- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete. Created by banned user. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Black Magic (musician)
- Black Magic (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability criteria. I strongly suspect the article creator, User:Jamzy4, has undeclared conflict of interest as he/she has primarily contributed highly promotional articles about Nigerian musical articles, including this article as well as:
- Korrekt (musician) (already deleted)
- Dremo (deletion nomination)
- DJ Kaywise (deletion nomination)
The fact that all these articles have professional-grade photos with a claim to self-authorship is also very strong evidence of undeclared COI. Citobun (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per reason on this AfD. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet the notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment editors should also be aware that the article creator has been temporarily blocked for a campaign of revenge Afds against the nominator, something that could conceivably be directed at other participants at this Afd, once the 7-day ban expires. As stated at the ANI, he has "nominated at least one article for deletion because it's author !voted delete on an AFD"! Participants should be aware of this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: I understand that the creator's bad reputation might lead users into voting delete, but I actually believe this subject meets Wikipedia's GNG guideline. He has won "The Headies", which is Nigeria's biggest music award, and searching his name on google does bring up in-depth coverage of the subject.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: per above. Darreg (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Cited sources do have sufficient depth, although WP:COI concerns are still on the table.ronazTalk! 10:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Created by a blocked editor. A prolific sock puppeteer who is here to promote. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep: as per above keep.--Blaze8724 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Blaze8724 is a yet another sock of the articles creator. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep - I've gone through and removed most of the unsourced promotional content. COI aside, the subject's notability is borderline but I think there is enough out there to qualify. Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Strong Keep: Article meets WP:GNG, looking at references. Also meets WP:MUSICBIO, Awards won and nominated, per above. as Jamie Tubers.
- The above comment was written by Historical Ben, but for some bizarre reason, his comment was disallowed by a filter. He clearly isn't a magic or astrology spambot. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Historical Ben is yet another sockpuppet of the creator. Struck both sock comments. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above comment was written by Historical Ben, but for some bizarre reason, his comment was disallowed by a filter. He clearly isn't a magic or astrology spambot. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Anne Logston
- Anne Logston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this unsourced BLP does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR and I was unable to find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete none of the sources are anywhere near being reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. ISFDB shows that this writer's work has been regularly covered/reviewed in major genre magazines like Locus and The Dragon, which is the standard way a writer's notability is demonstrated. Also has a brief entry in John Clute's Encyclopedia of Fantasy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't Locus attempt to review most things? - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It doesn't even come close to reviewing all the books it lists online as new-and-noteworthy. It does, however, publish an annual list of noteworthy books (last year's is here [1]) and it's pretty easy to see that the books with "Locus Magazine Reviews" is a fairly small fraction of that list, which is in turn not comprehensive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't Locus attempt to review most things? - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, heres another book review of Logston's novel Shadow from Starlog magazine - "Readers looking for a strong fantasy novel ought to avoid Shadow. .. Outside of a few intriguing magical potions, there's little to recommend."Shadow by Anne Logston, so with the 2 reviews listed at ISFDB, it meets WP:NBOOK and could have its own article. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Worldcat shows her books are only in about 20 libraries each, which is utterly insignificant in the field. since libraries buy on th basis of reviews, this indicates ther lack of any significant reviews also. DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I'd have liked to be able to recommend keeping without reservation, but the sources are very sparse: ISFDB indicates that her works have been the subjects of brief reviews, but these do not seem to be available online and so we can't tell whether they contain any biographical content that we could use for the article. Still, they could be sufficient material for briefly characterizing her work, which could make up a poor but passable article. Sandstein 09:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus defaulting to the article remaining (the nominator and SwisterTwister have not re-commented after the introduction of the sourced reviews). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Aquastax
- Aquastax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Concerns with notability FASTILY 07:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as I literally found nothing, the PROD was removed simply with the basis of new changes, but none of that is actually convincing, the one claim of review if still thin and unsubstantial for actually keeping and confirming it's something hopeful and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Commment – Some sources are out there that provide coverage and are considered reliable as per WikiProject Video games/Sources. Below are some examples. North America1000 08:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
References
- Commment – The following comment below was left on the talk page for this AfD discussion (link). Moved it here so it is not missed. I added a bullet point for formatting. North America1000 07:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the feedback, have added in more relevant references to avoid deletion. The reason for entering into Wiki is that there were some original games that are not apparent on IOMO's entry - all the links are either dead or link to other platform versions: so this entry and a couple more planned will hopefully address this error. Boyflea (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per the sources I provided above. North America1000 08:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The sources provided by Boyflea (talk · contribs) on the talk page (and copied here by Northamerica1000) provide significant coverage of the subject. The Pocket Gamer article provides an extensive review of the game and the Gamespot article provides a detailed description of the game.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aquastax to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
- Hi again, thanks for the progress report. Let me know of the outcome as all of this helps me understand how best to post content to Wikipedia for the future. Thanks again for the interest. Boyflea (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep as a notable school and also the nominator has been uncovered as an account tied to a user of a past advertising-only account (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Arabiyya School
- Arabiyya School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of article lacks reliable source, not notable and hardly to fix. Historical Ben (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 02:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 14. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have added some references to reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Article does not still proves it notable neither passes WP:GNG.--Historical Ben (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The refs in the article confirm its status as a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #2. Nominator is a sock and the series of nominations and comments on AfD seems to exist to create further disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus seems to be keep. I'm not entirely sure I agree, but the consensus is clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Pedals the Bear
- Pedals the Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cute and sad story but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I don't think we'll see much lasting coverage. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Strangely, this received far more significant media coverage than I expected. The Washington Post dedicated substantial coverage in June, as did the New York Times in August. ABC has covered his death (as have any number of New Jersey media outlets). Looking further back, NJ.com reported back in 2015 on the responses of various NJ and NY government agencies as this bear became a topic of public interest. This article looks promising as well, but is paywalled. I'm not entirely persuaded that all of this demonstrates actual notability rather than (a year of) slow-news-day fill, but there are certainly more and better sources for this bear than for a lot of topics I see at AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS. Meatsgains (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: This is just an indiscriminate collection of news reports. Bear sighted, apparently named, walks on rear paws, gets killed during hunting season, end of story. Otr500 (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is absolutely NOT the "end of the story", as the bear's death has provided the impetus for Democrats in the New Jersey Senate to propose a anti-hunting "Pedals law".[2]--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources, sustained coverage since 2014[3][4][5], with resulting societal impact and debates[6]. Sourcing on current stub needs to be updated, of course, and there are lots of good legit news reporting and rs commentary to do so with. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Recentism and NOTNEWS, or consider moving to Killing of Pedals the bear (per Harambe and Cecil the lion) if it looks like there is still ongoing coverage when the AfD is coming up for closure (October 21). This animal wasn't notable in life. He's in the news now because he's dead. If there's some ongoing controversy about his death, maybe there will be something worth keeping. Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note changing my vote to Strong Keep because of reporting on Pedal's Law, an anti-bear hunting law now under discussion in the NJ senate.[7][8] Clear keep, passes NOTNEWS due to significant coverage of the societal impact surrounding this animal. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've neutrally pinged the 3 wikiprojects listed on Talk:Pedals (bear), to help build consensus. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep NOTNEWS and Recentism do not apply because there has been significant coverage since 2014 [9] [10] [11]. This story is also bigger than simply the bear itself, it has led to a bill in the New Jersey Senate requiring the state to look for non-lethal methods to control the black bear population [12]. It should also be noted that the article has been rewritten from scratch since this AFD was created.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, Pedals is at least as notable as Harambe the gorilla (especially in New Jersey), and the article notes that an anti-bear hunting bill has been introduced in the state legislature in response to Pedals' killing. I think that's more than enough reason to keep the article. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Delete If this is still remembered 5 years from now, on its own then maybe the article deserves to be reinstated. Right now, it' just regurgitated news used for coatracking. Anmccaff (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- You haven't given a policy-based reason for your vote. We don't have to wait five years to create articles that have already had significant coverage in reliable independent sources.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the simple basis of this was a news story about a bear and its 2 legs and the expected news attention it had, there's nothing else apart from that and then nothing else to suggest this article could be any better, therefore it's best included and mentioned at another article, one perhaps of compiled events such as these. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing else apart from the bill introduced in the New Jersey Senate to end hunting as a direct result of the death?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- A proposed bill is far from actual enacted legislation. I would suggest not gazing into that WP:CRYSTALBALL -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing else apart from the bill introduced in the New Jersey Senate to end hunting as a direct result of the death?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep Named animal very widely covered by major news outlets. Coverage in news extends before death. Note the wide coverage when Google News search is limited to results before September 30, 2016. They're even naming a law after it. Clearly passes GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as affecting legislation, and nom has retracted deletion bid--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Admins please close as nom has retracted deletion bid--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why should that matter? It's not as though it were a personal favor. Anmccaff (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also, per WP:SKCRIT#1, if other editors have expressed a desire to delete, the discussion can't be closed just because the nominator withdrew. clpo13(talk) 06:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Passes GNG by the looks of it, especially as it has brought about changes in legislation. I think there's enough here to warrant an article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATION, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTSCANDAL. This is Wikipedia, not the Encyclopedia of Sensationalist News. To those who will say that the subject was notable before being shot, well, this project is not called Cuteness-pedia either. It should also be noted that since being nominated for deletion this article has been extensively revised and rewritten (to the point of having its title moved!) giving readers who are then directed to this page a false inflated sense of the article's importance. Although there is unfortunately no policy that prohibits such behavior, I would say that it is bad form for inclusionists to make such radical revisions to nominated articles to sway discussion towards keep before a consensus has been reached through the AfD process. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- So you think that once an AfD has been started, no improvements should be allowed to be made to that article? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Millionsandbillions: My my, that is a unique perspective you have. I've never seen an argument like you've raised. Perhaps you'd like to write an essay to further expand on your ideas? If you really strongly believe what you say, your next step is to BE BOLD and edit Template:Article for deletion/dated to remove the text "Feel free to edit the article" and replace it with wording you find more appropriate. If your change is reverted, then you can make your case on Template talk:Article for deletion/dated. I look forward to the discussion. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- My personal philosophy regarding wiki-deletions is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. I was simply pointing out to readers who were ignorant of the article's previous state and who may be swayed toward keeping the article that the reason for the article's current state is due to those who have an agenda of saving it from deletion. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is just IDLI trying to be justified with shortcuts. General notability has been established in the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Au contraire, those who have argued for deletion in this discussion have used substantial and policy based arguments, while those who have argued for inclusion have used WP:ILIKEIT. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The exact opposite is the case. All those who want to delete have come up with is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism, neither of which apply here, and those who want to keep have pointed out that it easily passes WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- This article is just sensationalist yellow journalism and thus fails WP:GNG. As WP:SENSATION says "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting." This article is of no lasting importance so to say that neither WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RECENTISM apply is wrong. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The article is about the bear, not his death. WP:SENSATION applies to the latter. We've provided sources about the bear from 2014 and he's been in the news rather steadily since then. Not remotely yellow journalism. This bear is notable in the same way Grumpy Cat is, though not as famous. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- If the article is about the bear alone it then fails WP:GNG and WP:N. The fame of Grumpy Cat is incomparable to the fame of this bear. Grumpy Cat is an American cultural icon with absurd amounts of merchandise whereas Pedals is at most a minor internet sensation, which almost anyone or, indeed, anything can be. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The article is about the bear, not his death. WP:SENSATION applies to the latter. We've provided sources about the bear from 2014 and he's been in the news rather steadily since then. Not remotely yellow journalism. This bear is notable in the same way Grumpy Cat is, though not as famous. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- This article is just sensationalist yellow journalism and thus fails WP:GNG. As WP:SENSATION says "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting." This article is of no lasting importance so to say that neither WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RECENTISM apply is wrong. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The exact opposite is the case. All those who want to delete have come up with is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism, neither of which apply here, and those who want to keep have pointed out that it easily passes WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Au contraire, those who have argued for deletion in this discussion have used substantial and policy based arguments, while those who have argued for inclusion have used WP:ILIKEIT. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is just IDLI trying to be justified with shortcuts. General notability has been established in the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- So you think that once an AfD has been started, no improvements should be allowed to be made to that article? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note - There are massive concerns regarding WP:BLP issues if the article is kept. WP:NPF states that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." The hunter's personal safety has to be taken into account. If the name of the hunter is ever added to the article people who are upset about the hunt could go to this article to learn their name and they might be subjected to the same sort of abuse as that of the hunter involved in the hunt of Cecil the Lion. Due to the BLP violations that will occur if the article is kept the only sensible course of action is to delete. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Any article about or referencing living people could attract BLP violations. We should just go ahead and delete Wikipedia to be safe. clpo13(talk) 19:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not every Wikipedia article involving living people has the capacity to cause potential harm as this one does. Consideration should be given to the hunter's personal safety. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- You mean the hunter who has not been named in the article or even publicly identified? We do not delete articles based on future, purely hypothetical BLP violations.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The BLP violations are not "future" or "purely hypothetical." This article was started as an WP:ATTACKPAGE that claimed that the hunter was a "brutal murderer" and a "coward." As WP:NOTSCANDAL says "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy." -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- You mean the hunter who has not been named in the article or even publicly identified? We do not delete articles based on future, purely hypothetical BLP violations.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not every Wikipedia article involving living people has the capacity to cause potential harm as this one does. Consideration should be given to the hunter's personal safety. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Any article about or referencing living people could attract BLP violations. We should just go ahead and delete Wikipedia to be safe. clpo13(talk) 19:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. Go submit a REVDEL request if you think the first edit was a significant BLP violation. (Original version). The creator of the article used editorialization and clearly had a strong POV when they said Pedals was "brutally murdered" which is not the same as calling the hunter a brutal murderer but the "coward" part was sourced and attributed to an individual's opinion. Both have since been removed since they were inappropriate. This is typical of a new editor (which the user clearly is). But to twist this to be an "attack page" is ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The original version also included speculation the hunter was specifically hunting the bear for years and cast aspersions om his sporting ability; it was clearly an attack page targeted at the hunter. The "coward" part may have been sourced but sourced material can still be defamatory. The "brutally murdered" material was especially egregious as the subject is a non-sentient animal incapable of being murdered. That the editor is new is immaterial as new editors should strive to become intimately familiar with policy and ignorance of policy is not an excuse. -- Millionsandbillions (talk)
- This is nonsense. Go submit a REVDEL request if you think the first edit was a significant BLP violation. (Original version). The creator of the article used editorialization and clearly had a strong POV when they said Pedals was "brutally murdered" which is not the same as calling the hunter a brutal murderer but the "coward" part was sourced and attributed to an individual's opinion. Both have since been removed since they were inappropriate. This is typical of a new editor (which the user clearly is). But to twist this to be an "attack page" is ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Just that he walked on two legs on a regular basis makes him notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterknighted (talk • contribs)
- Keep There was an article about Pedals the Bear in the New York Times and USA Today-that makes him notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, that makes him news, and recent news at that. Anmccaff (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- RFD, even reliable sources such as the New York Times can succumb to sensationalism. An encyclopedia, if it is to be considered a serious endeavor, must have a higher level of editorial discretion than a newspaper looking to make a buck. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- And the determination of what is "sensational" is inherently about POV. Clearly editors disagree with you here. @Anmccaff: 2014 isn't "recent". EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- ....but 2016 is, very much so, and that was when the article was created, in reaction to a recent event. Let's not foget how this started; it's very hard not to see a certain degree of sensationalism there. Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- EvergreenFir, the news-stories about this bear, even the ones from 2014, are clearly tabloid journalism and there is nothing "inherently POV" about pointing that out. Also, how is 2014 not recent, that is only two years ago and the article was only created after the bear was hunted. The article is clearly a result of WP:RECENTISM. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sensationalism is in the eye of the beholder. I see an environmentalism issue here similar to Cecil the Lion. And for the life a wild disabled animal, 2014 isn't recent. This isn't the latest cute water skiing squirrel or some other nonsense meme. This is a local icon whose life resulted in petitions and whose death has prompted legislation. To suggest it's not notable seems absurd. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- EvergreenFir, the news-stories about this bear, even the ones from 2014, are clearly tabloid journalism and there is nothing "inherently POV" about pointing that out. Also, how is 2014 not recent, that is only two years ago and the article was only created after the bear was hunted. The article is clearly a result of WP:RECENTISM. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- ....but 2016 is, very much so, and that was when the article was created, in reaction to a recent event. Let's not foget how this started; it's very hard not to see a certain degree of sensationalism there. Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- And the determination of what is "sensational" is inherently about POV. Clearly editors disagree with you here. @Anmccaff: 2014 isn't "recent". EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- RFD, even reliable sources such as the New York Times can succumb to sensationalism. An encyclopedia, if it is to be considered a serious endeavor, must have a higher level of editorial discretion than a newspaper looking to make a buck. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, that makes him news, and recent news at that. Anmccaff (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There was an article about Pedals the Bear in the New York Times and USA Today-that makes him notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Fire and Rain (band)
- Fire and Rain (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUS. Timmyshin (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- delete as it stands WP:BEFORE is difficult owing to confusion with all the songs of this name (particularly James Taylor), but I can't find anything actually about the band either - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: appears to fail all criteria of WP:BAND. Richard3120 (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies
- International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article PRODded with reason " Ephemeral journal, published for only a short time. Tagged for notability since 2013. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with reason "challenging prod". PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete no indication of notability per selective databases, NJournals and GNG. Also, Springer published the last issue of this journal in 2002 and no historical value is apparent (please see this link: [13]). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, but... considering this is an old journal, it existed before databases such as the Social Sciences Citation Index existed. Are such databases "retroactive"? If not, the blunt application of WP:NJOURNALS may be misguided (though, of course, this falls well short of WP:GNG). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The Social Sciences Citation Index has been around for decades and existed before this journal was even established. My access to the SSCI goes back quite a while and as far as I can see, this journal never was indexed. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. (I could / should have searched for the SSCI dates, but my point was about index databases in general.) TigraanClick here to contact me 12:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I guess it says something about our respective ages that you call this an "old journal" whereas I thought of it as a "recent failure"... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not tellin'. But still, 14 years must be a significant fraction of your life. Assuming you are not some kind of tree. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Eres (Anahí song)
- Eres (Anahí song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC, Unremarkable song. Premios Juventud is not a 'major' music award, so does not confer notability per WP:MUSIC InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Redirect or merge to Anahí as the song alone is not notable enough for its own page. Meatsgains (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- It could also be redirected to Inesperado rather than Anahí. Richard3120 (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per User:Meatsgains.—Fundude99talk to me 00:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 10:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Brooke Heller
- Brooke Heller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:BAND. Aside from iTunes could not locate additional third-party sources to verify the notability of the subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It doesn't appear that the concerns and reasons for deletion in the 1st AfD were addressed in the recreation of this article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Even the article fails to assert anything like notability. All I could find extra was a single song co-writing credit on Lights Out (Sugarcult album) (2006). Narky Blert (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - This should've been CSD'd under G4 or even A7 but seeing as we're here it's pointless csding now, Anyway fails BAND & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 22:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Could even have been speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Tony Beig
- Tony Beig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:GNG, unless being considered a "Rich Kid of Instagram" makes you notable enough for your own BLP. The Daily Mail is the only third-party I could locate with any information on him. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a case of WP:PROMO when there's simply nothing of note here. The one third party source doesn't describe anything of note either. Kbabej (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There is one source that is maybe 3rd party, reliable, independent, although it is a bit confusing because it is listed twice. His Instagram account is not reliable, nor is IMDb. One source is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Zachary Townsend
- Zachary Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable government official. The position, "Chief Technology Officer of the State of California" is not intrinsically notable. The references for notability consist basically of minor notices--and his own minor publications DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject lacks significant notability. Chief Data Officer of the State of California in and of itself is not notable enough. Meatsgains (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Subject is sufficiently notable. Even without the citations that are his, the subject or his work has been prominently featured in publications that are not minor (Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch, American Banker). Chief Data Officer is intrinsically notable given the size of California and the scope of the role but even if that were not true the subject should be "presumed notable" as he has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of" him. Tu Che Di Gel Sei Cinta (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Even considering the size of California, CDO is not a notable office. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Arun Dravid
- Arun Dravid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A self-sourced vanity page on a unremarkable individual. Sufficient RS coverage cannot be found. Created by Special:Contributions/Karandebuwa with few other contributions. 2015 AfD closed as no consensus due to low participation. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The article is enritely sourced to the subjects own wedsite.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are only providing sources with passing mentions, such as [14], [15]. North America1000 10:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Guatemala–Honduras football rivalry
- Guatemala–Honduras football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any reliable sources for this rivalry. The article is nothing more than just a collection of results; see WP:NOTSTATS. Other relevant policies which support the deletion of this article are WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. A nine year old comment from a Honduran football fan on the article's talk page is also quite telling. Spiderone 19:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central America-related deletion discussions.
(Leaving red link in place; this has potential for a separate delsort page.) North America1000 23:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence the article is notable. Eldumpo (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of an actual rivalry here. "Rivalry" does not simply mean "series of matches played between two teams"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - El Salvador-Honduras - now there's a rivalry. This is simply a list of matches.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no sourced prose to overcome WP:NOTSTATS issues. No indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Normally, I would find an excuse to go with Kusma's suggestion of a redirect, per WP:ATD, but in this case, this seems like such an unlikely search term, it's pointless as a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
1912 German Men's Eight Rowing Team
- 1912 German Men's Eight Rowing Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the individuals have inherent notability due to having competed at Olympic Games, no inherent notability exists for Olympic teams. Rowing teams can be notable, and 1972 New Zealand eight (article does not exist yet) and 1982 New Zealand eight (notable, but they didn't perform well at the 1984 Summer Olympics) are examples. I cannot see why the 1912 German eight could possibly be considered notable. Fails WP:GNG. Schwede66 19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to understand how individual team members can be considered notable for competing in the Olympics but the team that they are part of cannot. This was a team competition, and the medals were awarded for being part of the team, so surely the team is at least as notable as any of its individual members? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Soft delete WP:DEL7 with WP:IAR, as the article has no sources. Unscintillating (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It's unreferenced and I didn't see any sources specifically addressing this team. The subject also fails NOLYMPICS. Each Olympian has presumed notability as does the Olympiad and the rowing event. The specific team does not have presumed notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rename and Repurpose -- The article currently consists of a list of the team members, all of whom have their own article. I am assuming that the content is accurate, but have not checked and there are no references. I suspect that the men's eight will not have been the only German rowing team competing in the 1912 Olympics, so that I would favour expanding it to German rowing team at 1912 Olympics, or something to that effect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's easy to reference the article - that is not the problem. The standard reference website is Sports Reference. In 1912, there were four Olympic rowing events, and Germany sent five boats to compete in three of those events; there were two teams that competed in the eights event. The scope of the article that we have covers one of those teams; as such, it's not entirely accurate (it should at least mention that there was another German eights team). I very much doubt that all the 1912 rowing teams taken together would reach the notability threshold. I have just written a summary article for New Zealand rowers at the Summer Olympics (i.e. covering all Olympic appearances) and that certainly meets notability criteria. It is, however, a lot of work. It's also complicated to define the scope for a German equivalent, as the country was split after the second world war, they competed as separate nations, then had a united team for a couple of Olympic Games, then competed as separate nations again, and then the reunification happened. Schwede66 03:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I should further note that the German Wikipedia has an article titled de:Deutschland-Achter, which translates as 'German eight'. It's an expression that was formed in 1959 and refers to the representative eights team of Germany, i.e. is not specific to a particular team, but at the time also did not cover East Germany (which makes sense, as in 1959, they were separate countries). That article lists this 1912 team, and that's a much more appropriate way of dealing with it. Schwede66 18:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Rowing. Is there any information about this team other than who its members were and what medal they won? If not, there is not enough to write an article. —Kusma (t·c) 11:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Birth tax
- Birth tax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be WP:OR - a neologism - so far mentioned only in one source (the one reference). This topic does not exist, nor does it have widespread usage in the common vernacular or peer reviewed studies. No signifigant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The only available reference appears to be commentary and not a scholarly work. Fails GNG.
I did request to speedy delete this, , but the admin did not think I presented valid criteria for doing so [16]. How about A 7? Steve Quinn (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin. And you could have prodded it. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- And you could have left the speedy tag in place - how about not trying to make decisions for me, and I will do the same for you. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Term not widely used and lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Glancing over Google real quick, the categories of sources I'm seeing are:
- Breitbart and similarly intentionally dishonest propaganda trying to accuse Obamacare of being a birth tax (no RSs, no article)
- Motherjones and a few academic works (granted, ones that wear their politics on their sleeve) arguing that repealing the estate tax is de facto establishing a birth tax (not what this is about, really belongs in Bush tax cuts if anywhere)
- a passing reference to the repercussions of hypothetically introducing such a tax in Colombia (or other places)
- references to various kinds of historical birth-related payments to individuals with gov't ties (such as to a state-sponsored midwife or the gov't official who records the birth) as birth taxes
- economics textbooks vaguely mentioning the idea in passing
- This could be notable and I'm open to changing my stance if more sources are found, but at the moment I can't find enough to make a coherent stub out of without some serious WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per NewYorkActuary - If evidence of WP:SIGCOV turns up, let it back in. De Guerre (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V. Like a lot of proposed bills, this is unlikely to be implemented, and is likely an urban legend. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Cristina Materon
- Cristina Materon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Article sourced entirely from the artist's own website – the only vaguely independent source I've found so far is a single line in this article. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I was giving this page the benefit of the doubt when I tagged it on page curation, but no independent sources have been supplied. XyzSpaniel Talk Page 20:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I gave it a couple of days while I looked for sources and waited for the editor to improve it, but I don't think either are forthcoming. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Total lack of independent sources. biographies of living people should not exist until they are well documented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Rejinsha
- Rejinsha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a procedural AfD nomination, as the CSD tags and PROD tags were removed by IPs (all I would guess are socks of the original editor). The page itself is a pretty obvious CSD A7 deletion case, as it's a vanity page about a non-notable programmer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The original editor was indef'd for block evasion, and other IPs have removed the AfD tag. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No substance to the page. Eagleash (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is that the event and its context are notable enough for a standalone article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Death of Louis Santos
- Death of Louis Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable event -- any relevance to e.g. Schwarzenegger can be dealt with in alternate articles... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment thanks for informing me of the AFD. Think this may be notable as coverage in NYTimes and LATimes about the controversy regarding the commutation, but not sure so not voting at the present.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep [Article's author] per WP:SIGCOV, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:RS. Non-notable event??? Thousands of RSs by Googling Louis Santo Esteban Núñez Arnold Schwarzenegger Fabian Núñez. [The "Find Sources" above is misleading because it searches only "Death of Louis Santos" with quotations] This event is well documented since 2008, until most recently in April 2016, when Núñez was released from prison. Even Snoop Dogg blasts Arnold Schwarzenegger as killer he freed on last day as governor of California is freed early as reported from the UK. This "non-notable event" led to Gov. Brown signing a new California clemency law inspired by the death of Louis Santos. Even an RS piece questioned if Fabian Núñez's involvement (because of the Santos killing) would hurt Antonio Villaraigosa's senate run. The numerous RS articles and secondary opinion pieces about the political friendship between Fabian Núñez and Arnold Schwarzenegger more than makes this event notable; let alone the lawsuit brought on by the Santos family and the San Diego County District Attorney. KamelTebaast 20:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - per good sources. Per overall coverage. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep moving to keep as the sources in the article are significant coverage in reliable sources such as New York Times and LA Times and lots of other news in the article and online- the article can be expanded with these sources. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Those sources would be useful for writing about this matter in the proper context, i.e., in articles on Schwarzenegger and/or Villaraigosa. The question is whether we need a separate article. The sources given are not mainly about the death -- they're mainly about the other protagonists. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Think there are enough sources for standalone notability to include the murder, commutation, controversy, change in the law, and early prison release all in one place rather than dividing it up. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Those sources would be useful for writing about this matter in the proper context, i.e., in articles on Schwarzenegger and/or Villaraigosa. The question is whether we need a separate article. The sources given are not mainly about the death -- they're mainly about the other protagonists. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Gianno Caldwell
- Gianno Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor, run-of-the-mill political consultant. No indication of real notability, impact, or importance, though lots of references to what TV shows he's appeared on. Calton | Talk 17:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete minor political strategist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Eastgate Parkway
- Eastgate Parkway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability in line with WP:GNG; the assertion that this is a "major parkway" fails compared to the reality of what is actually shown on a map. Imzadi 1979 → 17:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable
parkparkway, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)(Updated 23:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC))
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete it's not a "park" it's a "parkway" - which is to say, a road. And while Streetview isn't available for this area, zooming in on Gmaps does show it to be a very brief divided parkway. And while Google Maps shows it to bear the number 17 it is not connected in any sense to Ontario Highway 17. So per WP:GEOROAD it's still going to need to pass GNG, which it does not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Every arterial road that exists in every city is not automatically a candidate for an unreferenced standalone article just because it exists — a road can qualify for an article if enough reliable source coverage exists about it to get it over WP:GNG, but there's no automatic "just because it can be seen on a map" presumption of notability for roads. No such coverage is shown here, however. Note also Tomken Rd, which was created by the same user at the same time and actually pulls off the neat trick of saying even less about its subject than this does — it's already been tagged for prod, but will have to be monitored and possibly listed for full AFD as well if the template gets removed. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 17:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable local road. SounderBruce 00:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
OC&C Strategy Consultants
- OC&C Strategy Consultants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent in-depth coverage for this business created by an SPA (WP:COI ?). Claims of notability are insignificant: two obscure awards. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- delete this is blatantly a brochure - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- 100% spam. Can this be speedy deleted? The article was previously deleted in 2015. Suggest salting as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 06:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Parul Sharma (model)
- Parul Sharma (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG also Case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:BIO1E, She was crowned Peoples Choice Award at the Indian Princess 2015 and I can not find any significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet.
- Please note: The contents was replaced by an IP on 10 October 2016, see this revision also see my comment at this AfD. GSS (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough coverage to pass GNG and even if there was, this would be a BLP1E. Looks like neither this Parul Sharma or the other Parul Sharma (Miss India-Canada) are notable. Btw, I pretty sure some kind of undisclosed paid editing is going on here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Lemongirl942: Yeah must be some kind of undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry going on as per this revision and I still don't understand why they changed the contents of old article rather than creating a new one for this model I think because both models have the same name so they took advantage of it to fool NPP's. I have opened an SPI on these accounts please see this and this. GSS (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sock-puppetry and COI is another issue. If you don't understand why page was overridden on already written 'Parul Sharma', maybe because of the same name have caused confusion or the editor didn't wanted to start page under 'Parul Sharma (model)' or 'Parul Sharma (Indian model)' title. Winning an award at national level beauty contest doesn't make biography 'notable'? 1900toni (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Lemongirl942: Yeah must be some kind of undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry going on as per this revision and I still don't understand why they changed the contents of old article rather than creating a new one for this model I think because both models have the same name so they took advantage of it to fool NPP's. I have opened an SPI on these accounts please see this and this. GSS (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by blocked sock
|
---|
References
Thanks IndianPageantlCommunity (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
References
|
- Keep She won an award at beauty contest Indian Princess 2015. As a finalist she is mentioned in a reliable news reference 1. 1900toni (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- @1900toni: The above links you provide are not indepentdent to the subject also wow.com is not a WP:RS. GSS (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NMODEL and WP:BIO. Just another of a billion non-notable model articles spammed here by an obvious sockpuppeteer. 51.9.185.43 (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I checked the sticker and going trough all reference. It is look like she definitely won that indian princess people's choice award . It is notebel work in modelling. I'm happy to know about her . 1.39.11.133 (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- — 1.39.11.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete Her modeling career is not enough to make her notable, nor is her participation in beauty pageants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per IP 51.9.185.43 - "fails WP:NMODEL and WP:BIO. Just another of a billion non-notable model articles spammed here by an obvious sockpuppeteer" VVikingTalkEdits 13:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Overall consensus is that the article meets CORDEPH as well as GNG so closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Payoneer
- Payoneer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was kept in 2011, but think our standards for companies, particularly internet-based companies, are much higher now. The only actually substantial RS is the Inc42article, and it reads like using a minor announcement as an excuse for an advertorial.
It's grown some since 2011--it now has 7,000employees, but that still makres it a rather small company. Most of the awards listed on its wesite are awardsfor "fastest growing". I think it's excellent that companies list them on their web site, because the intrinsic actual meaning of such an award is not yet notable . K.e.coffman helpfully removed the promotionalism , but it is still not notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think the nominator meant 700 employees, not 7,000. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – Holding off on !voting for the time being. Below are some bylined articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. North America1000 00:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
References
- The "Washington post" article is actually their reprint from telechrunch.com, with telechrunch's 2008 copyright on it. To tell the truth, this really surprised me. I never realized they did this.
- I do not consider ET a RS for N, and the article proves it, for in fact is just quoting the company's executive.
- Deccan Hreald just the same, quoting another of the company's execs.
- NY Post is not a RS for business news or anything else--it's essentially a right wing tabloid.
- IBT is the same company exec that the Deccan Herald made a pretense of interviewing DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that The Washington Post published a TechCrunch article demonstrates that The Washington Post considers TechCrunch to be a reliable source. North America1000 02:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- That is one way of looking at it, but the more obvious interpretation is that the WP makes no attempt to follow proper journalistic standards in its coverage of internet companies. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- That the editors of The Washington Post decided that the techcrunch article[17] was suitable for republication in their paper only increases the strength of the WP:RS claim. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- This reminds me of your claim in a previous AFD that a Forbes contributor blog would count as an RS because Forbes wouldn't damage their brand name that way - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion is about Payoneer. In the unrelated discussion regarding a Forbes source, I also struck the source later on per the discussion there, and made no claim whatsoever of "Forbes wouldn't damage their brand name that way". It's entirely unclear how you came to this conclusion, but you're wrong; nothing of the sort was stated by me. When commenting about other users, please try to present an accurate account of actual matters that occurred. Better yet, please try to focus on the actual topic at hand. North America1000 10:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- That is one way of looking at it, but the more obvious interpretation is that the WP makes no attempt to follow proper journalistic standards in its coverage of internet companies. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that The Washington Post published a TechCrunch article demonstrates that The Washington Post considers TechCrunch to be a reliable source. North America1000 02:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- leaning delete - the sources are entirely unconvincing; is there any coverage of the company that's genuine third-party news coverage, that doesn't come from a promotional outreach? I also looked through the edit history; the sheer number of SPAs that
the company threw at the articlejust happened to have created an account to edit this article does not speak well to organic notability - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There has been significant coverage in many third party independent sources, particularly in top tier media reliable sources, and it certainly measures up to the criteria for WP:CORPDEPTH. The article should be expanded on, and it should not be a marketing piece, but it should be a Wiki articleVeggies 2 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- Cao, Jing (2016-10-05). "Cross-Border Payments Startup Payoneer Raises $180 Million". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
The article notes:
The article further notes:Research firm Pitchbook Inc. estimates Payoneer is valued at about $880 million after the most recent funding.
Payoneer’s technology moves money for businesses in one country working with those in other countries and handles the regulatory and currency issues that come with international transactions. While many payments startups rely on the existing credit card infrastructure, Payoneer has built its own connectors directly into banks, allowing recipients to get money deposited in their accounts and avoiding the transaction fees that come with plastic.
Payoneer’s technology allows small- and medium-sized companies to pay and manage invoices over the internet rather than using checks and paper. Amazon.com Inc., Google, Airbnb Inc. and Getty Images use Payoneer to pay en mass the businesses, proprietors and freelancers using their platforms. About half of Payoneer’s revenue comes from bulk payout.
When a consumer buys products on Amazon’s marketplace from independent merchants or retailers, the e-commerce giant receives the payment. Using Payoneer’s software, Amazon can then at once send the sellers the money they’re due in their local currency. In any given month, Amazon pays merchants from more than 100 countries through Payoneer, Galit said. This is an important part of Amazon’s e-commerce business, with marketplace sales making up about half of all orders.
- Arnold, Martin (2016-10-05). "Payoneer raises $180m in venture capital funding: Fundraising one of the biggest by a financial tech company this year". Financial Times. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
The article notes:
The article provides detailed information about the company, including negative information:Payoneer has raised $180m from venture capital investors, making the Israeli-turned-US cross-border payments provider the subject of one of the biggest funding rounds by a financial technology company this year.
The company was founded in 2005 by Yuval Tal, a former Israeli special forces officer, who is its president. It has its headquarters in New York, a large research centre in Tel Aviv and has clients in more than 200 countries, including many of the biggest internet marketplaces such as Amazon, Airbnb, Google, Getty Images and UpWork.
Technology Crossover Ventures, the California-based investor, is leading the latest fundraising round for the company, taking the total it has raised to about $280m. TCV is buying newly issued shares alongside Susquehanna Growth Equity, the Pennsylvania-based investor, and offering to buy out existing shareholders.
Payoneer was linked by Dubai police to the incident in which Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was killed in 2010 in that the company was said to have provided pre-paid credit cards to some of the team that carried out the murder, which was widely believed to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli overseas intelligence service. Dubai Police did not release further details.
- Miller, Claire Cain (2008-08-26). "Start-Up Offers a Way to Pay Workers Abroad". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
The article notes:
As the Web makes it easier for U.S. companies to hire workers from Bangkok to Berlin, figuring out how to pay them is an increasingly pressing issue. Payoneer, an Israeli start-up now based in New York, aims to fill this niche in the international money-transfer market.
Payoneer enables businesses to pay freelancers, contract workers or salaried employees with a prepaid MasterCard card that payees can use to withdraw cash from an A.T.M. and as a debit card in stores and online. Greylock Partners, Crossbar Capital and Carmel Ventures have invested $14 million in Payoneer.
...
So far, Payoneer has helped 200 companies sending money to 120,000 cardholders, 85 percent of whom are outside the United States. Many of the companies that use Payoneer offer payees several options, like PayPal or wire transfer, and those who live abroad often choose Payoneer.
- Ziv, Amitai (2013-05-12). "Start-up of the Week Using Banks to Move Money Is So Yesterday. Israeli startup Payoneer facilitates payments in 95 local currencies and sees the sky as the limit in the global $1.1-trillion industry". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
The article notes:
"I established the company in New York in 2005," says Yuval Tal, Payoneer's founder, who served until 2011 as its CEO and now is its president and director of business development. "We began by serving American kids who come to Israel on programs like Taglit-Brithright, Hillel or with the Jewish Agency. We provided them with debit cards they could use to pay for things in Israel. "
Payoneer's client base has long since expanded far beyond this core group. Today its technology is mainly for people with a long list of payment recipients, or what is known in Internet parlance as affiliate networks.
...
Payoneer also has a product for very-small size service providers and a service that allows customers to open a virtual American bank account. This means that a small client in China can use Payoneer to offer their services on Amazon or another American website and receive payments to cover expenses, all in dollars.
...
Payoneer is a mature startup. Some 180 of the company's 250 employees are located in Israel, with the rest working in the United States and Gibraltar. The company raised $22 million in capital in two rounds, the second in 2008. Payoneer hasn't needed external funding since. Tal claims the company's been profitable since 2010.
- Rubin, Eliran (2016-03-17). "Tech Nation: Chinese Tech Figures to Invest $50 Million in Israeli Startups. Payoneer to buy Armor Payments, a U.S.-based escrow startup; Next Insurance raises $13 million". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
The article notes:
Israeli payments platform developer Payoneer is buying U.S. startup Armor Payments, it announced on Tuesday. Armor develops a system for guaranteeing payment security in business-to-business transactions. Payoneer declined to say how much it will pay for Armor, whose operations and seven employees are to be folded into Payoneer. Payoneer develops a platform enabling customers and businesses to make payments from different countries and in different currencies. It stated that the acquisition will reduce the suspicion and uncertainty when its customers make purchases from unfamiliar businesses.
- Kolodny, Lora (2014-03-05). "Payoneer Wired $25M to Make Cross-Border, Commercial Payments Easier". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
- Geron, Tomio (2016-10-15). "Payoneer Locks in $180M Led by TCV for International Payments". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
- Orpaz, Inbal (2014-03-06). "Payments Startup Payoneer Raises $25 Million in Capital". Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
The article notes:
Payoneer, a startup whose technology enables companies to pay their suppliers anywhere in the world, said on Wednesday it had raised $25 million in an investment round led by the U.S. private equity firm Susquehanna Growth Equity.
Existing investors Carmel Ventures, Greylock IL and Vintage Venture Partners joined the round, the company said. Amir Goldman, managing director of Susquehanna Growth Equity, will join Payoneer’s board.
...
Payoneer provides a payment platform that connects thousands of companies with millions of professionals and small business owners in some 200 countries. Already profitable, the company said it would use the new capital to expand into new markets and increase sales and marketing as well as to pursue acquisitions.
The company was founded in New York, where it is headquartered, in 2005 by Yuval Tal, who served until 2011 as CEO and is now its president and director of business development.
- Grimland, Guy (2010-03-03). "Did They Know? Israel-U.S. Startup Linked to Dubai Hit". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
The article notes:
Employees at the Payoneer are still trying to understand what hit them: the Israeli startup company has faced a wave of unwanted publicity after Dubai police claimed that suspects in the assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh used its credit card technology.
Payoneer provides prepaid credit cards, which means holders can fill them with money and use them, without the card being tied to a standard bank account. Thirteen of the 27 suspects used prepaid MasterCards issued by MetaBank, a regional American bank, in order to purchase plane tickets and book hotel rooms, said the Dubai police. The police then tied MetaBank to Payoneer.
It is still not clear how bad the publicity is. One source close to Payoneer said: "All such publicity hurts," but added that customers were unlikely to be deterred from buying the company's products.
- Grut, Oscar Williams (2016-10-05). "A fintech company used by Google, Amazon, and Airbnb raised $180 million". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
The article notes:
Payoneer, a US fintech company that helps businesses send and receive money across borders online, has raised $180 million (£141 million) in a Series E funding round.
The cash comes from Technology Crossover Ventures (TCV), a Silicon Valley-headquartered VC fund that focuses on growth funding for established tech businesses. TCV has backed giants such as Facebook, Netflix, and Spotify.
The funding round is double Payoneer's funding to date and takes its total raised to $270 million (£211 million). CEO Scott Galit wouldn't comment on the company's valuation but it's likely in the billions given the amount of equity doled out.
Founded in 2005, Payoneer has two main parts to its business: helping small and medium-sized businesses make overseas payments online; and helping global tech giants like Amazon, Airbnb, and Google, to pay suppliers around the world.
- Goldenberg, Roy (2015-11-05). "Amazon selects Payoneer's payment solutions". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
The article notes:
Israeli online payments solution company Payoneer Inc. has been selected by online retail giant Amazon Inc. to expand cross-border payment options to sellers from 24 countries who sell on marketplaces in the US, Spain, France, Italy, Germany and the UK. As a featured payment solution for select countries within Amazon Seller Central, Payoneer will provide a simple and convenient way for sellers from top markets including China, Japan and South Korea to receive their Amazon disbursements.
In cooperation with Payoneer, Amazon now allows sellers to sign up for Payoneer directly from Amazon Seller Central. Upon Payoneer registration, sellers receive online accounts that can collect Amazon disbursements, and that provide access to these disbursements through local bank account withdrawal or through the use of a Payoneer MasterCard. This alliance marks the first time that Amazon has expanded Seller Central cross-border payment capabilities through alliance with an external payment solution.
Payoneer was founded in 2005 by entrepreneur and investor Yuval Tal and has raised $90 million to date including $50 million in August. With 500 employees worldwide, the company is today headquartered in New York with its R&D center in Tel Aviv. Two years ago there were rumors that the company was planning an IPO at a company value of $700 million but in the end it chose a financing round of $25 million instead. Payoneer's investors include 83North, Carmel Ventures, Greylock, Vintage, Ping An and private investors such as Yuval Tal himself, Zohar Gilon, and others. Payoneer has been in the past chosen as one of "Globes" most promising Israeli startups.
- Tsipori, Tali (2016-10-05). "Israeli digital payments co Payoneer raises $180m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
The article notes:
Israeli digital payments company Payoneer has raised $180 million in growth equity financing from TCV (Technology CrossOver Ventures) with the participation of former investor Susquehanna Growth Equity. The financing includes $90 million for expanding the company while shareholders sold a stake worth a further $90 million. This is the largest-ever investment in an Israeli fintech company and the proceeds from the financing will be used to accelerate global growth and to enhance an already strong and debt-free balance sheet.
Payoneer transforms the way businesses send and receive cross-border payments. The company was founded in 2005 in Israel by president Yuval Tal and former CTO Ben Yaniv Chechik and has raised $235 million to date including the latest financing round.
Payoneer CEO Scott Galit said, “TCV shares our belief that we can make a difference by empowering entrepreneurs throughout the world by offering them tools and solutions to participate, compete and succeed in the global economy. TCV’s connections with fast growing e-commerce marketplaces, global brand-building expertise and its long-term investment philosophy are the perfect fit for Payoneer and will help us propel our growth in the years to come.”
Payoneer is headquartered in New York and has its development office in Tel Aviv, which houses 560 of the company's 760 employees worldwide.
- Cao, Jing (2016-10-05). "Cross-Border Payments Startup Payoneer Raises $180 Million". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
- Keep based on the reliable sources with significant coverage highlighted in this discussion already. Advanced refutation to anyone claiming that news coverage mentioning or related to the multiple funding rounds of this company is not an indication of notability. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, including those I listed above, and those provided by Cunard above. North America1000 10:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I am someone who edited this article and NO - I am not affiliated with it, do not have a stake in it or anything like that. I started editing Wikipedia only recently and have a business that has a need for the work Payoneer does, and in my research I realized that this company gets a good deal of public attention and news coverage. Take a look at the Google News page. Most of the rationale is already here above by other users, but I just wanted to be on record. This company is definitely within the rights to be here. GeorgeRosen (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by GBFan. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Eagle500
- Eagle500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: the company ceased operations before production, no notability claimthe company ceased operations before production, no notability claim Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7. "Was going to make a product, but didn't" isn't a credible claim of significance, and that's literally all the there there. Nothing at all in reliable sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. clear consensus, could have been a G11 DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Letterland
- Letterland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article requires WP:TNT, IMO. There are no independent sources and the entire thing appears to have been written by their marketing department. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- delete - apart from its blatantly promotional nature and lack of any good sources, a basic WP:BEFORE finds only passing mentions in promotions of Letterland events. If this were notable, then the present article would have to be removed entirely first - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2016 (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.
- I'm sorry to have arrived too late to prevent this article's deletion. I no longer have the original text. It wasn't written by the marketing department at all. I wrote this many years ago while my child used Letterland in school. I hoped it would be useful to other parents exposed to Letterland, its roots and history etc. At the time I didn't know how to enter sources etc. Can anybody help me get the original text, so I can start again? Janbrogger (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 06:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Parul Sharma (singer)
- Parul Sharma (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject is a minor beauty pageant (Miss India-Canada) titleholder who doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Except for one brief news report about the pageant win in the Hindustan Times, there is literally nothing else in reliable sources to justify this hagiography, which makes this a BLP1E. More importantly, I am pretty certain this is an undisclosed paid editing job and should be deleted per WP:NOTPROMO. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Something weird please see this revision by an IP who replaced the entire article (rather than creating a new article) on 10 October 2016, with a model who was crowned Peoples Choice Award at the Indian Princess 2015 and user:1900toni moved it from Parul Sharma to Parul Sharma (model) today and then created a new one for Parul Sharma (singer) which earlier was named Parul Sharma (without disambiguation). GSS (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Australian governments
- Australian governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This topic is already covered by the relevant section in Politics of Australia and Government of Australia, it seems there's a lot of duplication of existing information going on. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Long-forgotten antiquated mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I really don't see any way to adapt this to our current organizational structure. Prior to an expansion effort last year, this was essentially unchanged since the Wild West days of 2005, when it was created as something halfway between a dab page and what we'd understand as a set-index article. But it isn't either of those, and we don't do this sort of concept-based navigation page any more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - content covered better elsewhere. Might be a reasonable redirect to somewhere - Government of Australia possibly. Frickeg (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Grover Simcox
- Grover Simcox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is in probable violation of WP:N, WP:IRS, and WP:ONESOURCE. HollandLop (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The one source has no information that is in the article. This person is of highly dubious notability.HollandLop (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to InterNetNews. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Rich Salz
- Rich Salz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Sources included are either primary or only discuss the individual in passing. Possible COI editing, undisclosed (see recent history). Another holdout from an earlier age of Wikipedia—notability standards have changed. I could endorse a redirection to InterNetNews, with which he was involved, or something with the history of Usenet, but he has little to no biographical coverage outside of what can be adequately described in those articles. czar 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not so sure. The article now is not very good. He has more contributions that just the news era, otherwise a merge would be a good choice. The whole OpenSSL work together with other stuff might count. I would lean to keep but can go along with consensus either way. W Nowicki (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- To reiterate, unless someone can actually prove that there is significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, a merge/redirect to InterNetNews, for which he is best known, would be better than keeping the article standalone, as we're only going off primary sources right now. The article doesn't get enough traffic to have a merge discussion and the little editor traffic it gets appears to be COI editing. czar 15:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to InterNetNews The subject is best known for InterNetNews and this is a BLP1E. The lack of significant coverage in reliable third party coverage means that we cannot really have a standalone article per WP:WHYN. I prefer a redirect here (with history intact). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to InterNetNews The subject was a major name in Usenet and is well known for InterNetNews, the dominant usenet server program. He's done a lot of good work on internet infrastructure, but I was unable to find much in the way of biographical information from independent reliable sources. That he was the creator of INN is amply verified in RS (check any RS on the technical history of Usenet), and it is plausible that his name would be searched for (the page gets about 7 hits a day), so a redirect to INN is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Timeline of heads of government in Australia
- Timeline of heads of government in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is unruly and would be hard for normal people to read contravening WP:MANUAL, plus it makes for severe difficulty in trying to add on more elected governments without compromising readability, as this article is already served by other such lists, like List of Prime Ministers of Australia, Premier of Victoria#List of Premiers of Victoria etc. so it can be argued that having separate articles would increase readability of the subject in general, rather than having a cluster of unreadable information. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to recreation. This article has been a bit of an odd-one-out for years, because the table is a pain to update and so it frequently winds up out of date for months or years after a change, and it only goes back to 2000. (It still hasn't been updated for the defeat of Adam Giles' government in August.) That said, the list's role is absolutely not served by other lists - for example, if I want to know which leaders were in office in 1971, I'd otherwise have to go to seven different articles; however, it has so many problems as is that it's been suggested to delete it before. So, delete but leave the option open of recreating it if someone wants to create a format for it that's not a mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not insensitive to the usefulness argument here, but that's not strongly weighted in policy. That said, we simply don't do this sort of thing for any other countries--I checked for an equivalent timeline for Canada, which I imagined to be the closest analogue. But there isn't one (and probably shouldn't be). I shudder to imagine what an incomprehensible trainwreck would result from trying to chart US governors in this manner! Ultimately, Wikipedia doesn't attempt to combine and display its information in all configurations that are potentially useful, and this configuration is particularly ill-suited to the project. And that's before even contemplating accessibility or maintenance concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. I have taken the advice from these users and have realised my error.(non-admin closure) - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
List of Australian federal elections
- List of Australian federal elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are two articles entirely discussing basically and fundamentally, the same thing, who heads the federal government, so we have to decide, which one is worth keeping? Because if List of Prime Ministers of Australia exists then why does this page, when they both explain the same things? That's why i'm recommending this article for deletion. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A prime minister and an election are very different things. And very important different things. And very different series of articles that both need coherent indexes. Readers who want information on an election will go to our list of elections; people who want an article on a prime minister will go to our list of prime ministers, and they will probably have some overlapping links for people who want both. This nomination is a bit absurd. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to add a comment, because Australia has a quasi-unified executive and legislative, when we talk about electoral history, we are also generally talking about Leaders of government history, because they are elected along with the legislative and need the confidence of the legislature to govern. I would also like to comment on the fact that most of the polling stats taken from the List of elections page are ripped from the Elections in Australia page, just as a side-note. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, electoral history and leaders of government history are not the same at all. Leaders of the government are elected members of the legislature, but they are not elected as leaders with the legislature but by the legislature, a key difference and an entirely separate vote. I could do without the polling stats on this particular page, though. Frickeg (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to add a comment, because Australia has a quasi-unified executive and legislative, when we talk about electoral history, we are also generally talking about Leaders of government history, because they are elected along with the legislative and need the confidence of the legislature to govern. I would also like to comment on the fact that most of the polling stats taken from the List of elections page are ripped from the Elections in Australia page, just as a side-note. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not the same as PMs at all, and suggesting that it is betrays a severe lack of understanding of Westminster democracy - any democracy, frankly. Note that this page includes things like seat results, dates of the election (which are not the same as the date the PM assumes office), and Senate information which would have no place in the PM article at all. I'm not enormously fond of some of the table formats used in this article (it would be nice to have actual vote figures somewhere, and I think the two separate tables could be consolidated), but there is no question that this is a notable list. I'm baffled by this nomination, because it really makes very little sense. Frickeg (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Campeau Dr
- Campeau Dr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fail WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete—as a failure of WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Marathi nationalism
- Marathi nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a hoax.No such nationalist or separatist movement has existed in India. You see none of the sources quoted in the article refer to such movement, which can be called Marathi nationalism or separatism. Slathuri (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a hoax, as can be seen from the reliable sources found by the Google Books and Google Scholar links above, which (or at least the books) were the basis of the previous decisions to keep this. I agree that Marathi nationalism hasn't had a major impact, but it certainly exists or existed. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: We know there are some sources in the article, but none of them directs to any nationalist stance by Marathi people. It rather says about regionalism, which is present in all Indian states. Please go through sources.-Slathuri (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your support for deletion is implied by the nomination, so there's no need to bold the word "delete" here. My comment wasn't based on the sources in the article but on those found by the Google Books and Google Scholar searches linked above, many of which are reliable sources specifically discussing Marathi nationalism. Notability may be questionable, but this is certainly not a hoax. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Will you highlight some of those sources and also quote what do they say which indicate any marathi nationalism? -Slathuri (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. More of OR and seems to have very less with verified sources. Not neutral completely. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 06:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
OneVu
- OneVu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
high degree of promotions. Coverage on Popular media are just for Investments of Script writing/ Coverage. Similar to larger scale Grofer, Delhivery, and other startup story. it is not notable at all. Till now. Light2021 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as uncited corporate spam. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I think the consensus is to keep, provided it is suitably rewritten to clarify the actual notability DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Clinkle
- Clinkle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
high degree of promotions. Coverage on Popular media are just for Investments of Script writing/ Coverage. Similar to larger scale Grofer, Delhivery, and other startup story. Website Link does not even work. Some random company made by few people for fun. It is not notable at all. Light2021 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - notability does not depend on the company being active. Defunct companies can be notable. Issues with promotional text are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and have no effect on notability of the company. What does matter is if there is significant coverage in reliable sources. And there is, as evidenced by the references already on the article. NYT[18], WSJ[19], Forbes[20] and TechCrunch[21] and a whole lot more.... Advanced refutations to anyone who claims without evidence that these are not cases of legit news coverage by reliable sources. Advanced refutations to anyone claiming that reporting on VC financing is not legit news coverage. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yet again you're citing a Forbes contributor blog as an RS. Please don't, this sort of thing leads me to discount your ability to discern sources - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed I am, and proudly so in this case! This is by Forbes contributor Tomio Geron[22], who was "previously a staff reporter at Forbes covering start-ups and venture capital", and "previously a reporter for Dow Jones VentureWire". And his current job? He works as a staff reporter for the WSJ[23]. This is a journalist who was selected by his peers in 2010 for "outstanding journalism"[24]. This is a journalist who knows legit news coverage. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- That would still be a WP:SPS at absolute best, and not a way to establish notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nice try, but not even close. You seem to be fixating on the article existing in the Forbes blog area, rather than examining its merits. And even if this one source is discounted for WP:N, there are many many others to fill its place. Notable company, article needs cleanup. ez keep. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- And my, Forbes has lots of good coverage of the demise of this company[25]. Really interesting reading and good reporting. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yet again you're citing a Forbes contributor blog as an RS. Please don't, this sort of thing leads me to discount your ability to discern sources - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- note also seems that the reliable sources do confirm that this company had the largest seed round in silicon valley history. Even more interesting is finding this company is used as an "infamous example"[26] in commentary about the VC industry -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- If the subject's claim to notability is "this company had the largest seed round in silicon valley history" that's not saying much. Nothing else stands out about this minor tech company. The article attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from Netflix] because some of its management worked there. No value to the readers at this time apart inform them about the funding and the product features, which can done just as well on the company's web site. Sources in the article are not convincing and do not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- note - still doing some more searching, and finding many references in case studies, editorials and commentaries to this company as the classic example of VC funding failure. Not only should this article be kept and cleaned up, the funding aspect of this company should be mentioned on Venture capital and/or related articles if it is not already there. And the more I search, the more references I find about this company having a societal impact, for example in popular culture, the company was used in a 2016 episode of Silicon Valley (TV series)[27]. I could go on, but there are too many pale yellow dotted sigs here already. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Snowball keep. Given that the Silicon Valley / US tech / venture funded startup industry is rightfully a topic area for the encyclopedia, you can't cover an industry without covering some of the more notable companies within that industry. This article easily passes general and corp notability guidelines with major mentions about the company in both mainstream mass media and specialized tech press. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, source examples include, but are not limited to: New York Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, Gigaom, The New York Times (wp:newsblog), TechCrunch, Business Insider, TechCrunch, etc. etc. North America1000 10:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- A miserably failed startup as per the investors views itself for which this article even exist in Wikipedia. Given website does not even work. Definitely a work of close associate or company itself. Coverage on Tech crunch and others like Business insiders write anything related to any business. Highly questionable coverage. Major media covered as Once in a lifetime coverage any startup can get if they get money from investors. Repetitive coverage lacks the notability standards and definitely not at all encyclopedic. Light2021 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, in your nomination and commentary you appear to have the opinion that any startup company is somehow unable to be notable, regardless of source coverage. That's fine, and you're fully entitled to your own personal opinion. However, notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the age or success of companies. Check out WP:NEWCOMPANY and WP:DEFUNCTS for some examples of this line of reasoning. Also, you use lots of WP:PEACOCK language herein in support of deletion ("miserable failed startup", "website does not even work", similar to other companies, "some random company", etc., but this has no bearing regarding notability per Wikipedia's notability standards. Sorry, but you seem to be judging notability subjectively, like a company that didn't "make it" is therefore unable to be notable as some sort of default. Also, promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing. North America1000 15:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- If we go by your ways, and citations of policies like I am unaware of all these, and just my opinions and nothing more. Wikipedia will become directory and nothing else. Defunct or unsuccessful is not criteria for deletion but wikipedia is not a junk space for all the company that got funded and got covered by once in a lifetime coverage on popular media. FYI you can go through : Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed . You cite selective articles to read, please cite these also: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Duration_of_coverage , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Depth_of_coverage, Wikipedia:What is and is not routine coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event
- Well, in your nomination and commentary you appear to have the opinion that any startup company is somehow unable to be notable, regardless of source coverage. That's fine, and you're fully entitled to your own personal opinion. However, notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the age or success of companies. Check out WP:NEWCOMPANY and WP:DEFUNCTS for some examples of this line of reasoning. Also, you use lots of WP:PEACOCK language herein in support of deletion ("miserable failed startup", "website does not even work", similar to other companies, "some random company", etc., but this has no bearing regarding notability per Wikipedia's notability standards. Sorry, but you seem to be judging notability subjectively, like a company that didn't "make it" is therefore unable to be notable as some sort of default. Also, promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing. North America1000 15:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- A miserably failed startup as per the investors views itself for which this article even exist in Wikipedia. Given website does not even work. Definitely a work of close associate or company itself. Coverage on Tech crunch and others like Business insiders write anything related to any business. Highly questionable coverage. Major media covered as Once in a lifetime coverage any startup can get if they get money from investors. Repetitive coverage lacks the notability standards and definitely not at all encyclopedic. Light2021 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: this company had a very well-publicized rise and fall. Significant coverage has been listed above and in article, examples include Forbes, Wall Street Journal, more Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, and Bloomberg. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- even if we cull the "launch publicity" prose from the article, I'm not convinced that the page would be useful to readers as a "use case of failed VC-backed startup". The WSJ coverage states for example:
- Beyond the financing, the company has struggled to execute on its vision and retain executives. Former Chief Operating Officer Barry McCarthy, a former Netflix executive, stayed on about five months before exiting last March. The Internet, meanwhile, is still littered with evidence of what Clinkle was supposed to be, including an abstract commercial about a “revolution.”
- None of this rises to the level of encyclopedia notability; companies are funded and then fail all the time; nothing special or significant about this one in particular. I thus still advocate deletion as (IMO) this page does not add value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and I concur with the above comments and analysis, everything (regardless of who and where it's published) is in fact an advertisement, and a blatant one at that, from the large interviewed information and quotes, to then the company information and services specifics, there's nothing else to call this but a blatant advertisement. It's in fact actually puffed now with overmassive "history and product" section which naturally go to about the company's own actions and plans, which are not only PR, but then massively formed as one now. We shall and never will make any compromises of such blatancy, and it shows since the article was (1) hardly ever touched beyond this advertising and (2) these actions were made by quickly coming-and-going accounts, none of which made any actual substantial activities (seriously, the history shows over a dozen SPAs alone). The IPs themselves are actually geolocating to the company, showing the obvious of how severely involved the company was with this. Therefore any claims of "news sources exist!" hold no convincing and nor will they if they are not actually considering the serious concerns are, and how this article is advertising. We need to seriously consider how damaging this is for such blatant advertisements to be considered as "acceptable" when they are anything but. The article itself has such damning specifics such as its employees and company foundation information, it's nothing we should even ask or consider for fixing. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi SwisterTwister and Light2021. I started this article in June 2013. There had been some press coverage of the company, though even at the time it was mostly hype. I made a stub page thinking there was the possibility that the company would become something and the article would grow with the company. It's obviously been a mixed bag since. Both the company and the article don't seem to be doing so great. I wonder would it be possible to excise the problematic parts of the article (the promotional stuff, etc.) and have a salvageable article? I'm a bit ambivalent about whether this article gets kept or deleted. I think our standards for notability for businesses are pretty low. Specific to this category of businesses, we can look at Template:Payment service providers and see similar articles, for better or worse. I'm also sympathetic to the argument that "it exists!" is not a sufficient basis for having a Wikipedia article and I've argued to delete other articles for similar reasons. I probably won't vote in this discussion one way or another, but thought it might be helpful to share some thoughts. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think for your queries or initiation for writing an article you can read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Every_snowflake_is_unique and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Duration_of_coverage
- Keep The statement in the opening paragraph "In 2013 it raised $25 million in what became Silicon Valley's largest seed round" makes the company pretty notable. Biglulu (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- and that is exactly the reason for nominations. there are nothing to write for such startup than raising a fund or get coverage by media once in a lifetime. This is not a Press or startup newspaper where we need to write each and every article for such startups. Does not make it Encyclopedic notable. Light2021 (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. This was no doubt going to end in deletion anyway, as there is no evidence whatever of notability, but we don't need to wait for a week, as the contents were almost entirely copied from other sources, such as http://link.springer.com/journal/41309 & http://www.springer.com/political+science/journal/41309 so it qualifies for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement. (In my opinion it also came close to qualifying for speedy deletion as promotional.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Interest Groups & Advocacy
- Interest Groups & Advocacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to meet the general notability guideline. Google doesn't bring up (from what I see) any references beyond the basic sales listing given in the article. It's likely not promotional enough to speedy delete on those grounds but the intent here seems to give this relatively new journal some attention. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. / Snow Keep - per SK1 - No valid reason has been presented for deletion (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Alina Janowska
- Alina Janowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No Context little context No noatability. Timothy Robinson12345 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep this new user is tagging articles without having any experience of using the tools they are working with (I'm referring to the initial speedy deletion tag). If this editor looks at WP:BEFORE, they'll see this individual is notable. The clue is the massive article on the Polish WP as a starting point. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 12:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep The actress is clearly notable, as she would meet WP:NACTOR guideline #1: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.". Unfortunately I do not read or speak Polish, however she has an extensive Wikipedia page on the Polish Wikipedia: [28]. The article can be expanded, not deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep She definitely appears to be notable. -- GB fan 13:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Very well-known Polish actress. - Darwinek (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The proper action would be to tag the article with expansion, not speedy tag it or bring it to AfD. The OP has no experience with deleting articles and this was done prematurely. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith submission, subject is clearly notable and passes WP:NACTOR. Article merely requires expansion and more sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone. Obviously I'm WP:INVOLVED but it's clearly snowing here and I think this can be closed. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
World Day for Organ Donation and Transplantation
- World Day for Organ Donation and Transplantation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Speedy Delete:' -- unsourced, bogus; does not pass the smell test. Quis separabit? 13:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Luke Albers
- Luke Albers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable college football player. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete unable to find any usable references in third party articles to point to passing WP:GNG. Having not played professionally, the individual does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON either. Typically we do not find the significant coverage necessary for a Division I FCS athlete to reach notability. While North Dakota State has a strong program and could indicate the possibility of an exception, I'm not finding enough here to actually follow through with the exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Paulmcdonald. Just not finding significant coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. If such coverage is brought forth, I am willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Didn't seem to have any significant stats in college. Lizard (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Army Golf Club
- Army Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable golf course. Most of the references in the article only make passing reference to the course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep- one of two golf clubs in Dhaka, operated and owned by Bangladesh army and is home to the first and only golf academy in the country and quick search in bangla shows multiple references. আর্মি গলফ ক্লাবে is the Bangla translation.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- — Note to closing admin: Vinegarymass911 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. One of many ordinary golf courses. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: if the golf course is part of the Dhaka Cantonment, I'd suggest covering it briefly in that article, but as a stand alone topic it is not notable, IMO. It is pretty standard for military bases worldwide to have golf courses. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Actually, the Army Golf Club is for non-military use too, because there are civilian players, including Siddikur Rahman, who play here. The Kurmitola Golf Club is actually the military-only golf course. While both are somewhat a part of Dhaka Cantonment, Bangladesh has—at most—10 (Edit: 14) golf courses in total, so I think keeping the article is OK; all of the golf courses in Bangladesh are unique in some way. 203.202.246.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America1000 00:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The Raiders (album)
- The Raiders (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't find significant coverage of this album in reliable sources. The listed sources are simply retailers and youtubes, and one for Oricon but only provides a track listing. Who's talking about this album? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC) StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Saar Kashyap
- Saar Kashyap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR he has done only 2 uncredited supporting roles in Indian television shows also I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article. GSS (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: As of now, it fails WP:NACTOR and W:GNG.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 14:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Cat Beach Sanctuary
- Cat Beach Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't see how this is notable Jimfbleak (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The kind of local interest story that fills the space of newspapers or attracts clicks but doesn't show evidence of wider notability. Although I've got to admire a person who can turn "crazy cat lady" into a going non-profit. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Human interest story that doesn't have enduring notability to meet WP:GNG. --Drm310 (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No need to say more on this one. MB 02:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I remember reading this, got shared on facebook. But yes it is a local human interest story and WP:TOOSOON. Also WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD is not satisfied. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Deleted (A11) by GBFan. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Crafter arena
- Crafter arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research[1], nonexistant genre. Made up term. EndymionDragon (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 14. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Arguably qualifies for CSD A11, given the reddit posting. Needless to say, no presence in reliable sources; all Google hits are false positives. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Probably qualifies for CSD A11, made up term. Safiel (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have tagged for CSD A11 and left note referring the administrator to the link below. Safiel (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Robocraft Official Subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Robocraft/comments/57db1v/hey_guys_ive_created_new_gamegenre_wiki_entry/. Retrieved 13 October 2016.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. Still profoundly disagree about a need to have a disambig for non-notable items, but do not see any need to keep it here any longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Nelson Davis
- Nelson Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A disambig of two items none of which has (and is unlikely to have) an article. I propose to delete it, not to revert back to a redirect. Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep irrelevant whether they will ever have a page entirely about them, there is info on WP about them and we should help readers find it. 2 valid entries per MOS:DABMENTION at time of nomination, but I'm not sure if ways of improving page as it is were looked at WP:BEFORE nomination. I added Nelson H. Davis who has an article and a fictional character which meets MOS:DABMENTION. Now has 4 valid entries and is probably worth an WP:RM about the soldier being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ymblanter, would you consider withdrawing nomination? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work, but I would prefer more opinions. I believe the nomination is valid.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: valid dab page, and was so even at the time of nomination. PamD 12:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid dab now, valid dab at the time of nomination. More specifically, on the primary topic issue, I'd support a move of this page to Nelson Davis (disambiguation), a redirect of Nelson Davis to Nelson H. Davis, and the addition of a hatnote to the dabpage from that article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Perfectly good {{hndis}} page, helpful to readers. Narky Blert (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 11:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Oren Eizenman
- Oren Eizenman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
KeepComment (switched; see discussion below, he fails GNG and WP:NHOCKEY is a very ambiguous SNG) He does pass WP:NHOCKEY in several points.
- Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;
- Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant;
- He played for the Korean High1 and Japanese Nippon Paper Cranes teams in the Asia League Ice Hockey. The Korean and Japanese Ice hockey Leagues are defunct, and the Asia League Ice Hockey replaced them, which makes it the highest league in those countries. It is also a professional league, he therefore passes point 1. Even if you don't want to consider the AHL as "top professional" for whatever reason, he still passes per point 2, because its the highest league in Japan and Korea.
- Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship)
- He played for several years in the Israeli senior national team at the Ice Hockey World Championships. The Israeli national team is not a top team in the world, but thats not asked for in this criteria.
- I think he passes WP:NHOCKEY very clearly, especially because his appearances in the Asia League which is fully professional and the highest tier league in Korea and Japan. Being a main player in the Israeli national team playing at the World Championships for years strengthens the notability argument further. Regarding WP:GNG I could definitely find news about him as he is a main player of the Israeli national team and I would also argue per WP:NEXIST and WP:OFFLINE that there is coverage of him in Korean and Japanese language sources which are probably harder to find (especially since the Nippon Paper Cranes seem to be the strongest team in Japan nationally, as they regularly win the All Japan Ice hockey Championship). Dead Mary (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Doesn't meet the GNG beyond casual mentions and routine sports reporting of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. As far as Dead Mary's Keep vote goes, it's founded on a number of altogether-too-common misconceptions. First off, "top professional league" does not mean, and for no iteration of any NSPORTS subordinate criteria has meant, "the leading professional league in every single nation-state or polity," which would inevitably lead to claims that a beer league in Brunei or Lesotho passed criterion #1, as long as someone slipped each player a fiver. The list of leagues which are considered to meet each criterion is linked to the guideline, to which I refer people.
Secondly, our longstanding intent and consensus is that competing for the World Championship means competing for the World Championship, which means the top pool in any given year; we've never defined the exact nomenclature because the IIHF, irritatingly, changes its terminology periodically. The Israeli team, never ranking higher than #32nd in the world, has never come remotely close to qualifying for the Championship pool, and only once in its history (and only for a single year) made it as far as the second pool. Ravenswing 16:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well then the NHOCKEY guideline is entirely misleading and should be rewritten. Was the Asia League ever evaluated if it does pass the presumption that a player in this league is likely to meet the general notability guideline, similar to leagues listed in the linked essay? The AL is the top league for the entirety of East-Asia and not comparable with a "beer league in Nepal". Whats the difference between Eizenman and players like this, this or this? A quick search shows that those guys have 0 reception per GNG at least in the web (only a few routine mentions), but we still assume that they are notable per default, while we delete Eizenman who plays for years in a national team and the highest league in East Asia? I know thats a WP:Other stuff exists comparison but I want to make the argument that NHOCHKEY and the attached league list seems to be very flawed.
- The same is for the "played in a national team" criteria. If this line is meant to be "played in a national team which was once one of the 16 best teams in the world" then it should be changed to reflect that. I dont care that much about Eizenman, but I find this SNG very inconsistent. Dead Mary (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- If you, yourself, wish to vette the player base of the Asia League to gauge whether the overwhelming majority of its players can meet the GNG, no doubt we'd be grateful for the effort. That being said, if you have particular expertise to bear on the subject of gauging the relative strength and notability of ice hockey leagues, feel free to chime in on the talk page at NHOCKEY/LA.
Beyond that, though, you're being quite inconsistent. How do you go from (without, apparently, any attempt to check) assuming that Eizenman must have reliable coverage in Japanese or Korean-language sources -- ice hockey not being a particularly important sport in either nation -- to assuming that your three examples don't, playing in a hockey-mad nation like the Czech Republic? I'd want more than a "quick search," and preferably one by an editor with Czech language skills. Ravenswing 21:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is not about "what you want", it is about what our guidelines say. And those 3 guys fail WP:GNG by a large margin. I said what I mean, apparently you didnt understand me. When I said those guys have 0 RS coverage I mean it, there is literally zero RS coverage on them, no sources, nothing except a few listings. There is no need to know Czech when there is nothing to translate. Not surprisingly those articles are 1 sentence stubs. So if the coverage of the Czech first ice hockey league is not completely offline in 2016 those guys are clearly not notable and WP:NHOCKEY fails it purpose by all means. The point is those 3 guys are not the only examples, there are a lot of similar one sentence 0 coverage players like those from similar leagues, but apparently WikiProject Ice Hockey don't cares.
- If you, yourself, wish to vette the player base of the Asia League to gauge whether the overwhelming majority of its players can meet the GNG, no doubt we'd be grateful for the effort. That being said, if you have particular expertise to bear on the subject of gauging the relative strength and notability of ice hockey leagues, feel free to chime in on the talk page at NHOCKEY/LA.
- Anyway this discussion is meaningless and derailing. As I said before I don't care about Eizenman, I just wanted to point out how flawed WP:NHOCKEY is. The difference between Eizenman and those Czech guys is accessibility to search for WP:GNG RS. The Czech WWW is easily searchable even by a non-Czech speakers as their webpages are wholly crawled by Google and we all use the same writing system. Asian countries have a different writing system and their internet is not as well crawled by Western search engines. Therefore I did argue that the assumption that he fails WP:GNG was prematurely. However since I dont think a Japanese or Korean speaker will chime in and deliver some sources during the next days he indeed fails WP:GNG. Therefore I switch to delete, and call it a day. Dead Mary (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- keep Proquest news archive search turned up bit a bit of coverage of his career, including a McClatchey wire service article profiling him ans speculating about his future (added ot article). Also, coverage in the Canadian Jewish News, a RS that seemed to be the obvious place to look for coverage, "Eizenman takes hockey skills to Japan and Korea," [29]; "Eizenman looks to score on and off the ice," [30], and more similar [31] form which article can be expanded. Ran only those two, quick searches. More searches would likely produce more results. He's not Gordie Howe, but he certainly passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Eizenman had a bit of a moment about a decade ago, coverage like this: "Israel’s ice man: Oren Eizenman feels at home playing minor league hockey in Stockton," in JWeekly, [32]. And The Globe and Mail headline: "Hockey tournament a breakaway success in Israel," text, "Oren Eizenman, 24, whom coaches expect to land a spot on a European team if not in the NHL,..." [33]. I suspect that it's the rarity/improbability factor, like a Jamaican bobsled team. But the coverage to pass WP:GNG is there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- In that same "Jamaican Bobsled" category, I sourced his college career on the team of one of America's great engineering colleges (NOT one of America's major collegiate sports powers) to a book rather charmingly titled Skating Engineers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Eizenman had a bit of a moment about a decade ago, coverage like this: "Israel’s ice man: Oren Eizenman feels at home playing minor league hockey in Stockton," in JWeekly, [32]. And The Globe and Mail headline: "Hockey tournament a breakaway success in Israel," text, "Oren Eizenman, 24, whom coaches expect to land a spot on a European team if not in the NHL,..." [33]. I suspect that it's the rarity/improbability factor, like a Jamaican bobsled team. But the coverage to pass WP:GNG is there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note that I am not arguing that he passes WP:NHOCKEY; I have not looked at that set of criteria. I argue simply that coverage exists to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - As E.M.Gregory found, he has significant coverage in Canadian Jewish News, particularly the 2nd article (but the 1st isn't bad either). That all counts as significant coverage from a single source, but the JWeekly article also provides substantial coverage. I would regard the Globe and Mail article as more of a passing mention, but I did find this article about him in the Hartford Courant. So I think there is enough coverage in enough sources to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand why this is even up for discussion. Per WP:NHOCKEY if you played in the World Championship you are instantly notable. Since he played in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2013, and 2014, I don't see why this would even be a question. - GalatzTalk 13:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - sources found seem to indicate a GNG pass. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 16:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Clearly fails WP:NHOCKEY, but like his brother, has a marginal claim to GNG.18abruce (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Though he fails WP:NHOCKEY, he passes WP:GNG, per the sources discovered by E.M.Gregory and Rlendog. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per A10 and A11. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Creating Effect of Arabidopsis thaliana SCPL41 Gene on the Expression of Key Genes Involved in Drought Stress
- Creating Effect of Arabidopsis thaliana SCPL41 Gene on the Expression of Key Genes Involved in Drought Stress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTJOURNAL. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
2013 Bukavu Mil Mi-8 crash
- 2013 Bukavu Mil Mi-8 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While tragic accident, many military-related aircraft have crashed in the past. No lasting significance. FiendYT ★ 03:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:1EVENT. Meatsgains (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - In a war which has killed thousands of people, singling out four people because they were killed in a helicopter crash (and were foreign?) seems odd.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'd add that the majority of events in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the Democratic Republic of the Congo also fail WP:1EVENT.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Military crashes are held to a different standard than civilian ones, and this one doesn't satisfy it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Tragic but not notable military accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Transfer data to MONUSCO, and possibly UTAir, and then delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, tragic but not notable. A passing event and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MER-C 04:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
GetFiveStars
- GetFiveStars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. The best references about the company is a passing mention in this WSJ article. Other than this, the coverage is limited to quotes by the employees or trivial mentions. In depth coverage about this company doesn't exist, so I am going for a delete.
I should also point out that this is most likely an undisclosed paid editing job. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Notified the author Author notified about COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete it also has a passing mention in a Huffington Post blog but that's about it. Buffaboy talk 03:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the company is notable and is mentioned in neutral articles i.e 12[34] Abbottonian (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:corp, insufficient significant independent references. In-depth independent coverage not found. Refs noted about are trivial mentions. MB 02:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as this honestly should not have been started given, not only the questionability of such subjects to begin with, but there's in fact nothing here of actual significance, so let alone actual notability; therefore what is to be considered is PR, since there's essentially nothing to suggest this could have potential substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources available fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Seeming repeating coverage in Small Business Trends is actually because a C-level officer of this group writes there and this company appears in the writer bio on each of those articles. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Linda Li
- Linda Li (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appearance in a few sessions of a TV show is not notability for a plastic surgeon, but rather self-advertising. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable plastic surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- delete got a little celebrity for one thing. Fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as I discussed at Jason_Diamond_(2nd_nomination). Just another doctor who got on a TV show. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Adnan Xavier Fakhouri
- Adnan Xavier Fakhouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable student, winner of a minor stock competition. Vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete stock market competitions are not the sort of thing that make their winners notable. We do not even seem to have articles on the competitions Fakhouri won.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and SALT due to persistant socking The compatition does not seem notable, it is a high school compatition. There is quite a bit of coverage but it is all 'flash-in-the-pan' WP:BLP1E coverage, and most of the sources are local. JbhTalk 03:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 22:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note A brand new account attempted to change/forge a Keep vote. [35]. They were reverted. JbhTalk 03:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tannerg45. reddogsix (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No references provided. Also, it seems as though this article has already been deleted before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_(Xavier)_Fakhouri. ReusGang (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Already deleted in its other guise Adnan (Xavier) Fakhouri, this one is not notable, a self promoting piece XyzSpaniel Talk Page 09:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and salt This is nothing but self promotion and honestly close to A7 material. Considering the massive amount of disruption, I recommend salting the title. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as spam. Salt (including above mentioned variant) too. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This article was nominated for deletion as per being an advertisement in nature and as per the company being non-notable. Some users herein have agreed with the notion of the article functioning as an advertisement as a basis for deletion, but some of those users have not addressed whether or not the topic is notable (e.g. "I agree, all COI edits also", "Reads like an advert"). Other users have opined for deletion as per the article being an advert and that the company is not notable. Conversely, some users have stated that the company is notable and that promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Some users also stated that promotional aspects in the article were improved after the article was AfC-accepted (e.g. "Tone has been improved since my acceptance at AFC as well", and "Well researched and improved" appears to possibly be related to this). Another user only addressed notability, but not aspects of promotionalism ("Subject appears to have been covered extensively through RS"). Ultimately, there are myriad opinions here, and there is an overall consensus herein that the article would benefit from copy editing to address promotional tone. However, no consensus for a particular action in relation to article deletion or retention has arisen within this discussion. North America1000 12:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
American Vision Windows
- American Vision Windows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert for non-notable home improvement company Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree, all COI edits also. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I was an inexperienced editor at that time and didn't know what I was doing. I have learned and my article has already gone through the inclusion process. @Jcc: @Mduvekot: @Joseph2302: I can honestly say that I came to Wikipedia because I thought the Home Living project needed help and while I realize my earlier work was lacking quality, I went ahead and cited multiple academic sources for the latest version of this article and even read the rules of Wikipedia more thoroughly . I am not an advertiser, I'm a nerd who loves company information and I hope to help Wikipedia alot. SWAloha (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- The article is also a notable organization due to the independence of its many reliable sources from academic journals, newspapers, and remodeling publications. Per WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGIND, and WP:ORGDEPTH. SWAloha (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete - Article clearly does not meet the guidelines as a notable organization because the content of this article is suited more for advertisement purposes of the company itself, being hidden by listing "facts" about a private organization. Furthermore, the company produces no notable or unique product or service which is widely recognized as a "standard" or being considered as a new "standard" for a service or product. You cited WP:ORGSIG too, and from that "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" you have still yet to prove American Vision Windows has, or ever had, significant or demonstrable effects to anything including, but not limited to, their field of business, society, science, or education and this helps to justify the article should be deleted. Rmparten (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The company is the first window company in California to implement a Christian philosophy within its philanthropic-focused company culture. I cited multiple academic sources on the subject. They are also the largest window contractor in the state. SWAloha (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete - Reads like an advert. ReusGang (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Subject appears to have been covered extensively through RS QubixQdotta (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as covered in reliable sources enough to pass WP:GNG. Tone has been improved since my acceptance at AFC as well. Joseph2302 12:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep - The article could easily pass WP:GNG as well as WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND for its amount of independent sources supporting its point. Well researched and improved. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■
Strong keep - The article is supported by large number of quality independent sources. Meets WP:GNG + WP:CORPDEPTH. However, the article does need to be cleaned up to remove any advertising like language and stick to the facts about the company in plain language.GreenMountainGate (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 13:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)- Keep and edit for PROMO tone. improbably for a home renovation company, this company has attracted sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as per others really, the company passes GNG. Editing needs to be done for promotional tone, which the editor did work on back at AfC, but fundamentally it should be kept. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. the company is too small to be notable ($33 million annual revenue.) Almost all the academic articles seem to be in extremely minor journals indeed, (see [36] and i think amount to cleverly placed advertorials. Ido not consider that particular one a RS for anything. (The other refs are its own web site or otherwise trivial) DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Jesse Lee Thomas
- Jesse Lee Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Thomas's one true claim to notability is that he ran for US congress and lost. I actually created this article, and when I did, I was of the belief that such was enough to make a person notable. That may have even been the state of the guidelines when I created the article. However it is now clear that just running for congress is not enough to make someone notable, even as the holder of a major party nomination. I hate to see this article go, but the coverage from the Deseret News mentioning Thomas about 12 years before he ran for congress is just not enough for the article to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per G7 author request. Sounds OK. Blythwood (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements have evolved significantly in the last decade, so lots of things that were created in good faith at the time don't actually meet the inclusion standards that pertain today. I've frequently also self-nominated stuff that I created a decade ago under the standards that pertained at the time, but which couldn't actually be substanced or sourced up to the stricter standards that apply now. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
J.C. Maçek III (writer)
- J.C. Maçek III (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film critic. He's written for a few publications, but there's no significant coverage of the critic himself. The sources listed here are just articles he's written or trivial mentions. A search on Google News for "J.C. Maçek III" -site:popmatters.com turns up pretty much nothing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Subject is notable, has enough sources. Full disclosure, I'm the creator of this article. This subject is a notable film critic with many, many reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, which only allows noteworthy film critics who have written for professional publications like PopMatters to have their work listed on their site. Neptune's Trident (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Having done something is far different than being known for doing something, no matter how many Rotten Tomatoes reviews written or how many websites Maçek contributes to. (all of which are primary sources and do not demonstrate notability) His novel is self published. We need clear, demonstrable evidence that people besides this article creator and (presumably) the editors of PopMatters etc. think this subject is noteworthy, rather than simply a way to attract more eye-balls in an increasingly crowded field of freelance writers that is the internet. Minor acting/producing roles do not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete based on the evidence being presented at this moment, there is little or no indication that the contributor is more than a journalist: journalist need a higher standard than coverage in sources, because the professional expectation is to cite eachother among journalists. Also pages like Rotten Tomatoes Aggregate very widely. Sadads (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America1000 12:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram
- Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is nothing on the page except for an infobox. Zero sources or any indication of substance. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep it's a high school. If it exists, it's notable. I added a sentence to say what it was in addition to the infobox. Also added a source proving its existence. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". Article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for an illustration of the consensus here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please see the hundreds of nominations from school-articles that proove that there is noi such thing of a consensus. The Banner talk 07:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Plenty of nominations, yes. Virtually no deletions following discussion. That's the indication that a consensus exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please see the hundreds of nominations from school-articles that proove that there is noi such thing of a consensus. The Banner talk 07:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for an illustration of the consensus here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG. The fact the school exist deos not mean it is Notable. Their is noting to read about the subject, only info box and one references which does not falls under reliable source.--Historical Ben (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)- Consensus disagrees with you. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Historical Ben has been blocked as a sock, and to me it looks like the history of AfD comments on this account was intended to create legitimacy before starting disruptive AfDs in other areas. Not striking the !vote since I've been involved in the discussion here, but thought it worth bringing up. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - beyond the mere fact of its existence, the available sources tell us nothing that you be used to write an article. Fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which is utterly irrelevant, since stubs are completely acceptable on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've just added an additional independent source and information noting the school for being used as a staging location by Save the Children for an enrollment day for government schools to the article. This is within the general precedent of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES of having confirmation in an independent source. If this was am American secondary school, we would be fine with inclusion. I don't see why for a Pakistani school, we shouldn't be. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: I completely reject your premise. Has NOTHING to do with this being a Pakistani school. When the page was nominated it was nothing more than an infobox. Even now it is severely lacking. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Zackmann, I wasn't questioning the reasons behind your nomination, just noting that we tend to keep US high schools even if they are in horrible shape as Necrothesp has pointed out. The article is stub now that needs expanding. It will probably be harder to do because it is in Pakistan and there is probably less English-language press on high schools, but it should be possible to do. Sorry if anything was read the wrong way! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as we should not be nominating secondary schools for deletion to begin with, it's a notable school and there's no sensible basis of actually deleting considering said notability. " "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" or "it's not acceptable simply because it exists" is not applicable to schools. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete article shows now notability at all. Every article is judged on its own merits and is not free from scrutiny even when it is a secondary school. The Banner talk 07:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that the condition of the article as described in the nomination is no longer true. Therefore, given that was the entire basis of the nomination (no notability issues were mentioned), there is no real basis any longer for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Participants in an AfD discussion aren't bound by the nominator's rationale though, are they? Perhaps it would be worth asking Zackmann08 for their view on the present state of the article, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The rationale speaks of Zero sources or any indication of substance. I read that last part as "no indication of notability" The Banner talk 19:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- This was how the article looked when it was nominated [37]. It literally was just an info box. I've added multiple independent sources that give it coverage. Given the relatively low bar that we have for secondary schools, I think it should be included based on the rough consensus that secondary schools are notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Even an infobox is content. It is usually trivial to convert it in to prose, and shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Anyway, its been fixed, and now comes under the usual schools consensus. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Since WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, it does not represent community consensus. Accordingly, the normal kind of sources establishing notability would be needed. Sandstein 09:52, 22 October 2016 (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.