulkan, but this fight is not over and there is definitely not a standard in sight. Nowadays computers still get faster, but the industry is working mainly on energy efficiency, raw GPU power and adding cores to the CPU. Still, the frequency-per-core does not grow at the moment (4GHz is the spot for several years now). Because of this, it is actually very interesting to see what hardware interface will make it's stance for games, especially those where a lot of small entities have to be rendered individually - because with normal DirectX (11) this is done by 1 thread only. Finally, there are also several gaming sites that list DirectX 12 games as they remain special, e.g. pcgameshardware.de, tomshardware.com. Googling "List of DirectX 12 games" will also show that this topic is very much of interest to techies. Conclusion: DirectX 12 is not DirectX. It really needs it own list of supported games, now and for documentation.
NiksNx (
talk)
12:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree: The above information is perhaps relevant to the
DirectX article (possibly others) and I recommend that the new editor propose inclusion of the details there (if they are not present already), via the talk page. But even if those details have industry relevance, creating a page for purposes of documentation of software product incompatibility couldn't be more blatantly or paradigmatically a violation of
WP:WWIN. Such a list may be appropriate for pcgameshardware.de or tomshardware.com, but such exhaustive documentation lists are not appropriate for inclusion on the encyclopedia--although, again, the underlying industry and technical issues may be germane for inclusion in an article or two, in prose form. I think your original nomination was spot on, though I think we should also help NiksNx find their way to an article where the information they provide above may be useful. Snowlet's rap02:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE and
WP:CROSSCAT. This is but one of many technical properties of video games and is better served as a category. DX12 may be exclusive to Windows 10 and few games support it, but this was true for pretty much every DX version. In the long term, this list is no different to its siblings. The arguments above is suitable material (if soruced) for the main article, but not justification for a list. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK10:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Aside from unreliable lyrics websites and youtube videos, I'm not finding any reliable sources about this person (or even anything in-depth about the songs that feature him). There are a number of trivial mentions along the lines of "so and so performed the corridor of Chito Cano", but nothing that actually talks about the history of these songs, or the man they are about. There is not enough reliable sourcing available to support a standalone article at this time. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)05:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)reply
DELETE..."Z list celebrity" only notable for being shot in 1971 and having a couple of Mexican folk songs that nobody has ever heard of written about him. Also, according to the article the songs are being sold and marketed by his brother. Maybe
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as well, since this is
User:Alexunlv one and only edit 10 years ago... + This has nothing to do with the Firearms Project.--
RAF910 (
talk)
17:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Do not delete. I absolutely oppose this decision, this list shows clearly which games support what version of DirectX. Very useful for deciding what games will match my graphics card.
Alexceltare2talk19:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article itself at this time. One of a series of malformed nominations by the editor--@
Accesscrawl: for future nominations please fully follow the procedures at
WP:AFDHOWTO. --
Finngalltalk04:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article topic lacks
significant coverage from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Its only coverage is in low-quality early Internet guides that, akin to travel guides, give short blurbs on Internet attractions. Ultimately there isn't enough paraphrasable content for us to do justice to the topic. And as mentioned on the talk page, there are no suitable merge targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar00:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete, on the basis there's no evidence of significant reliable secondary coverage about Morgan. Sure, he has been asked for his opinion by a number of news sources, but that is not coverage about him. Fails
WP:GNG.
Sionk (
talk)
23:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete promo piece on non-notable programmer. The The Hindu article is fairly brief and shallow, not the kind of in-depth coverage that's needed. Facebook links are not relible sources. --bonadeacontributionstalk20:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I am from Kerala too. He is quite famous here for being a young entrepreneur. I have also found another online reference article from Hindu which was published on the year of 2012.
It clearly says that he started web designing from the age of 13
and have made over 50 websites by the age of 15, which is something special for someone at that age.
He also got 29k followers on his facebook profile too.
So I think this wiki page should not be deleted and this article deserves to be on wikipedia. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ndpillai (
talk •
contribs)
20:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC) —
Ndpillai (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The above newspaper articles are from Kerala newspapers such as Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Janmabhumi which don't have any online versions but I can surely say that this guy is famous in our place Kerala.
Those are from the top newspapers in Kerala. You can see the full list of Malayalam(Kerala) Newspapers here:
/info/en/?search=List_of_Malayalam-language_newspapers.
From those Malayalam articles, the main points are :
He started doing web designing works from the age of 13 and have made about 50 websites by the age of 15. [1]
He makes about 5 Lakhs(A half million) per month at the age of 19 via web designing and his other businesses. [2]
He received a platinum award for excellence in web designing from World Wide Web Awards Organization From USA.[3]
At the age of 19, he developed some viral facebook apps which have been used by 10 lakh(1 Million) people within a week. [4]
Keep. @
GSS:@
Bonadea:@
Editor General of Wiki:@
RegentsPark:@
Ndpillai: I realize that a lot of of bad articles about web developers are submitteto Wikipedia and then rejected. I think that this article should be kept because it is backed up by multiple reliable sources.
The Hindu is a national newspaper and a newspaper of record. It is a reliable source and cannot be dismissed as local. Of the press clippings referred to above by
Ndpillai, non-English sources are as good as English-language ones. Offline references (such as clippings that someone scalled) are as good as online ones. They all appear to be reliable sources. One of the Malayalam-language newspapers,
Malayala Manorama, is the fourth-most-popular newspaper in India with circulation of 2,388,886 and an average issue readership of more than 8.8 million. I can't run the scans through Google Translate, but I would suggest
WP:AGF and consider that the clippings are much more than passing mentions. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)20:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)reply
As already pointed out, city editions of The Hindu and other national newspapers are considered local coverage. There are plenty of RSN discussions on that topic. --bonadeacontributionstalk20:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't even believe that we have to discuss this. It's an article about a bachelor's student. The fact that he is talented and has developed some good software is certainly enough reason for local newspapers to write about him, but it does not establish notability in Wikipedia.
Goharshady (
talk)
13:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a small local party of little notability outside of the context of Merton Council local elections. It stands candidates only in one ward and has never formed the council administration. The number of sources for the party are small and most of the content on this article is self-published. Therefore, it is better to merge this article into a new section within
Merton London Borough Council elections and redirect the page to the section there. This would also enable similar redirect links to be established to the page for Longthornton and Tamworth Residents Association (currently without a page), which held seats in the council in the 1980s and 1990s, and for which there are even fewer sources.
Matt 190417 (
talk)
17:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. A quick Google search reveals a clear lack of coverage on this group in books and news. Most of the information about them seems to come from the group themselves. In my opinion, this article fails the most basic of
notability tests.
ToastButterToast (
talk)
18:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep they have had electoral success and have been around for decades. It seems absurd to merge or delete a political party which is notable enough for its electoral success and of course its relevence in politics in Merton. Minor parties don't get much coverage usually, however the parties' success shows it is relevant and not dependent on coverage; journalists and academics rarely write about minor parties - this shouldn't be a reason to delete. There is no reason to delete or merge the page; it is a residents association with election success and relevence. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Greenleader(2) (
talk •
contribs)
18:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment No, the fact they are mentioned in the Wimbledon guardian a number of times in different articles about the election (written about just as much as the other major parties in some articles) shows that they have been given coverage and therefore notability; my point is there is obviously not a huge amount of coverage for the party, but that would obviously be the case for a minor party. I don't see a basis for deletion though; they are mentioned in articles about the local elections a number of times, have had electoral success (have 3 seats) and ultimately have had an impact on politics in Merton. Articles shouldn't be deleted just because academics haven't written about them; I agree that there are some minor parties and that shouldn't be on Wikipedia but this party shouldn't be deleted from wiki; they have enough notability and significance to have their own page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Greenleader(2) (
talk •
contribs)
19:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
CommentGreenleader(2), would you consider my suggestion of a merge? I agree the party is significant enough to be on Wikipedia because it is significant in the context of Merton council elections- I just don't think it's significant enough to have its own page. Hence why I've suggested merging the page into a new section of
Merton local elections. It wouldn't take the MPWRA off Wikipedia; it would just make them reflect their notability. Again, the upshot of such a merge is that we can add a place for Longthornton & Tamworth Residents Association, which - as far as electoral results are concerned - has as much right to have its own page as MPWRA. I envisage all of the MPWRA article (except 'aims') would be copied over to the new section.
Insofar as Wimbledon Guardian articles are concerned, obviously the party has some coverage. But again, usually the party doesn't get more than a sentence in an article (which isn't really significant coverage) and again this is only significance only in the context of Merton council elections. Almost all of the available sources for the party are self-published.
Matt 190417 (
talk)
19:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
It should really be testimony to the party's lack of significance (insofar as its own Wikipedia page is concerned) that the page was created four years ago, and until I started to add sources at the end of last month,
there was barely anything in the article, and virtually all of it from the party itself.
Matt 190417 (
talk)
20:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree. Therefore I reluctantly support a Merge; it would allow for a section on the other residents association too. Perhaps there could be another infobox on the merged page within the section of the residents association outlining the party (a bit like the youth wing of the alliance party with their own section and infobox within the page on the party as a whole). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Greenleader(2) (
talk •
contribs)
13:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - this local residents' group that has successfully put forward some election candidates for
Merton London Borough Council, unsurprisingly does not meet
WP:GNG. It is too local for inclusion in Wikipedia and I don't think it should be merged into the Borough Council article.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
10:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
CommentCwmhiraeth I think this is too ungenerous. We have well-established and fairly well-written summaries of London local elections, and indeed of Merton local elections (I am in the process of rewriting the Merton local elections articles as a pet project, but the summaries existed before my additions, especially for 2010 onwards - anything from 1984 to 2006 is mostly my work). The MPWRA is included in infobox summaries and table results of these articles, e.g. at the page
Merton London Borough Council election, 2006. The MPWRA is also linked into articles on the borough and constituency's political history. It would not enrich the encyclopaedia, and probably only leave unanswered questions and confusion, if a local party which is mentioned so often across so many articles on Merton elections did not have its own section anywhere clearly explaining what the party is. While I am aware of the limitations presented by
WP:EVENT, it is also to be said that the party's gain in a by-election in 1989 hung the Council for a year (which I have had to go back and explain in
Merton local elections page by a note. The party has also consistently held seats in the ward since 1990 (for 28 years), and is therefore not of merely transitory notability. Thus, the MPWRA is notable enough to be included in the context of local elections in Merton, which is why I would like to ask further why you would not be willing to support a merge.
MB190417(
talk)15:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails GNG. In my experience, and conceding odd exceptions, the community usually accepts as notable any political parties, including micro parties, that are on a national ballot, or that have gained electoral success above the local level (i.e. at a state or provincial level). I am not seeing that here. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, though probably move to
Vasiliy Nechitailo or a spelling variation, and refocus about the notable artist. The existence of a monument about them is an indication of their importance; the monument can be mentioned in article about the artist. Given cyrillic lettering and spelling variations possible, I bet that, contrary to the nomination, there is an article about the artist in ru.wiki. But even if not, the artist is notable.
Here is one solid source about the artist, about a retrospective show and with biographical info. --
Doncram (
talk)
20:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The existence of a monument does not guarantee notability beyond his own hometown. Lots of "local heroes" are memorialized in their hometowns, while unknown beyond. If reliable sources existed for the artist, I suspect that ru.wiki would have an article about him, at which point we could translate that article to English as a redirect target for this monument. But ru.wiki does not have such an article (although it does have an article about this monument, with poor sourcing and a redlink to the artist's name, since that article has been deleted from ru.wiki). (See
ru:Памятник Нечитайло and
ru:Нечитайло, Василий Кириллович.)
By the exhibition in Minnesota about him, he is notable by
wp:ARTIST clause 4b.
Followup: I did start that list-article about monuments in Taganrog (located on the Sea of Azov, part of the Black Sea), but this Vasili Nechitailo monument is located in Azov (located on the Don River which runs into the Sea of Azov?) or in
Salsk (located on the
Sredny Yegorlyk River which is a Don River tributary), so is not very close. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Agreed: Nechitailo deserves an article. But he doesn't have one yet, so there is no target for a merge. If someone is willing to write the article on Nechitailo, we can then proceed with a merge. In the meantime, I suggest draftifying the present article, so that the history can be preserved for a future merge to the as-yet-uncreated article.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!11:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Update Hoping to resolve this, I have edited the article to be more about the artist than the monument, so that this can be closed "Keep" with further instruction to move to
Vasili Nechitailo or spelling variation. Note the deletion nominator agrees above that Nechitailo can have an article; I don't think we need to draftify and prefer to just make a mainspace artist stub out of this article right away. I voted "Keep" above. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No strong notability for this student group. Article is all about student activism in general, this group's historical relationship to other groups and people, administrative/membership-policy minutiae, and peacockery. Notability is not inherited. With regard to this group itself, a few sentences in
Indian National Congress (parent organization) seems sufficient.
DMacks (
talk)
16:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be nice to have more policy-based arguments, supported by significant sources. Of the sources listed by
Ankit2, only the first one appears to be more than a paragraph, but I don't know how reliable or significant that source is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
16:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - As per the Indian contributors who state that this organisation meets
WP:GNG. It is difficult for editors based in the US or UK to make decisions on notability pertaining to far away countries where reliable sources may be in languages other than English.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
10:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
In Pakistani English the word Tribe is used only with barbarians, while the word caste is used with clans. Wikipedia does not use Pakistani English so
WP:COMMONNAME was invoked (I assume) to create the article
List of Saraiki tribes. The creator of this article i.e. Saraiki Castes has duplicated the material already present, and added his OR to create a new article. Even though unintentional, this is still a mistake, so the article should be deleted. I tagged it for CSD but another user, who was not aware of the misunderstanding removed the CSD, so I have headed to XFD.
2Joules (
talk)
16:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your coordination. Actuallay the page Saraiki tribe does not fulfill the requirement due to uncatagorization and mixing of different ethnicities of saraiki people. In my page Saraiki castes, I catagorized all saraiki speaking different ethnical groups with their sub castes. You can see the page. This page is not in final condition. It will take so much time to complete it with details of each saraiki speaking ethnicity and castes. But the page saraiki tribes, is uncomplete and does not fulfill the purpose. It is also a factor that their is no tribal system in sariki area but there is caste system so the page title is also wrong which should be deleted.
Engr.ismailbhutta (
talk)
16:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Doesn't that simply equate to Saraiki-speaking social groups? If that's the case, this information is encyclopedic and would be welcome in mainspace, if it were sourced. –
Uanfala (talk)22:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete after checking for the need of any content merge. There are no "Saraiki castes" unless someone is able to prove (based on RS) that caste boundaries overlap with language boundaries; which however is not the case AFAIK. Similarly, there are no "Hindko castes". Of course, an article "Castes in Punjab" would stand, Punjab being a culturally and ethnically distinct geographic area.
I am also trying to see whether any rename would work, but it does not seem likely - there are no clear, objective criteria of listing individual castes in the article, so it fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —
kashmīrīTALK08:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The clear, objective criterion for inclusion is whether a social group (or a section of it) are speakers of Saraiki. That doesn't necessarily imply that the entirety of the group are speakers of Saraiki. –
Uanfala (talk)09:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Userfy or rename. First off, in this part of the world it is common for the literature on a given language to list the social groups that make up the population of speakers, so the content of this article definitely is encyclopedic. Its author initially added this content to
Saraiki language, and created a separate article only after their addition was reverted. I don't think it ought to have been revereted, at least not for the reasons stated. The real problem with this content is that it's entirely unsourced. Because of that I would prefer to see it moved into the creator's userspace, where they will be able to work on it. And if we don't want to move articles out of the mainspace simply because they're unsourced, then this ought to be renamed to
List of Saraiki-speaking social groups (to avoid any further misunderstandings), and possibly merged with
List of Saraiki tribes (itself awkwardly named and entirely unsourced). Noting also the exsitence of
Saraiki people: though of all these articles this is the one whose existence I'm finding it most difficult to justify. –
Uanfala (talk)09:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Uanfala, I don't think this should be moved to the creator's userspace unless they can show that sources do exist for the stuff they've listed in the article and unless they express the desire to work on the article in userspace. (Apparently, they want it
deleted though their style of writing is not exactly easy to follow.)--
regentspark (
comment)
13:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This is entirely unsourced. In fact, even the existence of specific subdivisions within the Saraiki population is unsupported since the actual
Saraiki people article is threadbare. Anybody could have made up this list of castes themselves. Even if it were genuine, what purpose does this serve that a category wouldn't, anyway? None that I can think of.
MezzoMezzo (
talk)
10:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. This entity appears to be one of a complex of purported entities fixated upon by a particular fringe circle where the pseudosciences of Young Earth creationism and cryptozoology overlap. Everything I can find seems to stem from these two (which frequently merge around "living dinosaurs" and anti-evolution approaches, most notably Roy Mackal's now infamous A Living Dinosaur? but also
no shortage of incredible stuff like this). We're in deep fringe territory here and without a tertiary source from a scholar discussing exactly what's going on with all this, I can't see how we can get past, say,
WP:FRIND.
:bloodofox: (
talk)
16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Seems a little arbitrary, given that it existed as an article rather than a redirect relatively recently and is easily switched back. And it only exists on the
List of cryptids because the page still exists - the list is only for entries with articles. There, it's an article again. --
tronvillain (
talk)
17:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC); edited 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete and do not redirect. I rewrote this page after removing copyvio a couple of years ago, but didn't look nearly closely enough at the sources, which have now rightly been removed (I'm sorry for that oversight). If anyone can find solid academic ethnological sources that describe the myths and beliefs of the people of the Likouala region, and include mention or description of this particular myth, then that would be grounds for including some account of it in, say, a
List of imaginary animals. Until then, the only option for a topic with no sources is deletion. Redirecting it to
List of cryptids is not a good plan, as (a) it's unsourced and (b) this – if it is anything – is not some (supposedly) "hidden" relic of the age of the dinosaurs, but a mythological or folkloric belief of some African people (some of whom may have no conception of what a dinosaur might be).
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
18:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nothing here demonstrates notability, Several google links, a couple of press releases , a directory listing and an interview.Much coverage is local to Wichita. Nothing here independent, relatable and significant,. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 14:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Only trivial coverage in a couple of local publications. I also tried to find info on the previous companies, RSA Marketing Services and 360ideas, but no luck.
Somno (
talk)
08:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable amateur choral group which doesn't meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NBAND. On the former (GNG), and after spending several weeks trying to
improve the sourcing in the article, I can find no significant coverage anywhere (a GNews search
for example only returns a few trivial mentions, and a GoogleTest only returns
a few hundred results - mainly the group's own dotCom site, Facebook page, Twitter handle, etc). On the latter (NBAND), the criteria for ensembles would expect some notable awards, tours, air-play, charted album or other significant events - and I can find none. Regrettably don't see how this group differs from any other small amateur singing group anywhere else in the world....
Guliolopez (
talk)
14:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This ensemble does not appear to satisy the
wp:gng as I wasn't able to find coverage in independent reliable soruces. It also does not seem to satisfy any of the criteria at
wp:music.
Zingarese (
talk)
14:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Neither being an as yet unelected candidate for political office nor being president of a political party's local chapter in one state hands him an automatic free pass over
WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is not
reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over
WP:GNG — the sources are not about him, but just glancingly namecheck his existence in coverage of other things, so they do not support or bolster his notability as a person. Deprodder's claim that he's notable for getting quoted in the media a lot is also irrelevant — people get over our notability criteria by being the subject of media coverage, and not by getting asked to soundbite their opinions on other subjects.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I find no substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources. At best this is a case of
WP:TOOSOON; a writer for notable publications has a fair chance of eventually becoming notable in his own right; but that certainly isn't the case at the moment.
Vanamonde (
talk)
07:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. A search for independent sources came up empty. The subject appears to be a relatively new sports writer. He does not, however, appear to write for mainstream publications and instead looks to be writing for promotional sports websites and blogs and an online magazine. No awards for the subject could be found. Also, citations for the article are mostly his own. Fails
WP:GNG. -
AuthorAuthor (
talk)
09:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete not all journalist are notable. Currently they are one of the groups Wikipedia is plagued with articles on non-notable members of, although not nearly as bad as non-notable sportspeople and non-notable pornographic performer articles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - agree with other responses that this fails depth-of-coverage requirements. An example of a club with regional impact and perhaps beyond is
Cascade Bicycle Club–far from an ideal article but it least makes a claim of some kind of importance. This ain't that and is left with lame "group rides from a coffee shop in the center of Shresbury". ☆
Bri (
talk)
20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - certainly promotional. Quite a few of the "facts" look dubious and are not properly referenced. I don't read German, but the rest of the refs are not from reliable sources - the Yahoo Finance ref goes back to a PR site.
Smallbones(
smalltalk)02:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 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 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 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.
Keep He is welknown fashion designer for a long time. He was the founder of famous brand Rang. Now he work with his another brand Bishwa Rang. Both are most populer in Bangladesh. Beside that Biplob Shah is wel known designer, model.
NC Hasive •
talk •
12:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
All news coverage appears to be local, as is expected for an everyday brewing company. Not notable enough for wikipedia.
2Joules (
talk)
06:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Only !votes are from confirmed sockpuppeteer and their sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Yunshui雲水11:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I am not logging in due to the contentiousness of this discussion. If you expand the search beyond the full name of the company Sugar Creek Brewing Company which is rarely used you will find this brewery meets
notability. --
24.199.148.218 (
talk)
13:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I tried changing the search to "Sugar Creek," which gave lots of hits to other places and things besides the brewery. I then tried "Sugar Creek Brewing," which expanded the hits for the brewery, but still solely in local media outlets and to a couple of passing mentions in blogs. If the "keep" !voters would provide links to other than local sources (and put them in the article), that would be a great help in evaluating the AFD.
Geoff | Who, me?14:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about a book covering a Sex Pistols concert. Appears to have been created by the author of the book 10 years ago. No sources and very little content. The book doesn't appear to be covered in depth by reliable secondary sources; there is a
BBC article, but it focuses on the Sex Pistols concert the book covers, rather than the book itself.
Popcornduff (
talk)
04:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: the book was published in 2006, but it's basically a print version of a television documentary made in 2001, also written and directed by David Nolan in his capacity as a regional TV producer. As such, the documentary is arguably more famous than the book, although it's debatable whether either of them merit a Wikipedia article.
Richard3120 (
talk)
00:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - significant independent coverage in reliable sources does not appear to exist. It's unlikely that there's enough that can be said about the book to warrant a discrete article anyway.
ƒirefly (
t ·
c ·
who? )
11:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NCORP. Most references are deadlinks. All that work are passing mentions/minor coverage. Searching does not turn up significant in-depth coverage in independent RS.
MB03:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: It isn't a concern that references have become dead links, however those appear to have been in the nature of routine announcements - insufficient for current
WP:NCORP standards. My searches are finding predominantly more of the same: brief notices of the company's product announcements and ownership changes. There is also
this 2016 HollandMountain blog interview with the company CEO, but it is merely a platform piece on the company proposition. Nor does the IDC ranking at no. 74 in their sector show inherent notability. Overall, I see this as failing
WP:CORPDEPTH. (A possible alternative is to add EFront Financial Solutions to
Bridgepoint_Capital#Notable investments, supported by
this ref and redirect to that article.)
AllyD (
talk)
07:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
I think this might be a case of
WP:TOOSOON.
As the article doesn't have any in-line references, I will treat the external links as the sources.
1. Is a Facebook page. Confers no notability.
2. Is an interview-style piece which asks him about certain forms of technology, not specifically his company.
3. Doesn't appear to mention him except in the sidebar with passing references.
4. Is a business directory entry, confers no notability.
5. Is about his company receiving an award and mentions him only in the context of his company.
6. I'm having trouble with Google Translate so I can't read this source but the name suggests that it is an award for his company.
Delete with a recommendation that the creator draft an article about the company instead. Preferably through
AfC so that it can be reviewed, if only to avoid the hassle of another potential deletion discussion if it turns out the company is not notable.
ƒirefly (
t ·
c ·
who? )
11:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete I don't know when I added the page to my watchlist, but it must have been I am tracking it for possible deletion. It is plain spamcruft with specious business sources. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
16:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: The article does no more than document a company going about its business, and most of the sources are routine start-up announcements. The two Amit Chowdhry items come closest to providing editorial depth, but again these are by a start-up specialist. I don't see sufficient
coverage on either Zferral or the Ambassador platform to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH or
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk)
08:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - regarding teams,
WP:NSPORTS specifically does not cover teams, suggesting
WP:GNG is their guideline.
WP:FOOTYN is a project essay on the issue - it merely suggests non-national teams must meet broader notability requirements (usually meaning GNG).
There certainly may well not be sufficient sourcing to make the article notable, but football team ranking (in and of itself) is not a direct bar to notability.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
09:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. No claim to notability - being a TEDx speaker is not such a claim, and none of the sources is independent. I have not been able to find any secondary coverage that says more than that she exists and that her book exists.
Too soon for an article. bonadeacontributionstalk06:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Article on non-notable dumpling dish, there are hundred types of dim sum dumpling fillings and this is not a specialty of a region nor a famous dish of any restaurant. Content appears to be taken out of a cook book
Sgnpkd (
talk)
05:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
In the past, shark's fin and prawn dumpling has traditionally been a luxury dim sum, with only a select number of dim sum establishments offering the dish. These restaurants used expensive materials to make the filling like plenty of shark’s fin, chicken shreds, Shiitake mushrooms, prawn, pork, etc. The cooking method, time-consuming in nature, requires the soup to be filled into the dumpling then steamed in a bamboo steamer. As there is only one formal cooking method, fewer chiefs know how to make the dish in accordance with the traditional approach.
The shark fin dumpling is a notable dim sum dish.
Highlights from English-language sources
Los Angeles magazine calls the shark fin dumpling a "high-end dim sum relic". The
American Institute of Wine & Food says the shark fin dumpling "is offered in the better dim sum houses".
Gourmet says the shark fin dumpling is a "large dumpling, which resembles a closed flower, opens up with a touch of a fork, spilling a fragrantly gingery ground pork, shrimp, and shark's fin mixture into the bland chicken broth".
Chronicle Books says "These dumplings are shaped with a ridge on top that looks like a shark's fin, but do not actually contain shark meat."
This Deluxe Soup Dumpling ($3.98) at China Red is sometimes known as “Shark Fin & Prawn Dumpling in Superior Soup” at restaurants in China where shark fin is legal. If you haven’t been living under a foodie rock for the past couple of years, you’ll know that shark fin is illegal to sell in California. So, some Chinese seafood houses like China Red have reinvented this high-end dim sum relic to conform to current legal standards and tastes. Thus, the deluxe soup dumpling was created.
"Toh Yuen". FriedChillies.com. 2003-07-18. Archived from
the original on 2018-06-18. Retrieved 2018-06-18.
This is a restaurant review. The article notes:
Then we tried Shark's Fin Dumpling in Superior Soup. The dumpling is about twice the size of a normal dumpling and has shark's fin, tenggiri, prawns, mushrooms and scallop as part of its ingredients. This is then dipped into their superior soup. It's a bit savoury and has bits of mushroom and shark's fin. Delicious fellas. They managed to get the dumpling ingredient to compliment the soup perfectly. Something I'd recommend.
Here is more information about FriedChillies.com:
6. Honey Ahmad: Foodie (Malaysia)
Malaysia might be filled with food fanatics, but the co-founder of food website friedchillies.com is even more 'makan' ('eat') obsessed than most. With Adly Rizal, her lively site champions Malaysian food with blogs, Twitter posts, TV episodes, recipes and reviews of restaurants around the country, from hawker stalls to haute cuisine. With more than 1.5 million hits a month, the highly interactive site is on its way to achieving its mission -- getting Malaysian food worldwide recognition.
Both the quality and variety of dim sum are impressive. Try the shark's fin dumpling, a whole shrimp wrapped in an almost transparent dough, crimped at the top to suggest the triangular shape of a shark's fin.
Shark's fin may also be stuffed into a duck and steamed or scrambled in eggs; and beautifully pleated shark's-fin dumpling is offered in the better dim sum houses.
Look for the cart carrying shark's fin dumpling in soup. This large dumpling, which resembles a closed flower, opens up with a touch of a fork, spilling a fragrantly gingery ground pork, shrimp, and shark's fin mixture into the bland chicken broth.
搭地鐵吃香港美食. 宏碩文化事業股份有限公司. 2014. p. 15. Retrieved 2018-06-18.
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.
Delete Article is all in a foreign language, replacing it with the Simple English version but rehauled is a good idea. Also unsourced. --
Hazax (
talk)
23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: An article about a village which has suffered in the past from wholesale non-English overwrites by new editors who may not have understood Wikipedia's language structure. I have added a reference which provides basic verification; meets
WP:GEOLAND.
AllyD (
talk)
07:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per changes by LaundryPizza and
AllyD. Other than the dam bit (of which I'm sure there'd be a ref) there doesn't seem anything in the simple english version that would seem a logical addition.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
09:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Just another online booking firm. Nothing in the news etc. that sets it apart from millions of other similar firms. Cannot pass GNG.
2Joules (
talk)
06:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete There is no basis for assumming all independent travel booking agencies aren otable, and that seems to be the only argument for keeping. DGG (
talk )
05:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Non-notable company and database of the same name. Article is entirely based on press releases, articles in associated websites and brief routine announcements about fundraisers. None of these sources establishes notability. A Google search did not reveal any independent detailed coverage about the company.
GermanJoe (
talk)
04:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article about a company/product, consisting of information and media coverage of routine funding and partnership announcements. My searches are not finding any reason to overturn the March 2018 AfD consensus. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH as a company,
WP:GNG as its database sproduct.
AllyD (
talk)
07:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, I agree she doesn't meet
WP:POLITICIAN as a failed candidate in one election. You would expect coverage of the election and her candidature, indeed this coverage exists but it is just routine political coverage. There's no hint anywhere she's been elected to public office, or for that matter made a major contribution to any other field.
Sionk (
talk)
23:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this doesn't demonstrate or
reliably source any particular basis for notability on other grounds — and it's written much more like a
campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, to boot. The only source cited at all is a raw table of election results on the website of the county clerk, which is not a notability-supporting source. No objection to redirecting her to her husband afterward, if desired, but that should be done from the redlink after deleting the bio rather than leaving the edit history present behind the redirect.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong delete I just started an article on the clearly notable
Charlie Borders. Having been around Wikipedia and followed developments as closely as I have, I say that we have an article on Allen and didnt on Borders until very recently shows that Wikipedia has not overcome its coastal, pro-Democrat inclusion biases. However with the mention of Ashland, Kentucky, this appears to be part of an over the top localized campaign to create articles on anyone ever who had an association with Ashland Kentucky. Being a candidate even for the US house is not a sign of notability, for the state legislature not even close. A few extremely rare cases of US house candidates becoming notable for such exist. I doubt there is anyone ever who is notable on the strength of their being a candidate for a state legislature, and that is the only thing even remotely close to making Allen notable. I think we would have a much better reason to add mention that Jason Live is the husband of
Mia Love to the
Jason Love page, at least one newspaper has seen fit to write a whole article on Mr. Love, than for having this article. I am refraining from doing so at this point. When Love becomes a US senator I will reconsider my refraining, but for now I will refrain.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear, Wikipedia does not have any sort of "pro-Democrat inclusion bias". It's true that the current glut of unelected candidate articles that we have to delete skews Democratic — but that's only because the Republicans are in power right now, so more of the incumbents who already have articles are Republicans and more of the unelected challengers who want them are Democrats. The last time the Democrats had control of Congress, the balance skewed the other way and the unelected candidate articles trended more Republican. Wikipedia has no institutional bias toward or against either political party — the political realities of the day may tilt the balances one way or the other, but that has more to do with the simple math of which party happens to have more incumbents and which party happens to have more as yet unelected challengers than it does with any active bias on Wikipedia's part. (For another example of why this is true, consider also that in both Illinois and California, where the state legislatures are Democratic-controlled, the unelected state legislature candidate articles trend much more strongly Republican — again, simply because there are more unelected Republican candidates for people to try to push into Wikipedia than there are unelected Democratic candidates.)
Bearcat (
talk)
16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Tagged for notability since 2011 without anything showing notability coming forward. Merging info on a minor publication to the article on the university seems undue to me. --
Randykitty (
talk)
07:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Agree here. Normally I'm all for merging to the publisher, but this is very very minor. It's a publication for students in one department. Merging to the department (or faculty/school) would be appropriate, but that department isn't notable to begin with. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}16:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.