The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - I requested this article be undeleted through the undeletion request form. It was reviewed and approved. This article is primarily about Sandeep Tandon, not Freecharge. He has multiple instances of press coverage about his contributions as an angel investor in the start-up industry. An additional notice has been placed on the article indicating a contributor has a COI, which I disclosed on my user page and Sandeep Tandon's page.
USCalum91 (
talk)
23:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. Odd one this. I can confirm that in 2015 his firm was one of the largest Indian internet buyouts in history (see
Sequoia Capital, one of the most respected VC firms in the world, talking with him
here as part of their buyout by a Sequoia company). However, other RS is thin; I would have expected such a transaction to have more RS?.
Britishfinance (
talk)
10:33, 20 June 2019 (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.
Unsourced personal essay on the topic. This is likely a notable topic, but there's nothing here that would be salvaged to build an article on the topic. I think a clean start per
WP:TNT may be best.
Ajpolino (
talk)
21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, on the basis of the previous two comments. By the way,
Ajpolino, I'm not sure why you wanted to delete (rather than improve) an article given that you agree that the topic is notable.
Alarichall (
talk)
19:09, 16 June 2019 (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.
Created by subject's employer (see
SPI and
COIN report).
Doesn't seem to pass
WP:GOOG. Results yield corporate bio from employers and connected institutions, routine coverage, a brief mention in a book footnote...
Comment. Seems to me like this AfD needs more discussion. On the one hand, he's notable for being the first Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs of the United States, and he received a lot of coverage for it. [1][2][3] The Trump administration seems to have also appointed a Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs, also named O'Brien, which reinforces that notability claim because his nomination seems to have created a
WP:LASTING effect. On the other hand,
WP:BLP1E could apply here: I cannot find any other
WP:RS that aren't passing mentions or O'Brien being the primary source. Would be interesting to dig into hostage books and see if he gets decent coverage, but it might be
WP:TOOSOON.
Pilaz (
talk)
15:48, 19 June 2019 (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. There's consensus that this does not belong in main space. Anybody who's interested in working on it can request a move to draft space at
WP:UND. Sandstein 08:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Original research, largely unsourced. The glowing paragraph on the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, (which is pseudoscience) shows that this article is unapologetic opinion, not a summary of what independent, reliable sources have to say about the subject.
Vexations (
talk)
20:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I don’t understand why this article still has an AfC tag on it. Has it passed AfC or has the creator sidestepped the AfC process? It’s really not suitable for Wikipedia.
Mccapra (
talk)
21:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
You aren't reading what I wrote, which states what an actual subject is. You aren't reading the original author's user page, which is quite important to read here, not least when it comes to the topic of actual subjects that are missing. And perhaps more importantly you aren't reading
Smith, Schneider & Dickson 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSmithSchneiderDickson2005 (
help). ☺ Such a definite assertion of what meso is, based upon a single source, founders quite badly. Better people than us have done the research, and concluded that quite a lot of these single sources disagree with one another even as regards the basic idea. Ironically this demonstrates it to be an actual subject, studied by people, and with analyses of the literature in the field.
Our review of the literature had led us to anticipate there to be no clear consensus regarding the definition of 'meso' or those characteristics that delineate meso research, and our informal survey did not disappoint us.
— Smith, D. Brent; Schneider, Benjamin; Dickson, Marcus W. (2005). "Meso‐organizational behavior: Comments on a third paradigm". In
Clegg, Stewart R.; Hardy, Cynthia; Lawrence, Thomas B.;
Nord, Walter R. (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of organizational studies. SAGE.
doi:
10.4135/9781848608030.n5.
ISBN9781446206898.
Andrew Davidson, I said largely unsourced. To be a bit more accurate, over 75% of the article has no sources. But even claims that do have sources, such as "Each of the sixteen different personality types either have a positive or negative affect for patterns of behaviour amongst individuals" Samson (2018) are still hopelessly wrong. That isn't remotely what Samson said, who summarizes it himself as "The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment measures a person's preference for introversion versus extroversion, sensation versus intuition, thinking versus feeling and judging versus perceiving". That is quite a bit more accurate, but unfortunately still doesn't point out that the MBTI is pseudoscientific nonsense. For me to call it OR was perhaps a mistake. As for the topic, the micro-level of organizational behavior is a notable topic. If you think the article can be fixed, please show how. The only option I see is a complete rewrite. I have considered merging with
Organizational behavior, but I see nothing in this article that could improve the target of the merge. If you do, please identify what can be retained.
Vexations (
talk)
11:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Return to draft space This article is going to need a lot of work. The second sentence said "can lead to developing can lead to developing".
[1] Some basic proofreading would be nice. The way the article is written though needs to be redone.
DreamFocus04:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Move to Draft space: per Dream Focus, the article needs work, not deletion. After the article is sourced we can determine of it is original research. Lubbad85 (
☎)
19:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Move to Draft space please
Vexations. Our course has finished though we are encouraging students to continue to work on improving pages and, in particular those they're watching and have contributed to. Fransplace
03:08, 20 June 2019 (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.
Leaning Keep: the trajectory of this band seems to have mirrored that of the band they evolved from,
Polytechnic – interest from the music press and alternative radio stations, supported bigger name acts on tour, released one album, then split up... at least, I assume they split up before making a second album, because their website and their record company's website are both dead, and the band's social media goes cold in 2013. It's true I can't find much in-depth coverage of the band itself online. But their sole album was reviewed by a variety of reputable UK music publications, as shown at AnyDecentMusic
[3] (the MusicOMH review link is dead, but easily retrievable using the Wayback Machine). Wide coverage of this album doesn't surprise me, given that Polytechnic had attracted a fair amount of interest from radio and record labels, and there would be interest in the music coming from this new group. And given that the album was reviewed in so many publications, I think it's likely that there would be at least brief print coverage of the band itself in NME and Q from the time.
Richard3120 (
talk)
14:46, 29 May 2019 (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 Hi
Paul 012, it isn't about quantity of sources, it is about quality. You say that there are sources that satisfy
WP:CORPDEPTH but those same sources *also* must satisfy (for example)
WP:ORGIND. None of the ones in the article meet both!
HighKing++ 11:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on announcements and/or interviews or are
churnalism and fail
WP:ORGIND. Others are run-of-the-mill listings and fails CORPDEPTH. Others again are from connected sources and are not independent, failing
WP:ORGIND. Article is also written like an advertisement and/or vanity piece failing
WP:SPIP. Topic fails GNG and
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 11:21, 10 June 2019 (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 passes
WP:POLOUTCOMES,
The Woodlands, Texas has a population exceeding 100,000 residents, this is regional prominence. Also passes
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG he has received coverage from national news sources such as
Fox News, he has also been a candidate for
Texas State Senate, and is founder and CEO of a The Woodlands Financial Group (TWFG) and President of Professional Insurance Agents of Texas. TWFG Insurance is ranked #1 in Texas and Louisiana and 8th largest privately-owned independent insurance provider in the United States.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (
talk)
02:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)reply
After further searching it seems that the subject passes
WP:GNG on their extremely successful business career alone, therefore whether or not they satisfy WP:NPOL is irrelevant.
Horse Eye Jack (
talk)
17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:NPOL.
The Woodlands, Texas is currently an unincorporated special purpose district in Texas and the chair of the township is elected by the other members of the board. While the Fox News article provides some nationalized coverage of the subject, the level of nationalized coverage is not what we typically desire for a local board member. --
Enos733 (
talk)
17:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Notability for local political figures is not a question of the municipality's population — it depends on the quality of the sourcing, and a population of 100K is not an instant notability freebie for a mayor or municipal councillor or board chair in the absence of adequate sourcing. People also do not get Wikipedia articles for running as candidates for higher NPOL-passing offices — for "Texas State Senate" to have any bearing whatsoever on his notability, he would have to have won that election and thereby sat in the State Senate as a Senator, not just run and lose. But the references here are not building a strong case for his notability: they are nearly all
primary sources and small community hyperlocals in which coverage of the local political scene is merely expected to exist, and the only one that's a genuinely national source just briefly mentions his existence in the context of being fundamentally about something other than him. This is not how you make people at this level of political office notable enough for Wikipedia articles: the notability test is not "as soon as his name has been mentioned in a national media source once" — he has to be the subject of substantive coverage, not just get namechecked in coverage of other things, before a source assists in building his notability at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:42, 6 June 2019 (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. On second thought, the nomination makes so little sense that a consensus to delete is unlikely to emerge. Sandstein 19:55, 12 June 2019 (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 dance style also apparently known as "hip-hop lindy" or "lindy hip-hop". A websearch come up with mentions here and there (mostly on social media and video sharing websites), but I'm having trouble locating any sources apart from
this 2010 article about the creation of the "brand new dance genre" of swop. That's
not enough for a standalone article, and that's not enough to warrant adding a mention to either
Swing music or
Lindy hop (the swing style that apparently influenced this modern development).
Swing Hip Hop looks like a potentially valid more general article, but that got deleted ten years ago. –
Uanfala (talk)12:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It was a 3 sentence article, the first two sentences of which are covered in the one at hand (except that the deleted article spelled it "swap"). The third sentence was another couple-XY-danced-it-on-a-dance-competition-tv-show claim.
Uncle G (
talk)
23:46, 12 June 2019 (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.
However I have no confidence that this article accurately describes the concept of "context-aware network" that the above sources discuss. It seems to be a lot of unreferenced assertions and original research.
It does cite one published book (the first cite above), but it doesn't clearly identify which page(s) in the book supports which of its assertions. Although the book does briefly discuss an "Ad Hoc Context Aware Network" at one point (p.22), what it has to say about the topic appears to have only limited connection with what this article talks about.
Also found Christian Makaya; Samuel Pierre (5 April 2012).
Emerging Wireless Networks: Concepts, Techniques and Applications. CRC Press. p. 87.
ISBN978-1-4665-1619-9. which appears to plagarise/copyvio this Wikipedia article (given most of the article text was written in 2005, and that book was published in 2012, I presume the plagarism/copyvio is from Wikipedia to CRC Press and not the other way around).
While this topic itself might be notable enough for an article (if someone was sufficiently motivated to write one), the currently existing article is basically unsalvageable, and so deletion is the best option.
WP:TNT.
SJK (
talk)
12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson,
Andy Dingley,
Charles Matthews,
Ericwg,
Hydromania,
Kvng,
Msnicki, and
Rorshacma: I think the previous AFD
Intelligent computer network (on which you all commented) is related to this one, since they are on a similar topic, if I remember right (I can't actually confirm this any more since as a non-admin I no longer have access to the revision history of the deleted article) both were created by a similar IP at around the same time, and have similarities in language, and also this article was actually proposed at one point as a possible merge target in the discussion on that article. Since you all commented on that previous AFD but haven't commented here yet, I thought I'd draw this to your attention to this one in case you wish to comment here as well. Thanks
SJK (
talk)
08:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)reply
delete per
WP:TNT. This is an excellent topic for an article, should anyone wish to write one. Unfortunately we don't have one as yet, and this article (pretty much unchanged since
the first draft in 2005) is so lacking that I see it more as a barrier to a decent article than a useful starting point or framework.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
08:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy KeepWP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a valid reason to delete. The actual policy is
WP:IMPERFECT which states
Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.
The current draft is in no way an obstacle to improvement. If the nominator or anyone else thinks that they can do better, they can overwrite any or all of the current text per
WP:REWRITE. The deletion function is neither required nor helpful. If we were to delete the article instead, this would tend to disrupt development of the topic in several ways. Firstly, there would be no existing text to attract readers. Secondly, anyone trying to recreate the topic would find that it had been previously deleted and this would explicitly deter recreation. Thirdly, article creation now has to jump several hurdles due to non-wiki bureaucracy which now makes it quite difficult for casual readers to start new topics. So, it is much easier for people to revise an existing page than to create a new one. Fourthly, by maintaining an edit history, rather than deleting it, we are all able to inspect the history of the topic and so, in the event of dispute, able to ascertain what exactly has been attempted over time. This encourages experimentation and boldness, because we are able to revert to a prior version, if something doesn't work out. See also
WP:ATD and
WP:NOTCLEANUP.
The existing text is a nett negative to the project. In no way does it "attract readers". It might confuse some, and it reflects badly on WP in general.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Andy Dingley. The actual topic title may be notable, but all indications seem to point towards the fact that this article does not, in any way, correctly or accurately describe what the actual concept is. There is a big difference between an article that is imperfect, and one that is comprised entirely of
WP:Original Research.
WP:TNT may not be official policy, but the idea that incorrect, borderline incoherent, articles are better than nothing is ludicrous.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks ANY reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required
WP:GNG. I agree with nom that the term does appear in scholarly articles but that it's unclear that what this article describes is consistent with what is described in those scholarly sources. Imho, this entire article appears to be impermissible
WP:OR.
Msnicki (
talk)
13:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - The current text is not referenced or focused enough to be of value to readers or for other editors to build from. We could
WP:STUBIFY if there were a single referenced statement. ~
Kvng (
talk)
14:47, 16 June 2019 (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.
I'm pretty much sure that a child's death during a riot, which was covered by the media, 'has' biographical value. Yet, I'll respect the outcome of this discussion and wait for the results. Keivan.fTalk03:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not notable. No coverage beyond the fact of his killing. Can redirect to 2014 Kurdish riots, but I doubt anyone is actually searching this name.
Hydromania (
talk)
04:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Never heard of Yasin Börü so I ran a proquest news archive search on his name. Here is the first article in the search:
Yasin Börü murder case goes awry, top suspects present documented alibis
Cihan News Agency; Istanbul [Istanbul]17 Apr 2015. " STANBUL (CIHAN)- An investigation into the murder of four members of the Free Cause Party (Hüda-Par), among them 16-year-old Yasin Börü, has come undone, as three of the top suspects have presented documented alibis.
These suspects have proven that one was hospitalized, another was behind bars and the third was serving in the military on the opposite side of the country at the time of the murders, which took place during violent protests in the southeastern city of Diyarbakir on Oct. 7.
The undeniable innocence of these suspects has aroused suspicion regarding the integrity of the investigation.
The latest proof of innocence was presented earlier this week, after Ersin Adiyaman had been labeled a fugitive, located in Istanbul, taken into custody and detained for a day. Following his detention, the branch of the military in which he had served sent documents to authorities revealing that Adiyaman had been performing his mandatory military service in western Turkey while the crime was taking place on the other side of the country. Adiyaman testified at the Diyarbakir 5th High Criminal Court, confirming that he was in the 57th Artillery Brigade in Menemen, a district in the province of Izmir, between Oct. 6 and 8, and that he was only discharged on Oct. 22.
In March, lawyer Mahsum Kaya revealed that his client, Ahmet Y., was in prison while Börü and his friends were murdered. Kaya stressed that, though he had submitted documents proving that his client was still behind bars until Oct. 9, his client has not been released.
Similarly, suspect B.D. has been able to prove that he was admitted to Selahattin Eyyübi State Hospital on Oct. 2, where he received treatment until Oct. 24, making him unable to have committed the crime.
During the Eid al-Adha (Feast of the Sacrifice) holiday, Börü and his friends Riyat Günes, Ahmet Dakak and Hasan Gökouz were distributing the meat of sacrificed animals to those in need with friends in Diyarbakir, a province at the center of violent protests that took place across Turkey between Oct. 6 and 8. The protests were triggered by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levent (ISIL) having besieged the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani.
According to witness reports, the four friends came upon a group of protesters on Oct. 7 while distributing the meat and ran away, seeking shelter in the lobby of an apartment building, where they were pursued and stabbed by the protesters. Witnesses say Börü fled to the building's upper floors but was pushed out of a third-floor window by unidentified protesters. The group ran over his body with a car and crushed his head with a stone.
(Cihan/Today's Zaman) CIHAN .
My comment: There are 54 news stories in the archive. Activists in the case has a twitter account with 5141 followers
[4], translation reads: Yasin Börü Case: This account is used to inform the public. Developments related to the judicial process will be shared. Google his name and lots comes up. At this point, I have no idea what tht fuss is aobut, not even sure whether he Kurdissh, Turkish, or whethere this is about one of the other foualt lines that causes regular plitical tremors in Turkey. But there is a page on him in Turkish Wikipedia:
[5]. And the terse nominating statement makes me wonder what axe Nom has to grind here.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
09:58, 6 June 2019 (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.
None of those sources appear to be independent of the subject (I thought the Bloomberg one might be at first, but the "request update" link at the bottom of the page suggests not).
Cordless Larry (
talk)
20:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The "request update" link at the bottom of the Bloomberg's page does not mean that Bloomberg does not make fact-checking of proposals for update.
The Forbes source is an interview. I clicked through 11 pages of Google results without finding any significant coverage, and then it told me that was the end of the results, so I'm not sure where the rest of the supposed 160,000 are.
Cordless Larry (
talk)
09:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
In
WP:IV one can read: «At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography.» The Forbes source is a kind of an interview that at the second part includes the Hewko's bio. --
Perohanych (
talk)
13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Cordless Larry, you are right, I've been editing Wikipedia for 13 years, made 100.000+ edits, started 3.200+ articles (mainly in Ukrainian Wikipedia). English is not my native language, and it is not easy for me to take part in the discussion and to write articles in English. I am deeply assured, that a person who for several years operates staff and assets of the hudge RI empire, a person who is interviewed by Forbes and other worldwide media, satisfies
WP:GNG. I am also sure, that you are not cordless :) Please help me to improve the article, to find reliable, independent sources for the article. --
Perohanych (
talk)
02:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The interview shows a depth of preparation and includes a biography. The interviewer is a recognized journalist. See above! --
Perohanych (
talk)
15:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I had planned to nominate this yesterday but forgot. He is not independently notable and I'm not convinced his position in RI is notable itself.
Praxidicae (
talk)
17:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Is CEO of Wikimedia Foundation independently notable? Budget of WMF is the same as RI, assets of RI are much bigger, history is much longer. --
Perohanych (
talk)
18:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Let me know when their website is in the top 5 most visited and used sites in the world. This isn't even remotely a valid argument. Try again. But by all means, if you want to delete
Jimmy Wales, please send it right on over to AFD. I'll grab the popcorn.
Praxidicae (
talk)
16:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - heads a very large, well established organization and the general public may want to look him up. Admitteddly, the number of sources is borderline, but I don't think that Forbes interviews just anybody.
Pundit|
utter03:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Rotary International is not just a company. It's a worldwide movement with more than one million people, which inter alia almost defeated poliomyelitis on our planet. And Ivan Hevko do not just "works for RI", he leads RI. --
Perohanych (
talk)
03:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Praxidicae I think your argument is valid, we should not be a phone book, and we should not promote CEOs' egos. However, It seems that Rotary International is not a company, but a really
large NGO, operating in 200 countries, with 1.2 million individual members, which makes it one of the largest non-religious membership movements. The question, of course, is how many largest NGOs deserve detailed coverage and bios for their CEOs. I'd say that probably not more than top 100 per budget, membership, or some other criteria are a safe bet. I don't have any data to support that, but my best guess that RI would satisfy this criterion because of its wide membership.
Pundit|
utter07:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)reply
You seem to be making an argument based on the fact that it's core mission is "good" but
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. No one is contesting the notability of Rotary International, so I'm not sure what your argument is here about the organization itself but even so, notability is not inherited. Being a member or working for a notable organization doesn't make an individual notable.
Praxidicae (
talk)
17:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I am not sure, but I have heard, that there is a criteria for majors of cities - number of people who live in the city. Am I right? --
Perohanych (
talk)
05:03, 18 June 2019 (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.
Dictionary definition but moving this to Wiktionary is not an option because scriptophile is a
neologism that nobody uses (or at least nobody uses on the web and isn't in my old 2000 page English dictionary).
Pichpich (
talk)
19:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The French word seems to have a very different meaning: "Collector of stocks and old titles" according to Google Translate. —
Smjg (
talk)
09:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
To clarify, "Collector of stocks and old titles" is the Google translation of the French Wiktionary definition. If I try to get a translation "scriptophile" itself, it just leaves the word alone. I'm not sure how to tell whether this means it doesn't recognise the word in French, it doesn't have an English translation for it, or it's the same in English. —
Smjg (
talk)
09:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: The creator posted multiple definitions of questionable validity on the same day, I PRODed them all & posted a note asking the poster to flesh them out. Nothing was done. Someone removed the PROD because it was PRODed same day as creation, I was going to AfD it myself.
JamesG5 (
talk)
03:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Are you saying you've looked through all 117,000 hits on Google, and not one of them is a use of the word? @
Echo1111: Did you
make this word up, or can you provide evidence that this is a word in actual use outside of your circles? —
Smjg (
talk)
10:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Xe does not have to do that. We aren't lexicographers looking for word uses, we are encyclopaedists looking for documentation of article subjects. (You need more familiarity with Google, by the way. It won't show 117,000 results to look at, and there will not have been 117,000 results.
That is not the way that Google works. Indeed, 117,000 is not even the figure that it gives to me.)
Uncle G (
talk)
13:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Although the first page of the Google search gives a high number of hits (I get 106,000, same ballpark) but if you actually go through the hits, it stops at page 12 with a total of 115 hits so yes, you can check all of them. They're almost exclusively pages in French and the few pages in English don't use the word with the meaning proposed in the current article.
Pichpich (
talk)
22:26, 15 June 2019 (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.
No evidence of any notability. A failed draft due for deletion which was moved by its author into mainspace without any further review. Source all demonstrate its existence and not its notability. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 14:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, No sign of advertisement, a government company that only a few others produce the same thing . It is notable.
Alex-h (
talk)
09:11, 15 June 2019 (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. AfD is not a vote, and the opinions of editors with low participation in Wikipedia outside of this discussion (including the article creator), are given little weight. The arguments for keep rely on sourcing that is not generally considered sufficient to demonstrate notability of the subject.
bd2412T19:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It is pretty clear to me that this is a course project/student project with which an associated paper is published. As of now, this do not belong here. We should see if this gets more popular.
Viztor (
talk)
14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep As I see, I guess the article has enough to be kept here. This article provides reliable references (i.g. Journal of open source software and Github -the most popular community of software developers-, etc.) in comparison with other accepted articles for "open-source software" (as @
Sarminhamidi: has mentioned) that most of them are self-cited (some of them even do not reach the Wiki's criteria). In addition, this library with more than 640 stars, 200 dependent codes and 1000 installs per week, is more popular than currently available articles on English Wikipedia like ELKI, Cantera and OpenNN.
@
Viztor: "As of May 2019, GitHub reports having over 37 million users and more than 100 million repositories (including at least 28 million public repositories), making it the largest host of source code in the world." [1][2][3]
References
^"User search". GitHub. Retrieved May 23, 2019. Showing 37,446,292 available users
SebastianQuilo: I mean. You do sound like we're going to map the whole dependency tree of Github projects. We're not going to have an article on non-notable library even if some other non-notable libraries authored by some notable entities use it. Notability is not inherited. You don't write an article about every single department of a company, same here for libraries.
Viztor (
talk)
08:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Viztor: Your statement (Notability is not inherited) is completely right. But a big question is : what is the exact definition of notability? there is no general answer for this question which includes all the topics. These kinds of libraries, never reach general notability, but are popular between experts. I suggest you to take a look at
Scikit-learn (a big name in machine learning), most of it's references are their own website.--
SebastianQuilo (
talk)
11:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
SebastianQuilo: Well, your arguments are based on definition, so I will have to answer on that. Notability can be defined in many ways, as given in many guidelines. However, I'm pretty sure in this particular case, the library is not that popular even in the list you give, with the top one having 5k stars and this few hundreds, while scikit-learn is the most popular in some categories. If you'd like to push for some other inclusion criteria for software libraries inclusion, I'd welcome that. However, even if something like that is presented, with the data we have now, this particular library would not merit an article.
Viztor (
talk)
12:15, 19 June 2019 (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 an online news startup, not
properly sourced as meeting
WP:WEBCRIT. Websites are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear
WP:GNG -- but three of the six sources here (its Alexa rank, its self-published masthead and a Twitter tweet) are
primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all; one is a media bias-rating directory that does not have a well-established reputation as a reliable or accurate rater of media bias; one is a news story which tangentially verifies a stray fact about a person named in the article body, while not even namechecking this website's existence at all in the process; and the last is a podcast. The podcast is actually a stronger source than usual in this case, as it actually includes genuine third-party analysis about The Post Millennial by an unaffiliated journalist, and is not just a Q&A interview in which the site's founders are talking about themselves -- but it's still a podcast, which means it doesn't get this over the notability bar all by itself as the only acceptable source in play. None of the other sources are doing anything at all, as all of them fail one or both of the "reliable source" and "substantively about The Post Millennial" tests -- but that still leaves us with just one decent notability-supporting source, and passing
WP:GNG requires much more than just one decent notability-supporting source.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Getting cited in other publications is not the notability test for a media outlet. Being the subject of coverage in other publications is the notability test.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per the well analyzed rationale of the Nom. Sources may be perfectly acceptable for content without advancing notability and this is lacking. According to Alexa.com there would be 2470 websites rated higher. Relaxing the notability criteria could open the door for a host of equally non-notable articles.
Otr500 (
talk)
16:56, 17 June 2019 (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.
UPE Promotion for non
notable magazine. None of the awards for the founder are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is
bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the mag. A lot of PR and primary.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
12:03, 12 June 2019 (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.
Promotion for non
notable individual. None of the awards are majors. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is
bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of her. A lot of PR and primary. Only source of any note is the New Yorker but thats primarily about a news event that she happened to have been at like many other people. Page is pure PR complete with official promo shot.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
12:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject does not meet the notability criteria. Sources used as references are either not independent (including press releases) or are minor/niche publications and do not represent significant coverage.
TimBuck2 (
talk)
18:45, 19 June 2019 (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.
Promotion for non
notable actor. Lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions. (Teen Wolf had a lot of episodes but was never a main character). None of the awards are majors. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is
bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of him.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
11:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep A notable actor who has appeared in multiple mainstream television and movie productions. Subject also has Sustained notability (not required) Lubbad85 (
☎)
19:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep He played the lead role in a film notable enough to have significant coverage at NBC news.
[6] He got coverage at
[7] At
[8] "Tom Choi does a very good job as Brad’s straight-laced father". That's just some of the first page results Google news search shows for "Tom Choi" "actor". Other stuff appearing as well but I think that's enough.
DreamFocus19:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment In this
diff an undisclosed paid editor tag was added without a rationale. I'm going to remove but add it back if there is a rationale - upe is a specific type of spam (hired work) not just any spam like by a friend or family which would be a COI. --
GreenC20:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep can understand why the article was nominated. I'm swayed towards the keep side because of the board membership in SAG-AFTRA - checking the results he was
re-elected in 2017 - this can be seen as recognition amongst his peers. --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
22:32, 20 June 2019 (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.
Has some coverage from some media and mentioned in some journals and books. Does not seem that promotional. Merely a list of products. But I wonder why this article was previously redirected to
National Informatics Centre? They seem to be different organizations and they corporate (
[9]) --94rainTalk14:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - A page on
NIC already exists and this page is of no value and holds no relevance. M 11:14, 15 June 2019 (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.
No notability established and no evidence of
WP:BIO being met. No other references other than his company examinership found. Also, the article hasn't been updated since 2013.
ShirLey GOo (
talk)
10:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet
WP:GNG,
WP:ANYBIO or related guidelines. For example, neither of the main papers of record in Ireland (
IT and
IN&M) have any history of coverage of the subject directly. (There are one or two things about his businesses going into administration/etc. But nothing where he is the main subject of the coverage). The same is true of the handful of links which were added to stave off the original PROD tag. (The linked articles do not cover the subject. They cover the subject's businesses. And, at that, only one very limited element of those businesses). That the article seems to have been
initially created as some form of attack page (or a joke?) is also a significant concern. Mine is a very firm delete recommendation.
Guliolopez (
talk)
11:23, 12 June 2019 (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.
Redirect to
Association_for_Computing_Machinery#Special_Interest_Groups, where it is mentioned with all the other ACM SIGs. I was unable find enough sourcing to satisfy
WP:GNG notability thresholds. According to our deletion policy
WP:ATD, alternatives to deletion should be considered before deletion. Basic facts about this SIG are verifiable, however, and the SIGSIM is a plausible search term. Hence redirect is a reasonable alternative in this instance. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}00:10, 6 June 2019 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Most of the arguments here do not appear to be addressing the source issue (Wiki5537821 comes closest) - is there any good source on this website?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
07:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, there are, one of which was even around at the time of the first AFD discussion:
Fischer, Gerhard; Scharff, Eric; Ye, Yunwen (2004). "Fostering Social Creativity by Increasing Social Capital". In Huysman, Marleen; Wulf, Volker (eds.). Social Capital and Information Technology. MIT Press.
ISBN9780262083317.
David 2007, pp. 189–191, Case study: Experts-Exchange harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDavid2007 (
help)
David, Shay (2007). "Toward Participatory Expertise". In Karaganis, Joe (ed.). Structures of Participation in Digital Culture. Social Science Research Council.
ISBN9780979077227.
Schümmer & Lukosch 2007, pp. 150–151, §3.2.6 Reward harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSchümmerLukosch2007 (
help)
Schümmer, Till; Lukosch, Stephan (2007). "Community Support". Patterns for computer-mediated interaction. Wiley Software Patterns Series. Vol. 10. John Wiley & Sons.
ISBN9780470025611.
Reading these, it seems that it is possible to write a decent article, far better than what Wikipedia has now. There are even (poorer quality) sources that I haven't cited that document additional things like the site's use of Google
First Click Free earlier this decade (which I wouldn't trust to be objective on much else, but which I trust to report this fact reliably).
Uncle G (
talk)
11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. As a merge-back did not have unanimous consensus and involves pages that didn't link to this discussion, I'll punt it to a dedicated merge discussion. This page's history has to stay for attribution reasons, though.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
07:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete -There exists separate
Donna Summer albums discography and
Donna Summer singles discography pages, in addition to this page. This article duplicates the information contained on those two separate pages, and does not appear to have been updated, with current references, as frequently as the other two. The separate albums and singles discography pages are linked on the main Donna Summer article.
Nqr9 (
talk)
03:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It was an article split, and the page looked like this quite happily for five years, preserving the edit history and author attribution (which were not carried over), until just over a month ago someone undid that. Always check the edit histories when nominating things at AFD. Deletion is, after all, the removal of the edit history and authorship (from view), so one should be aware of what one is asking about.
Uncle G (
talk)
12:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - since the separate singles and albums discographies were split from this article, this article must not be deleted to preserve attribution. That said, it is actually the separate album and singles discographies that should be deleted, since the split was unnecessary and contrary to the treatment of other musicians' discographies.
Rlendog (
talk)
13:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Or if the separate singles and album articles have been updated more frequently than the main article, that information should be merged into the main article and the separate album and singles articles should be redirected to preserve attribution.
Rlendog (
talk)
13:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge and Redirect
Donna Summer albums discography and
Donna Summer singles discography Back Into This Article - I don't think that old page split described by Uncle G above was a good idea, per
WP:CONTENTFORK. Now we have two pairs of articles (Discography/Albums Discography AND Discography/Singles Discography) repeating each other's information. If a new greatest hits album were released next week, it would be necessary to update two different Discography articles and there is no guarantee that a user would know to do both, thus making two articles on the same thing inconsistent with each other. Or, enthusiastic maintainers of Donna Summer articles have to do everything twice, which is redundant and likely to cause errors eventually. Put everything back into one Discography article. It's okay of that article ends up being very long, because Donna had such a long and accomplished career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep this article and delete the other two as per
User:doomsdayer520. It is okay to have one long article. However, I would trim some of the irrelevant and unsourced content about her label associations. Even if the content can be sourced, it still not belong in the discography, which is essentially just a list.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
00:13, 19 June 2019 (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.
Musician who has questionable notability. He also seems to have a huge COI issue going on. (The prod was removed earlier)
Wgolf (
talk)
03:41, 12 June 2019 (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 with nom about sourcing: it's all very passing-mention stuff, nothing that I think really meets significance threshold for GNG, and I'm not sure how it fulfills any SNG.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk20:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete for sheer lack of sources. The best I could find were a couple of mentions in round-up articles about film festivals, the most in depth read: "The local underground art scene gets a boost at Mezzanine with a screening of Evolution: The Musical!, a hilarious 40-minute religious-themed "movella" by first-time directors and writers Kenny Taylor and Andrew Bancroft that will feature live music and comedy from some of the film's cast."
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
21:11, 18 June 2019 (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.