Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 4 October	6 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Daria Razumikhina

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. The most likely candidate from The Telegraph is a piece written by her husband. The others all appear to be regurgitated press releases with pretty family photos and studio mug-shot. Nothing here convinces me of any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete lacks indepdent sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep Being a great fan of this designer I contributed to the article, please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brun2015 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[]

comment Above user obviously has a COI issue with the subject. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:GNG --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep sorry, but Daria is one of the most well known Russian designers, who did not have a wiki page, I do no understand what is the problem with GNG here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzer2007 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 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 seems to be borderline, and further discussion is unlikely to help. DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Ranadhir Sarma Sarkar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of adequate notability. Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines, WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. The only thing that comes up in searches is he subject's Wikipedia page. Simply being a civil servant is not a basic for notability. Jbh ^Talk 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep. Holder of a senior civil service post, which is a basis for notability. Hardly surprising that internet searches bring up little for someone who reached his peak in the early 1970s! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Based on what notability criteria? Not NPOL or ANYBIO. The only source we have for him is a list of former Chairman. What chance is there that an article on him will ever be anything than a permanent-sub-stub that says "R.S. Sarkar is a former Chairman of USPC of India"? The source in the article does not even have the years he served. That he has books in the LoC is pure WP:OR. The article claims he is dead but we have no source for that and the only indication fof his birth year is in the LoC book record which shows "1908-" which indicates he is alive. Jbh ^Talk 16:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Actually we do not even have evidence he was a sivil servant. The article refers to him simply as a bureaucrat and our article on the Union Public Service Commission says "At least half of the members of the Commission are Civil Servants (working or retired) with minimum ten years of experience" so being Chairman does not imply he was a civil servant. Jbh ^Talk 17:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Hair-splitting. A public servant if not actually a civil servant (although I suspect the chairman actually is a civil servant). See the second entry at WP:POLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

The point is that we have literally no verifiable information on him other than a listing that says that at one time he was Chairman of UPSC. Having to say "...I suspect.." about something basic relating to the fundamental claim of an article subject's notability problematic. POLOUTCOMES pt 2 says "... especially if they had an otherwise notable career." We have no idea what this person has done because we have no sources. If there were any sources that mentioned this person other than an entry on a list on the website of the department he once chaired I could be convinced otherwise based on what the sources. Even passing GNG does not require an article be kept. If there is a list of former chairman in our UPSC article a redirect would be reasonable.

Anyway, thank you for the link to POLOUTCOMES. Jbh ^Talk 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep: I believe WP:NEXIST. Anup [Talk] 23:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

It's not enough to assert that adequate sources exist to get him over WP:GNG. You have to explicitly show that sufficient sourcing exists, preferably by actually adding it to the article (although showing the hard results of an actual search for sources in this discussion would be acceptable as well). But we don't keep a poorly sourced article just because somebody believes that better sources might exist — we can keep it only if somebody does the work and explicitly shows that better sourcing does exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Not somebody believes something, that "somebody" is the Wikipedia Community here. Our policy NEXIST says that, Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. And my !vote is based on the same. Anup [Talk] 05:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

My entire point being that you haven't shown that such sources do exist; you've merely asserted that there's a possibility that such sources might exist. That's not the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete per lack of adequate sourcing. While it's true that people who were active in the 1970s might be harder to source via a Google search alone, that fact does not exempt the article from having to be sourced properly — you still have to do the work of digging into microfilms or news retrieval databases, and adding enough sources to the article to get it over WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but people at this level of significance are not automatically presumed notable, or exempted from having to be sourced properly, just because their name appears in their affiliated organization's own self-published list of its own chairpeople. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG, especially given that the fellow was active in the non-Internet era. His books have been referred to by many authors. Check out the additions to the article now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Thank you for digging up more information. It seem though that the only source independent of him is Diplomacy & Diaspora. Two of the references are just footnotes where he was cited (Which is WP:OR since no third party has commented on it.) and not about him while the others are his own books, none of which counts towards GNG. Could you give some idea of what Diaspora & Diplomacy has to say about him is it a passing mention ie is he simply listed as committee member? Or is there something in depth?

I looked at the citations given to his books to see if he might pass NAUTHOR or PROF but his 4 books are cited by only 15, 8, 7, and 2 other works [1].

I am unfamiliar with the position of Law Secretary of Government of India. The only place that the term used is in this article [2] while Law Secretary of Goverment shows up only 3 times including this article [3]. So without more information I do not think it would qualify under NPOL. Jbh ^Talk 14:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 02:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Two of the references are just footnotes where he was cited and not about him... The references were used to show what that the sentence before them stated; that his books have been "referred to by other academics". You removed this sentence from the article giving edit summary as "books cited 15, 7,8,2 times based on Gscholar. Using random books citing his works to support a claim of "cited by other accedemics" is WP:OR" How is this OR? I actually submitted works of academics which have used Sarkar's work and attributed him thus. What is OR in this?
He is simply listed as committee member, the committee was of three people.
What do you mean by only 15, 8, 7, and 2 other works? What is the minimum required criteria?
Law Secretary is the highest position in the Main Secretariat office of New Delhi within the Department of Legal Affairs. ref. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

It is OR because you went and found books he was cited in and you decided that it was significant not an independant reliable source. That is the very essence of WP:OR. As to the number of citations while there is no bright line number, citation metrics are addressed in Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics. I do not think 15 citations indicated a work that has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", which is the notability criteria which his publication history would be judged by. Finally, is there any documentation about "Law Secretary". Our article, which you linked, says the head of the Secretariat is the Law Minister of India and it lists them going back to 1947. He is not on that list. Do you mean he is the senior civil servant, ie the Permanent Secretary? Jbh ^Talk 14:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I presented references to where Sarkar has been used as reference by other academics. This might be PRIMARY, but is in no way OR. For the secretariat thing please refer the non-wiki ref link I provided above; our articles are quite shabby. He wasn't an elected Minister but an appointed law secretary of the department. I don't know how it translates to the British synonymous. But as India's structure is very much similar you might say that its similar to Permanent Secretary.
Yeah... fine he doesn't pass Academic's metric. My claim was always of GNG. He touches that academic metric, gets appointed to two highest posts, of law Secretary and chairman of the UPSC. That's GNG based on online sources from an internet-free era. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Btw, the Google scholar link you gave is giving only citations of his four books. It is not accounting his writings in various journals. For example, his article "Role of Government Departments in Legislative Process" that was published in Journal of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies in 1968 has been referred to in this book. His another article titled "Specialists and Generalists" published in 1973 has been referred to in this book; "Press and Privileges of Parliament" (1981) has been referred to in here; "Legislative Relations" (1986) is referred in here; "The Office of Governor" (1969) goes in here. I am providing only one example of each journal entry for simplicity. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 02:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 02:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. The article still fails to demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[]

NAUTHOR is for creative professional. Not sure writing law-related books falls under creative writing or not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note An IP went through and deleted the nomination statement and delete !votes [4] and the article's AfD notice [5] immediately after the article's protection, which was placed becuase of AfD removal, expired [6]. The article creator was blocked as a sock [7] of Sarkarrishavsarma. Jbh ^Talk 12:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment And now two more IPs have attempted to blank par tor all of the AFD [8] [9] Meters (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep -- reasonable references for a subject whose career mostly took place in the pre-internet era and reasonable assertions of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep as this is a case where WP:POLITICIAN is met with the national government positions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 23 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. The few "keeps" (some of them self-described as weak) didn't go into as much detail on why they deemed the sources sufficient as others presented a much stronger and well-explained case that the sources are insufficient to make the subject meet our inclusion threshold. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about two missing people not officially pronounced or confirmed dead (and hence WP:BLP should still apply), largely sourced to local news reports. A search for additional sources turns up little more than same. Madeleine McCann this is not. I think for an event such as this we really should err on this side of caution; in particular things like a claim for illegally growing cannabis, sourced to the Anderson Valley Advertiser are a serious concern. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Despite the false assumption above, both men are officially considered missing, as can be verified at http://www.mendocinosheriff.com/missing/Georgejdorner (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. WP:BLP, considered broadly, probably applies to Cavanaugh and Neily despite their disappearance, but it most certainly applies to Denoyer, who not only hasn't been charged in connection with the disappearances, but was acquitted of the one charge (animal cruelty) actually filed against him -- not that you'd learn that from the lead! The sources used are not the high-quality sources needed to support negative BLP portrayals such as this. Some are not RS at all, and I question the "independence" of small-town papers offering sympathetic viewpoints to the family of a missing person. I don't think this rises to the level of a G10 attack page on Denoyer, but I do think that BLP policy mandates its removal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]
- I am even more puzzled that MediaNews Group newspapers such as the Ukiah Daily Journal and Fort Bragg Advocate-News are not considered reliable sources. I realize that the Anderson Valley Advertiser is a different matter. However, to the best of my knowledge (and I am a longtime reader), the AVA has never been sued for libel or slander despite being quite outspoken. So, I would ask, where are the unreliable sources? Or are you saying we can't trust the Huffington Post and/or CBS News?
- If you can be specific, I may be able to deal with the problem.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

You'll have to ask Squeamish Ossifrage about specific sources, but the basic point is that just being verifiable to reliable sources isn't enough for an article sometimes, it also has to be suitable for an encyclopedia, particularly one that is well known for getting a volley of complaints (both legal and otherwise) from all over the world. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I have toned down the statement about marijuana cultivation so that it pertains to the area rather than just to Denoyer's ranch. I have also added language to stress that Mr. Denoyer was acquitted of animal cruelty charges, and that he has never been charged with any crime pertaining to the disappearances. I am unaware of any furtherf deleterious information.

I deserve an opportunity to correct the article if it has problems. If a vague and unsupported accusation of "unsuitability" suffices to delete an article, most of WP's articles are subject to arbitrary deletion.

All things considered, you'll probably have an easier time writing articles on another topic than trying to defend one that other people think violates the core policy of BLP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[]

If there were BLP violations in the article I might tend to agree with you. However, false calls of BLP violation are not grounds for deletion.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I do apologize for having been occupied away from the project and not returning here to comment further more quickly. However, I don't appreciate the accusation that my BLP concerns over this article are "false calls"; they are not. I'll try to keep this response brief, although if there's a desire for a more in-depth examination of the problems, I can do that too. In short, the sourcing is not high quality. The Charley Project is not a reliable source whatsoever. The Anderson Valley Advertiser article is a local article, in a weekly tabloid paper, in tabloid tone, and is not a reliable source for BLP-related concerns (or, probably, anything else). The other two newspaper articles are local-interest stories in small, local papers (their ownership by a national holding company does not change that character), which, among other things, are not generally considered to speak to notability (all, or most, missing persons are reported on locally and in local papers; not all missing persons cases are considered "notable" in Wikipedia's unique use of that term). The NBC "Missing in America" source gives every impression of not being independent reporting; it is not bylined, and is in large part dedicated to a personal video made by a family member of one of the subjects. HuffPo is a better source than the rest, but HuffPo's quality varies from contributor to contributor and topic to topic and should be evaluated with caution despite being generally accepted as reliable. But all that aside, this article is rife with BLP concerns. I'll blockquote policy here:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction.
— Wikipedia policy on people accused of a crime

The bulk of this article does precisely that. Phrasings such as "Indeed, it seems Denoyer had gained control of Cavanaugh's money."; "Denoyer accused Cavanaugh of theft, and dropped his 63-year-old penniless disabled uncle in the San Francisco Airport."; and "He claimed that if he had been called to testify in the animal cruelty case, Denoyer would have been convicted and the elder Neily spared his fate." should probably be removed immediately as BLP violations (especially given the source quality)! Specific sentences aside, the entire article is written with the implication that Denoyer was responsible, and our policy simply does not permit that. That's the essence of the BLP policy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Ah, me, Mr/Ms Ossifrage...where to begin?

"Indeed, it seems Denoyer had gained control of Cavanaugh's money." went by the board when I edited out the Charley Project cites. Your Charley Project complaint has been addressed.

I fail to see how Denoyer's accusation of theft, or his taking his uncle to the airport, can be construed as a crime. In source material, but not in the article, is the fact that Denoyer held his uncle at gunpoint to force him to go to SFO. As pointing a firearm at someone is a crime in California, I chose not to mention it because it was never charged.

As next of kin, Ryan Neily is entitled to his opinion about Denoyer. I quoted him to show how investigation of this cold case continues because he is pressuring the authorities. Ryan Neily's

Somehow, you haven't seemed to have noticed that I peppered the article with information that stated Louis Denoyer's innocence.

Denoyer has never been charged in connection with the disappearances; he was acquitted on the animal cruelty counts. Last sentence of lead. Not strictly true. Denoyer pled guilty to a charge of improperly disposing of a dead animal carcass; the court placed restrictions on his future ownership of horses. However, as it now stands, the sentence clearly states he is innocent. I excised the petty conviction out of respect for BLP policy.

Sergeant Jason Caudillo of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office followed up on Neily's disappearance with a search of the Westport ranch with cadaver dogs. They alerted on a pet's grave, but nothing else. Caudillo admits he found no direct witness or physical evidence of a crime on the Westport ranch. Last para of Neily's disappearance. A reluctant official statement of Denoyer's innocence, but I can only quote what is said.

James Denoyer claims to have no knowledge concerning the disappearances. Last sentence in article. This is the only statement of Denoyer's that I found. I gave him the last word.

If there is a consensus on newspapers being unreliable sources, I wish you would link me to it. I mean a true consensus, not your solo version. As it is, I use these papers for other writing projects of mine. From long experience, I know these newspapers are reliable. We don't have big city papers out here because we don't have big cities. However, if you take the New York Times as the gold standard for news sources, guess what? Every one of the newspapers in this article has been used, at one time or another, as a source for Times stories. You see, the professional journalists at the Times believe they are reliable.

Keep - per WP:GNG. Per extensive and good sources. It seems to be more a situation were the article needs to be improved or rewritten, but DYK is not used to establish article quality, it is about the article subjects notability. Two different things.BabbaQ (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

What is the best source in this article? I define a good source as a book that has had sustained and critically acclaimed reviews from subject experts. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[]

While your personal definition of a good source excludes all use of newspapers as reliable sources, it does not match that of WP. The article is entitled to an evaluation by WP standards. With one possible exception, all newspapers used are main stream media by major news organizations.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Suitability? How can WP find such subjects as porn stars suitable, but not the disappearance of two human beings? Sorry, but the suitability argument is nonsensical.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[]

A very good question; personally I'd delete the whole bally lot of them if I was in charge but unfortunately I seem to in a minority of men who dislike porn to the point of feeling nauseous about it so I have to defer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. People disappear all the time. There's nothing that raises these particular instances above the rest. It also casts aspersions on a living, uncharged person, Denoyer, as noted above. Even if they were found to have been murdered, not the case here, it still would likely not justify an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]
- As noted above, there are three specific instances where the article clearly states that Denoyer was cleared of criminal activity.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[]

As Clarityfriend notes, I question whether there's sufficient notability here even if the article were free of BLP concerns, but BLP is the more important problem. Policy simply does not permit an article to make negative implications about a living person with poor sourcing, even if you then say something to the extent of "But he wasn't charged for any of that." And make no mistake, the sourcing for the negative implications is poor, even when it is sourced to an article that is probably a RS for general purposes. How? Here's an example. As of this version of the article, this text appears: The bedroom he had been promised was a mattress tossed in the rear of a junk truck. He needed rides into town for food and medicine, but Denoyer refused them. Cavanaugh's son called him from Illinois, and sensed there was something wrong in his father's situation. Cavanaugh seemed too nervous to render any explanations, although he hinted at nefarious deeds afoot. That is cited to the HuffPo article. But if we go read the HuffPo article, we see that's actually based exclusively on a direct quote from Ryan Neily. Neily is entitled to his opinions and his version of past events, and is under no obligation to maintain a neutral point or view. HuffPo doesn't make those claims in its voice, they merely repeat the quote. But this article then presents those claims as if they were established facts, in the encyclopedia's voice. That's an NPOV problem and it's a BLP compliance problem. And that's how much of the article is written. Even when it cites a reliable source, it does so largely based on the quoted statements of the individuals involved, not the reporting in that source's editorial voice, and then it repeats those claims in the project's voice. I recognize that we disagree here, but I think the history of responses at the BLP noticeboard makes it very clear that policy simply doesn't permit this sort of thing. I'm not really interested in engaging on this topic further here (and this isn't really the place for a nuanced discussion of the editorial requirements of the BLP policy), but I'm steadfast in my opinion that this article does not satisfy policy expectations, and that simple rewording cannot fix it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[]

The argument was made above that disappearances are commonplace. Undeniably true, but two disappearances in a row from the same place is notably unusual. I don't know of another case of double disappearances from the same place.

Now that I have received detailed feedback on BLP complaints, I have been rewriting the objectionable sentences. I also found a bit more I could change to honor BLP. If you still have any objections, please let me know.

I have read these local newspapers for years. I would not depend on them for national or international news; they just run wire copy. However, for local news, they are extremely reliable. These papers are not stepping stones to a big city job; our local journalists hang around for years and decades. They know this county.

On the other hand, I doubt that you have ever read a copy of any of these papers before this article. You can't really know whether a paper you have never read is reliable or not. An argument based on ignorance is not very persuasive.

Let me end by noting that the most recent text of the article should be the subject of discussion. Past edits are just that--past.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:DEL9 and WP:NOTNEWS. The BLP issues are concerning here and are not negotiable. Simple speculation should not be covered in an encyclopaedia, particularly in cases where the event itself may not be notable. I am also struggling to see the WP:LASTING effects and WP:PERSISTENCE which makes me believe this is not notable enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Lemongirl, I am going to repeat my request that pro-deletionists point out specific problems for correction. There is such a thing as WP:ATD--although you all seem to be unaware of it or determined to ignore it. I say that because none of you have showed any signs of having noticed the ongoing changes I have made in accordance with WP:ATD. And there it says: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases." Of course, in this case, ATD is being crippled by vague accusations without feedback.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete -- this appears to be an attack page on James Denoyer as the article omuniously concludes:

[He] claims to have no knowledge concerning the disappearances.[6]

Neither does the article discuss any long-term societal impact. This appears to be standard crime blotter material, and not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Weak keep The BLP concerns are not a reason to delete—the article can and should be rewritten. And while I would like to see an example of non-trivial coverage from outside Central California in addition to the Huffington Post, I must admit, as the primary contributor to a number of missing-person case articles, that this is not a typical case of such. Two similar people disappearing from the same place (or near it) under similar circumstances? I know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but here I would argue that the notability from that aspect alone is similar to that of Disappearance of Terrance Williams and Felipe Santos (which does have more solid sourcing, I agree). Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[]

MAJOR REVISION BY NOMINATOR I have rewritten the article extensively and removed Denoyer from the story. This means there can no longer be any merit to BLP complaints concerning this article. And, as I have added text denoting these are active missing persons investigations, there are ongoing impacts on society.

This rewrite is extensive enough that any recommendations based on the previous text need serious re-evaluation.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Clearly a case with enduring interest. Covered in WP:RS like the Huffington Post years after the event, has demonstrated WP:PERSISTENCE. Per WP:EASYTARGET, BLP concerns are not an argument for deletion since, as this case demonstrates, they can be dealt with through our usual processes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. At the end of the day this is just a news story and we are WP:NOTNEWS. People disappear all the time, the media write about them, but that doesn't mean we have to. I don't see how this story is important to anybody other than the people involved in it directly. Sandstein 08:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[]
- As noted above in posts that Sandstein seems not to have read, consecutive disappearances are notably unusual and have been covered by WP. If Sandstein's claim is corrected to cover the actual circumstance of this article, it is, "People vanish consecutively from the same place all the time." Obviously, this is not so.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[]

"People disappear all the time, ..." Inadvertent paraphrases of Monty Python are not the best AfD arguments, no matter how much of a smile they bring to the face. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[]

"Just a news story". Like Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination. (Per WP:WHOCARES) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[]

weak keep national-level coverage (HP, NBC) of this mean we have met all relevant notability guidelines. The fact that said coverage happened years after the event, tips it in. I'm a bit more mixed on WP:NOTNEWS, thus the weak part. Hobit (talk)
Delete. I looked at the sources in the article. About half of them are clearly unsuitable for establishing WP:N. Three looked promising, so I examined them in more detail:

Anderson Valley Advertiser. Self-described as a small-town weekly, which publishes, among the news of local fire district controversies and county supervisor meetings -- some of the most imaginative and well-written articles and stories found in the American press. We're not looking for imaginative stories.
Fort Bragg Advocate-News. Another small-town weekly, reporting on what's essentially a local human-interest story.
Huffington Post. This is the only one of the sources that's really worth-while. A substantial article in a national publication. If there were a few more like this, we'd be good. But, it's just not enough by itself.

-- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 8 November 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) 05:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Nicholas anthony denmon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. He blogs at HuffPo and his bio is the only place I found on the web that discusses him. Jbh ^Talk 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. There do not appear to be any public, independent, in-depth sources about this writer (rather than by him). Therefore, he fails our notability standards. I remind the gentle reader that we are not a webhost for authors' publicity purposes. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as this is in fact actually speedy material since the "best known" claims are certainly questionable and give no actual substance for an article, everything else listed is entirely trivial. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 10 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) 05:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Losebinne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was PRODded but I'm bringing it to AFD because I didn't feel 100% confident in pulling the trigger on it. The subject is a Chinese writer known only by the pen name Losebinne, who (the article asserts) is a famous novelist.

The PROD nomination was rather long but I'll attempt to sum up the arguments here:

The article doesn't assert notability
The article is badly written and reads like an ad
There appears to be no Chinese Wiki equivalent article
Searches turn up little evidence of the subject

Personally, I disagree with point 1 (the article clearly asserts notability) and point 2 is not a reason to delete an article. I'm just not sure about points 3 and 4: I found a lot of hits for the subject when searching in Chinese (消失宾妮 ) though not many for the Pinyin transliteration (xiaoshibinni), but Chinese is all Greek to me. Some of the article's references can be dismissed out of hand, as they're sourced to Baidu Baike, another crowd-sourced encyclopaedia. But I'm not certain of the others and it would be very helpful to have a Chinese reader weigh in. A Train^talk 15:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Since my original nomination was rather equivocal... I support deleting this article based on the reading of the sources by Madalibi below. A Train^talk 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

*Comment. A Chinese speaking friend sent me this interview with the article subject from Sina.com, one of China's major news portals. I might just retract this nom. I've already pinged WikiProject China for an assist. A Train^talk 16:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC) See newer comments below. A Train^talk 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as I still confirm my extensive PROD here and, unless actual good sources can be found, which seems unlikely given the listed information, I'm not seeing the substance we would need. SwisterTwister talk 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete: One of many thousands of online writers in China. She should be notable for an entry in the Chinese Wikipedia but most likely not here. Since the vast majority of our readers are outside of China, it is extremely unlikely anyone is going to intentionally search for the subject and there are language problems all over the article. Above all, despite I think the materials in the article are generally true, the sources given are of very poor quality, mostly Baidu Baike (as mentioned) and Douban (which is a forum/Q&A Social Media site). WdS | Talk 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. Not a single source cited in the footnotes would be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and not a single one shows notability anyway. Here's a detailed analysis. Note 1: "360 Encyclopedia": mirror page of that writer's entry on Baidu Encyclopedia (see note 3). Note 2: the writer's entry on the website of her company ("Zuibook", referred to as "Shanghai Most World Culture Development Limited" in the lede). Note 3: Baidu Encyclopedia (also crowd sourced, and with very lax standards of inclusion). Note 4: the writer's microblog on Douban.com, which Wikipedia presents as "a Chinese SNS website allowing registered users to record information and create content related to film, books, music, and recent events and activities in Chinese cities". Note 5: a thankfully brief collection of platitudes allegedly said by that writer, and presented in the third person ("likes trying all the flavors of milk tea, doesn't care if she will get fat"). Note 6: a reader's assessment of one of the writer's works on book.douban.com (part of Douban). Note 7: Losebinne's blog on Sina.com. Notes 8, 10, 12, and 13: brief entries on her works on Baidu Encyclopedia. Notes 9, 11, and 14: brief entries on the author's work on book.douban.com; no information: just readers' ratings. Summary: a mix of self-published sources, promotional material, and fan content. Not the stuff an encyclopedia is made of. Madalibi (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Madalibi, thank you very much for the Chinese reader's perspective. I think that's pretty conclusive. Does this article move the needle in either direction? A Train^talk 17:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

You're welcome, A Train! The link you give is to an interview with three "youth authors" who work for the same agency (the one cited in note 2: see my analysis above). The interview took place in August 2009 at a Shanghai book fair and was held by the Sina correspondent at that fair. Losebinne's lines are mostly about what she thinks of cats (the subject of her most recent publication), her agency, and the (more notable) writer Guo Jingming, who founded the agency. The content of the chat is fairly trivial, and as the three authors (on whom no background information is given) work for the same agency, we can probably assume that the interview was booked by the agency itself. I'm afraid we're still far from "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" – the basic criteria for notability for people: see WP:BASIC – and from the supplementary criteria listed under WP:AUTHOR. Madalibi (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Thanks again, Madalibi, really. It's good with articles like this that we aren't just reinforcing our default Western bias and checking with people who can actually understand the sources. A Train^talk 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

You're welcome again, A Train. :) Yes, it's always prudent to ask that kind of question. I remember saving the then-not-so-well-referenced article Chinese food therapy about two years ago against an AfD that probably followed this kind of bias. As for the topic at hand, I checked Google News to see if I could find something in Chinese on Losebinne. Most of the 73 search results are articles about Guo Jingming, himself a youth author and founder of the agency with which Losebinne is under contract. And what appeared to be an article on one of Losebinne's new books turned out to be a five-line blurb written by a news agency. I think we're pretty safe deleting this article, unless of course someone can find other reliable sources on this topic, in which case I will gladly reverse my support for deletion. Madalibi (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 5 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. As blatant a piece of promotion as I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Mohammad Umaid

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a resumé. Nadair5 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Speedy delete It is a resume, which, by definition, is a form of advertising. Tagged for speedy deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Speedy delete. Could not be more clearly a candidate.--Rpclod (talk) 16:01, 5 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) 05:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Mathias Harter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable small-town mayor. Coverage from local media on local issues only. No significance whatsoever outside his own small town. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete per Bearcat (no relation). There are lots of cities this size (of about 50,000 people), and most mayors of such small cities are too common for each to have their own article. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete I agree with Bearian almost to a tee. Dolotta (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete being mayor of La Crosse does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 9 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 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Scott Joiner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:MUSICBIO. There are a lot of references packed into this article but very few of them mention the subject in more than a passing manner. Those that do are blogs. A web search turns up mostly social media like LinkedIn etc. or passing mentions. Jbh ^Talk 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - As noted above, the page's current references are deceiving since the subject is only mentioned in passing in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Save - The references I included may not be the best sources on the subject. I can certainly find better ones. User:PrincipessaLucia —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — PrincipessaLucia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []

If you have independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage ie a minimum of 2-3 paragraphs, please add them to the article. Jbh ^Talk 16:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Thank you. What is the time frame in which this must be done? PrincipessaLucia (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

This AfD will run for a minimum of 7 days. Also, please indent your comments, it makes it easier for others to follow the conversation. This brief tutorial on editing talk pages will help explain how to do that. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 16:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep – Creating a role in a notable opera and singing as a soloist at Carnegie Hall, apart from Joiner's other activities, seem just enough to satisfy WP:MUSBIO. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep - New to Wikipedia, but not new to the arts. I'm passionate about opera and new opera composers. I uploaded some print articles on the subject, who appears to meet all the criteria outlined in the Notability Guidelines from the link above. Also found many more newspaper reviews in which the subject and the subject's work is mentioned in a more-than-casual commentary. User:HexaKord415 (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — HexaKord415 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []

Where are these articles? I don't see them anywhere. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:DEL7 and WP:DEL8. Significant coverage is sorely missing here. In fact there is hardly anything in reliable sources to even verify stuff in the article. Most of the references are deceiving - I mean, one "review" was sourced to a Twitter status. Every other reference has a passing mention (if a mention at all). There is seriously not enough coverage to be able to write a verifiable NPOV article per WP:WHYN and hence it should be deleted. The musical achievements actually indicate WP:TOOSOON so I am not convinced that it passes MUSICBIO. Even if it did, it would still need require coverage for WP:V purposes, which it doesn't have. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:15, 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. If WP:SALTing is warranted it can be asked for at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Miss Supranational Ukraine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article had been PRODded but it's ineligible: the article was previously PRODded (and deleted) in 2014.

The article covers a regional beauty pageant in Ukraine that feeds into a global Miss Supranational contest -- whose article was deleted at AFD in 2014. All of this article's cousins have been deleted for lack of sources and notability, Ukraine is the last supra-man standing. A Train^talk 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - no authoritative references. Per nominator, the apparent parent has already been found non-notable.--Rpclod (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete No significant coverage. The parent article was deleted.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete Could just be my filter bubble, but I found literally one hit in GNews, which is a fluff interview with a contestant. Consider salting to forestall rising yet again - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete a non-notable beauty pageant title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete and SALT Parent article was deleted as not notable. This pageant isn't notable either and if the article isn't SALTED it will be back....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 6 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) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

QantasLink Flight 1623

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed deletion that was contested without a reason given. The PROD rationale was: Coverage of this seems to amount to "something could have happened, but nothing really did". Does not meet WP:EVENT Sjrct (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - this event does not meet inclusion criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete This article just screams of WP:RECENTISM. It was a flight that was diverted due to plane trouble. No one hurt, and honestly a big deal over nothing. Had this event occurred prior to the advent of immediate news of every little thing, this would be a 1-2 minute blurb on the news and forgotten. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete Not notable. Relatively minor event that happens frequently. See WP:NOTNEWS. MB 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

*Delete - not at all notable, this sort of thing is literally an everyday occurrence in aviation - aircraft develops [insert problem type here], aircraft lands, no problem. Media in Australia tend to get hysterical about anything at all involving the airline of the flying kangaroo; having said that, I hadn't even heard about this. ~~YSSYguy (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)~~[]

Speedy Delete under Category G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 1623. YSSYguy (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

YSSY: if you want G4 you should tag the article with {{Db-g4}}. Has an article with this title been created before??--Petebutt (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I have added the speedy delete template, hopefully an admin can sort out the AfD, which is essentially redundant--Petebutt (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

WP:CSD#G4 does not apply to recreations after speedy deletions; the previous AFD was closed on that basis rather than on the merits of a discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

There isn't a Speedy Deletion criterion that would apply to any first iteration of an article of this nature, so surely the previous deletion had to have been as a result of the discussion. YSSYguy (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

~~Actually CSD A7 would apply, that being an non-notable event {{db-event}} being the exact tag to be used.~~ ~~RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)~~ Ignore this, I misinterpreted it. The original article was deleted through A7 though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

As A7 was misapplied to the first iteration article - it being not an organized event - it is clearly inappropriate to G4 Speedy this version, so I am again arguing for deletion based on lack of Notability as per my struck-out comments above. YSSYguy (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - WP:GNG--Petebutt (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - completely non-notable aviation incident. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 8 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Faiz Mohammad Khoso

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. There is absolutely zero inherent notability in being ambassador even to a "major country ", despite this weak argument being recycled in ambassador AfDs. The sources merely confirm he held the role rather than in depth. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - All references are dead. Nothing supports assertions made or notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Dead links are valid references that are harder to find. Unscintillating (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep as he was ambassador to several countries including Norway, and diplomats are generally notable. Some further mentions for WP:V include [10], [11], [12], [13] and more. Mar4d (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

there is no inherent notability of being a diplomat, nor is there a free notability pass for being ambassador to Norway. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

references are hardly indepth, is merely a one line mention, this is 2 lines in a broader article not about him, this is the same as the article you mentioned with a one line mention. WP:V is not the same as WP:N. 00:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete I agree with Nom that this fails WP:BIO. This also fails ANYBIO. The added references have only one line references to the subject - this is not significant coverage. Also, WP:BLP requires coverage of the topic in agreement with the core content policies, of which WP:V and WP:NOR are not fulfilled. In this case, WP:V requires that the person have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and this requirement is not satisfied. Without adequate coverage, presenting this person as notable is original research. There is no specific standard that applies to diplomats in WP:BIO and notability is not automatically conferred. Also fails GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep The Express Tribune has had a couple of good articles, one of which no one has located recently, but was used to supply the birth date, which indicates depth. The second from April 24, 2012, shows that he had retired and had been hired as a consultant for developing a Mandarin language program in a school district. [14] is short but what is there is in-depth. Even without the sources from the article we know that he was and is a prominent figure in the country. We also have two more sources from the article that were good in 2012 and for which the WP:AGF is not disputed. Naturally it would help to have a champion to search for Urdu sources. At the same time, if editors want to find a suitable merge target, it may be that no one would object. Unscintillating (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

it has been listed as a Pakistan article for deletion since 5 October. Over 3 weeks for a Pakistan Urdu speaker to come to this discussion. LibStar (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

You seem to think highly of the importance to Pakistan Urdu editors of your deletion discussion. Did you consider looking for Urdu sources yourself, and avoid the possibility that they might have other priorities? Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

have you looked for sources in Urdu? I've seen urdu speakers enter other AfD discussions. "Might have other priorities " indeed, perhaps they don't consider this a priority to save. Nice try. LibStar (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

So the idea of looking for Urdu sources is a "nice try", but not something you'd want to do? Why is that? Unscintillating (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Why have you not looked for sources in Urdu? LibStar (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I haven't refused to look for sources in Urdu, so the premise is incorrect. The statement to which you are responding is, "Naturally it would help to have a champion to search for Urdu sources." And you decided it would be a good idea to start talking about hypothetical Pakistan Urdu editors. Since they are not here, one way you could solve your own concern is to look for Urdu sources. I continue to not know why you are talking about the need for Urdu sources, but won't look for them. The starting point for anyone to do this is this topic's name in Urdu. Can you provide that much and set it up as a Find sources AfD template? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

you certainly love directing people to do what you want in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete There is hardly any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is also no inherent notability in just being an ambassador. Per WP:WHYN for a standalone article, we specifically require coverage in reliable secondary sources so that we are able to write an NPOV article. If we look at the third party sources, the coverage is limited to brief mentions. I do not see any suitable merge/redirect target so I will go for a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Many things wrong there. (1) WHYN is rationale, not part of the guideline, and appears to be a leftover from a long-running attempt to add it as part of the guideline, an attempt that failed. (2) WP:N does not require the existence of sufficient NPOV material to write an article. It can't, because WP:N is not a content guideline. It says this several times, for example the WP:N nutshell says, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." (3) This particular article adds value with the material that it has. (4) There were additional sources in the article. Have you looked at all of them? Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Yes, but the rationale is why we have the guideline and I use it because it helps to follow the spirit of the guideline. While WP:N doesn't determine the content of the article, it does stop us from having an article if a content policy cannot be adhered to from existing sources. In this particular case, there is little coverage in the way of secondary sources. If we go by GNG alone, the subject wouldn't pass it

Tribune 3 sentence coverage + a quote. Another tribune is very brief, is actually in the context of programme and the actual content about the subject is limited to 3 sentences
Nation.com.ok One line mention
Dawn One line + quote

There is very little over here which could help us write an article. The useful content that the subject was an ambassador to 3 countries could be simply mentioned in the respective bilateral relations articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Just what did you think I meant when I said "the sources in the article"? In addition to the three in the current article, there is a fourth reference used to create the article.

Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 27 March 2011
Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 20 September 2012
"Faiz Mohammad appointed ambassador for Tunis". PakTribune. October 4, 2006. Retrieved 30 October 2012.
Staff (July 3, 2010). "Ambassador-designates call on Zardari". Daily Times (Pakistan). Retrieved 30 October 2012.

Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Yes, I had looked them up already

Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 27 March 2011 - This is short CV on MOFA embassy sub-website and the source is not a third party source useful for notability

Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 20 September 2012 - One line coverage
"Faiz Mohammad appointed ambassador for Tunis". PakTribune. October 4, 2006. Retrieved 30 October 2012. - Website doesn't seem to be a reliable source (online only news site with no indication of editorial control). Also a routine announcement with brief information about the subject's previous posts
Staff (July 3, 2010). "Ambassador-designates call on Zardari". Daily Times (Pakistan). Retrieved 30 October 2012. - One line coverage

None of these helps either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Government webpages of a democracy are not primary the way that the same page would be for an employee bio in private industry. And as for writing an article, this is a wealth of reliable material. And, it has not been considered in this AfD up until now. Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

"Doesn't seem to be a reliable source?" Do you have evidence? Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

You are the only editor at this AfD that claims to have seen this webpage. Please verify that you can see this webpage. For reference, see [15]. Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

On a separate note, I prefer that a list of ambassadors be kept on the article about bilateral relations. For example Pakistan–Tunisia relations could mention the ambassadors listed here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

This could work as mini-bios cross-linked as needed as the career diplomats move from post to post, if editors want to do it. The pattern has been discussed recently at WT:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete -- an under-sourced vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

@K.e.coffman: Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[]

The article has had nine inline citations for six sentences since the start of this AfD. With 1.5 citations per sentence, IMO that statistic is an unusually well-sourced article. For four of those citations, Lemongirl1942 is the only one to have claimed to have seen the article. Have you? Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[]

This topic is a diplomat for one of the world's nuclear powers, and in one case was the representative to another nuclear power, neighboring China. Why do you think this is a vanity page? Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[]

None of the sources discuss why the subject is notable; i.e. the subject knows Chinese -- so what? There's no inherent notability for ambassadors. If there's disagreement about that, this should be discussed at the WP:NPOL page. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[]

There is still no answer to the question of why this is supposedly a "vanity page", or the relevance of that assertion to this discussion. Nor is there an answer to the question of why 1.5 inline citations per sentence is an "under-sourced" article. Wikipedia notability does not require that an article discuss Wikipedia's opinion of "why" a topic is notable...rather that is for talk page discussion. Wikipedia notability is not a content guideline, as per WP:ARTN. Nor do sources have to discuss "why" Wikipedia considers a topic notable. Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[]

This topic is a diplomat for one of the world's nuclear powers, and in one case was the representative to another nuclear power, neighboring China. this is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[]

It is neither a criterion for notability nor is it not a criterion for notability. Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete: Well, he exists. And that's just it. Nothing in the article and none that I see in sources submitted above and on Google.com.pk suggests that he is anywhere nearer to WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. Anup [Talk] 14:35, 12 November 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 09:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

AXiomatic

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Queried speedy delete as advertisement Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)d[]

Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and subject does not meet general notability requirements Meatsgains (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

~~Keep~~, clearly notable based on the amount of coverage, which includes the LA Times, ESPN, and Sports Illustrated. Given the status of this page as a stub it may be a good idea to redirect somewhere though.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Changing to Redirect or merge, what little content there is can be covered in the Team Liquid article.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete and then Redirect to Team Liquid if needed, because even the 2 links suggested above as being convincing are in fact not, simply they simply focus with the ownership of the team, what ever else is listed here is simply trivial and unconvincing PR, also focusing with what the company would say about itself therefore certainly not convincing, and it's not surprising since this is advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom - the "RSes" fail to provide WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 9 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) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

64 Studio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic of this article does not meet WP:GNG; there are too few non-trivial third-party references. The piece cites mainly dead links and primary sources. Mentions in catalogs or exhaustive lists aren't claims of notability. The project has become defunct. Mikeblas (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete: I can find only trivial coverage or coverage in non-reliable sources. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as I'm literally finding nothing else so all we have close to independent sources are the three listed sources, the 2008 AfD is an example of how minimally thoughtful it was then, and this article has no other signs of actual independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 8 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) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Comparison of NVMe Solid State Drives

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete-Too technical for an average user to understand!!Doubt whether there is any importance of the classification! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 13:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete Wikipedia is not a product guide. This kind of snapshot table gets out of date very quickly. Someone looking at this ten years from now might consider these products not notable at all. W Nowicki (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article, belongs in a tech magazine. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete, as wikipedia is not a technical guide.Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 8 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) 05:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Eustacia Andrapov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor fictional character from a series of computer games. No evidence to notability, no sources. Fails even basic WP:GNG. My Pants Metal (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete This is a good case for WP:Fancruft, relevant things have already been said in the nomination, she is just a side character in a game series. There is no independent coverage of this character anywhere. She does not pass WP:GNG and the article should therefore be deleted. This article should be put into fan wikias (it actually already is). Dead Mary (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. This article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 9 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 Not Quite Paradise.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Theme from Not Quite Jerusalem

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM for lack of available sources. - Mr X 12:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

This choice is simply stupid and ignorant because it is the official soundtrack of a British film. I added the sources, are you happy?Driante70 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

If we can't find RS coverage of the soundtrack specifically, merge to film article (content should be relevant) - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Not Quite Paradise. Not independently notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Redirect/merge - hard to see why the soundtrack has enough independent notability to have a page. JMWt (talk) 07:22, 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. Sandstein 09:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Charlene Shorto

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fame by association is not notability. Article does not demonstrate any notable act or role for this individual. giso6150 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete Attempting to inherit notability by association. Per nom above, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 7 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) 05:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

BhavyaBharat

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The website is nothing notable. Sources are promotional in nature! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

@ARUNEEK This is first kind of application providing more than 30 online services and basically providing online services to rural part and it is approved by digital india by indian government and it reduces unemployment and anyone can make money without investment by providing online services to public. Please check all these media articles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZed9U_T2OE - Telecasted in Public Tv Kannada News channel. http://www.bfirst.in/news/itbt/9424/honey-they-shrunk-world http://www.pocketnewsalert.com/2016/06/First-of-its-kind-in-India-Jobs-through-your-Smartphone-App-that-provides-33-services.html

and The application used by rural population in india. and this application founded by Dhananjay Acharya from small village

Paytm is created in wikipedia no use of this.. but this one application providing online services to rural part and reducing unemployment.

This App helping and providing self employment.. but what Paytm company providing they are making money by providing services. but you people keep that page in wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietdhanu (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Administrator note - Hi all, for what it's worth, I just indeffed Quietdhanu for spamming newkannada.com across multiple articles. I believe he's part of an advertising ring and/or is engaging in sockpuppetry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete I hve removed much of the advertorial the article contained; unfortunately that leaves insufficient content of any substance to allow it to pass [WP:NORG]]: no 'significant coverage in secondary sources.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete Varun FEB2003 11:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Varun FEB2003 12:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete in a basic WP:BEFORE I found literally no other sources than Wikipedia and their website - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

speedy delete complete waste of time even thinking of keeping it. This one definitely has existential problems Light2021 (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as solely advertising, this is a newly started company which is simply looking for PR especially considering the factors listed here, the information and sources only consist of republishing what the company's own comments and words are, therefore especially not convincing and everything else is simply trivial therefore there's no salvaging an article like this. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as corporate spam. Not sure why speedy deletion was declined. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 10 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Robin Hood Energy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a remarkable company!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Its the first local authority energy company in the UK since 1948, that makes it notable and virtually all the other smaller energy companies have wikipedia pages, Ovo Energy, Good Energy, Ecotricity, LoCO2 Energy, Flow Energy, Spark Energy, Cooperative Energy. If Cooperative Energy gets a page for being remarkable in the sense it is the first energy cooperative then Robin Hood is remarkable for being the first local authority energy company since just after the second world war. User:Silverwargreymon 12:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

It is also the first Not For Profit Energy Company in the whole of the UK that makes it remarkable User:Silverwargreymon 13:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment This company got plenty of initial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The Guardian [16]], BBC News [17], and The Times ('Robin Hood finds the energy to pick a fight with Big Six', The Times, 8 Sep 2015) all gave it a complete article and there was a lot of lesser coverage: for example the Money section of the Daily Mail/Mail Online [18], regional press and the Daily Star [19]. It looks as if coverage will continue: for example [20], [21] and [22]

Hi Silverwargreymon, you make fair points but you may like to look at this policy page on notability for ideas about how to choose references for a Wikipedia article. Lelijg (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep. Makes sufficient claims of notability and has plenty of reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

leaning keep it's not a good article, but they've actually been pretty impactful - both notable and in fact noted - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Leaning keep -- makes a sufficient claim of notability as being a not for profit energy company in the UK. Here's very recent coverage from The National: Edinburgh poised to make history with council's sustainable energy company plan, so I believe that it's likely to increase in notability in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 10 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) 05:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Tour of the Moon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable event. This tour and the tour company that run it lack any depth of coverage outside of local area. This is not a sporting event. Participants pay to be on this social ride. It has no direct connection to previous sporting contests that have run on the same course. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG as there is nothing in-depth outside of a few local pieces. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete Fails notability criteria at WikiProject Cycling, with no apparent reason for exception. Kevin McE (talk) 08:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Nate Bowen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any hits on Google News for this guy, let alone significant independent coverage. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete He is a non-notable individual who never achieved anything significant enough to be included into Wikipedia. Winning a single medium tier marathon in 2002 is not enough to establish notabilty per WP:ATHLETE or specifically WP:NTRACK. He participated in more marathons in the aftermath, but never won anything notable (or got a good result) afterwards. The big problem is also the total absence of RS's to cover WP:GNG, there is nothing on him out there in the news. The San Francisco marathon win falls under WP:SINGLEEVENT and I couldnt find much coverage on that. This article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete winning the San Francisco Marathon is not grounds for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 9 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Donnabella Mortel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable actor. Page is here to promote someone else. Mortel lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. She does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions as asked for in WP:NACTOR. Per the consensus from the last afd, this article should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I am not sure that the last AfD reached consensus, but regardless, delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I looked through what she is done and the only major credits I could find associated with her were for Retail, The Value of Ex, and Hoodrats 2: Hoodrat Warriors. These works, however, are not notable; they do not meet WP:MOVIE and accordingly none of them have their own article. Sjrct (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete Actor has a number of minor roles [23] but I couldn't find any coverage at all of Mortel in Highbeam, General Onefile, Questia, or Google, other than 4 press releases and a few articles about TV shows in which Mortel's name appears in the cast list near the bottom of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. As I mentioned to the admin who closed the previous discussion, not only did 3 participants (the nominator and 2 other editors) share a consensus for deletion, but the only "keep" comment wasn't based on any policy or guideline, and not defended when challenged. I have been unable to find any sources that suggest she meets any criteria in WP:NACTOR. The closing admin had no objection to re-nomination, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:35, 25 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. Regardless of notability standards for schools, there's no other way this can be closed if third-party reliable sources are not available. Hut 8.5 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Sawyer Integrated School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found this article in the underlinked backlog.

Subject is a Philippine primary/secondary school. It cites no sources at all and makes no claim to notability. Per WP:NSCHOOLS, a school needs to meet the general notability guideline. Primary school articles tend to be redirected at AFD, but as this one cites no sources at all I'd argue that deletion is the better option. A Train^talk 10:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. Clear evidence of its existence can be found on even a cursory Google search. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

If you found anything like a reliable source in your Google search it'd be great if you could post it. A Train^talk 15:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Weak delete, which isn't a option I take lightly for a secondary school. This is a little lengthy, so bear with me. Until very recently, education in the Philippines was on a 10-year system rather than the global K-12 standard. According to consensus guidelines, any SHS--Senior High School, offering the grade 11 and 12 curricula, at a minimum--or any fully K-12 school would have a presumption of notability and should be quickly kept at AFD. The question thus becomes whether this institution qualifies. The Philippine Department of Education provides a list (in several parts) of schools with eligible graduates: those institutions whose diplomas are fully accepted for entrance to university programs in the Philippines. Sawyer (in any variation of its name) is not on that list. The Department of Education also maintains a much longer index of all recognized K-12 program schools in the country (many of which have not fully completed the transition to the 12-year program). Sawyer is also not on that list. Based on available evidence, the only conclusion is that Sawyer is not currently an "independently accredited degree-awarding" high school as defined in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and so gets no exemption from sourcing obligations. The potential counter-argument, and reason for the weakness of my delete !vote, is "once notable, always notable"; it is possible that the secondary education program as Sawyer Integrated School (from 2010–11 until the K-12 legislation) would have qualified it under SCHOOLOUTCOMES. But that was not necessarily the case (if it offered a Grade 8 curriculum, it would have had a secondary education program, but would not have been a degree-granting school, for example). In any case, the absolute dearth of reliable sources doesn't provide a lot of room to give it the benefit of the doubt. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

The wording in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools - very different from the independently accredited degree-awarding institutions which you quote. "High school" isn't defined, and High school shows a wide range of uses in different countries. Not all high schools in the UK have sixth-forms (ie the last two years before higher education) - see Samuel King's School for an example (one of the smallest secondary schools in England in a very isolated small town high up, by UK standards, in the Pennines). I agree that we need a source for this Sawyer school, but I'm not convinced by your definition of what makes a school a "high school" within the terms of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and thus by consensus notable once sourced. PamD 17:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Admittedly, situations aren't always analogous, especially as there's never been a "middle school" distinction in the Philippines. A school in the United States that offered no higher education than Grade 7 would not be considered a "high school" and wouldn't receive the lower inclusion bar of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. However a private school offering (under the old system) a Grade 7 curriculum in the Philippines would rightly have been described as having a "secondary education program". But I hardly think that's what the guideline intended. And its current status isn't clear at all. If it offers the full 7-10 "junior high school" program (and we had some sort of halfway reliable sourcing to that end), then I'd likely not argue for deletion, since we apparently do retain, solely on existence, American schools that offer 9/10 programs but no higher (and, it seems, their UK equivalents). But we don't have sources to say it does. All we do know is that it doesn't offer Grade 11-12 curricula under the country's new education system, and that it doesn't appear in reliable sources. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is designed to give a lot of benefit of the doubt to education institutions, but not this much. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep if a reliable source can be found, and added to article, to verify its existence as a secondary school (not necessarily with the equivalent of a UK sixth form). PamD 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - fails WP:VERIFY in its present state, and a Google search does not suggest the presence of adequate sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - Simply stating Keep per SO is no longer enough and simply saying "there's sources on Google" holds no weight either, I can't find anything to confirm this schools existence and clearly neither can anyone else so it should be deleted accordingly. –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 12 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: a blatant hoax, created by a vandalism-only account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Hånsdokå

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing notable to be included!A search over the internet resulted in nothing!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Speedy delete - as this is an obvious hoax (G3). —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:31, 5 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 this passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Zac Brooks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Offseason and/or practice squad member only duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep Passes WP:GNG in my opinion. Also he's currently on the practice squad and could be promoted any time. Seems too soon for this AFD.--Yankees10 16:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep "Offseason and/or practice squad member only" doesn't means he's not notable. He passes GNG. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep Clearly achieved notability from college play and passes WP:GNG. Per logic in WP:ABELINCOLN, not playing in the NFL does not equate to deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep per WikiOriginal-9's sources as a WP:GNG pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG per sources found by WikiOriginal-9. Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 8 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 Withdrawn. Vanamonde withdrew this nomination; would have closed as keep per the arguments presented if it had remained in effect. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Indian pariah dog

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At first glance, this might appear to be a strange AfD, because the article contains a number of sources, and there are a handful of others online. However, I still believe this is deletion worthy, essentially because there is no clear cut evidence that this dog breed exists as a single breed, and the article is therefore composed partly of original research and partly of fringe theory. It is not recognized as a standardized breed. Its characteristics have not been described in a systematic manner by any reliable source. The sources that do mention it fall into three categories. First, reliable sources giving it the briefest of mentions. Second, sources that all trace back to a single website, indog.co.in, which is not reliable and clearly has an axe to grind. Third, sources that are circular references to Wikipedia. Having spent a long while parsing through this mess, I have no option but to say delete. Vanamonde (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

After substantial thought, I would like to withdraw this AfD. I stil stand by my nomination rationale, and indeed, only one of the !votes is substantively helpful to somebody who wishes to rewrite the article. However, this discussion is not helping us fix the mess that the article is, either via WP:TNT or by rewriting it based on scientific sources, and is obviously not going to be closed "delete"; with my withdrawal, this is eligible for speedy closure, and I would hope that the "keep" voters would then lend some assistance in fixing the mess that I found. Vanamonde (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Weak keep I found this and apparently Darwin also wrote about it in one of his books. It seems to be considered a landrace instead of a pure breed. I wonder if there are Hindi language sources. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

@White Arabian Filly: that is the source I was referring to when I said "circular referencing." I am fairly certain it was copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article, which had the same wording in the lede well before that book was published. Negates it as a source, don't you think? Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I didn't notice that the content was the same. Frankly, I think such copying from Wikipedia should be illegal, when they're putting it into a book and then selling the book...making money off our work! Due to the Darwin book though, my !vote remains the same. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

@White Arabian Filly: Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Such copying is legal, but attribution should be provided ("BY", see WP:REUSE) and the license ported ("SA" for share-alike). That book fails to do so (its copyright notice is weird, it says "all rights reserved" just before "CC-BY-NC", but in any case does not mention WP and mentions the wrong license). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep, but that article is sure in need of some TLC. Even just looking at scholarly journal articles, there is discussion of its role in social history, its possible relationship to Australian dingos (a controversy with tons of references on all sides), osteometric history and dog burial data, and even a 1912 paper about parasitic liver flukes in Indian pariah dogs. I can't say that what we have is an article to be proud of, but it doesn't seem TNT-level bad, and there's simply no way I can advocate for deletion on a topic with this much high-quality sourcing available, even if editors haven't taken advantage of it yet. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Unfortunately it is systematic of Wikipedia that articles on pedigree breeds are typically strong (or at least coherent, if inevitably full of fancruft), where articles on landraces ramble on in a patchwork manner. Nonetheless, we shouldn't maintain articles which synthesise subjects out of sources that contradict each other. If a strong claim can't be made to this being reliably distinguished from pariah dog in general, a merge is appropriate, with poorly- or un-sourced material removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Chris has expressed a number of my concerns, but here are some more. I can see your argument, but I would invite you to dig a little deeper into those sources that you found. Here is my conclusion from reading several sources, and previewing others. There are several sources saying that dingos are descended from dogs from India, without naming a breed from there. There are other sources examining pariah dogs/free-roaming dogs/street dogs in general, without specific links to India. And there are sources on Indian street dogs, which nonetheless are concerned with behavior, and not with phylogeny/taxonomy. Additionally, I would tend to give little weight to old sources (even Darwin, to an extent!), because their science, and their taxonomy, is very dated. When their findings were of interest, you would expect followup, as is the case with most species/sub-species described back then. Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Every source I cited above specifically refers to "Indian pariah dog" by name (some of them capitalize it). I can cite a half dozen more than compare or contrast it, in various ways, to other indigenous dog landraces. As to the idea that the relationship tree (landraces aren't really quite the same thing as species/subspecies, after all) of dogs, including the Indian pariah dog, hasn't received modern attention, that's simply not true. Indeed, the Indian pariah dog was included (with other indigenous dog landraces) in a mitochondrial DNA sequencing study of Indian wolves in 2007. I get that this article is a rambling mess, but there's been actual science done regarding these dogs, from the 19th century all the way to right now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep There is no doubt among experts that this is a genetically isolated gene pool and clade or branch on the dog family tree, that has long been and remains of great interest to experts, and exists in absolutely enormous numbers compared to Cocker spaniels or any famous and officially recognized dog breed you can name.

Every once in a while, someone comes along to articles about dogs such as these and wants to delete them, perhaps because it just seems wrong that a mere dirty trash-eating mongrel village and street dog should be important or interesting or worthy enough for an article.

In some cases, they may be right, but not this one. The Indian pariah dog may not be a lesser animal to many or most, but the references contain overwhelming evidence that it is one of the most numerous and scientifically important genetically pure coherent branches on the dog family tree. Chrisrus (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

@Squeamish Ossifrage and Chrisrus: It is not a question of worthiness, but of policy compliance. The article as it stands is composed entirely of original research, and I cannot personally see a way of rescuing a viable article from this mess. Even if it were notable (which to be honest I'm still not sure of: too much of the coverage seems to focus on the generic pariah dog, rather than a specific Indian variety) WP:TNT still applies. If somebody else is able to clean out the crap and replace it with what science there is, well and good! I'd love to see that outcome. Vanamonde (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

In that case you should be calling for article improvement, not deletion. It is improper to delete an article on the grounds that it's not very good. Chrisrus (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

In general, that would be true, but in this case I see nothing worth preserving in the article as it stands, and additionally it violates WP:NOR. Therefore, even if the coverage in reliable sources is sufficient, I would recommend blowing it up and starting over. Vanamonde (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Nonsense. There is plenty of value here. I'll work on it a bit, but discuss this furhter on it's talk page where the topic is article improvement, not distruction. We do not delete articles because they need work. Do you know the hassle involved in getting it recreated? Chrisrus (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep: agreeing it is misguided to attempt to delete and then (possibly) recreate an article based upon perceived faults within the article. All this could be sorted in a talk page discussion itself. There is good content in the article and it is certainly not a hoax. Fylbecatulous talk 11:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep in view of the above discussion and support improvement of article as is JarrahTree 01:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 8 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 this passes WP:GNG although not WP:NGRIDIRON. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Kyle Coleman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Offseason and/or practice squad member only duffbeerforme (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep Passes GNG [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete bhas never played in a regular NFL game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Not badgering , but that has nothing to do with him not being notable. The question is if he passes GNG. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as WP:GNG means nothing if he's not notable as a football player, which is the main focus here, and because he's only played with 1 team and that's only as a non-game player, he's not notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Not passing WP:NGRIDIRON does not make someone not notable. GNG now applies WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Agree with WikiOriginal-9, GNG reigns supreme and means everything. As seen from my comment below, I do think he passes the notability hurdle in the football realm, but maybe not necessarily for his play alone. RonSigPi (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)(UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)(UTC)[]

Keep easily able to find a good amount of regional and national coverage of the subject, more than enough to pass the general notability guideline. Wikipedia:NGRIDIRON is a guideline that is inclusive, not exclusive. this means that just because a subject does not pass the muster of one notability guideline (in this case, GRIDIRON), that does not mean that they cannot meet notability through another means (such as GNG).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep appears to pass GNG. Worth note that I am swayed by the coverage that has to to with him transferring to the school where his father, NFL player Monte Coleman, coaches. That special circumstance gives more non-routine coverage than might be normal for a practice squad guy that didn't play at a power five conference school. I think a lot of the Seattle-based coverage is routine. RonSigPi (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Wanted to clarify why I went Weak Keep instead of Keep. The coverage of him going to his father's school was only in two sources. My standard is three distinct sources and have seen that elsewhere (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 BWF World Championships). By strict interpretation of the rules of GNG, the term 'sources' requires only two. However, I would prefer to see three (or four would be even better). Additional sources would need to be detailed and not just a repeat of the other sources. Willing to strengthen my viewpoint, but would want to see from more sources. RonSigPi (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep per WikiOriginal-9's sources as a WP:GNG pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:08, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Vent (building)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - Not just that, but also the fact that the information within that article is already mentioned within this one. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 12:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I don't think WP:DICDEF applies here. Thing is, the disambiguation page Vent lists several types of vents "Related to moving gasses" and I'm not sure of the wisdom of having a more general article encompassing all types of, say, mechanical (as opposed to naturally created) "vents." Also, could I suggest the nominator quit punctuating all his nomination statements with multiple exclamation points "!!!". There's no crisis here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]
- Also the article seems to be wrong in that it says vent applies to liquids, which I see is not covered at Vent? Anyway, I do agree to delete if only as WP:TNT, given its state. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete An unsourced and unnecessary fork of Ventilation (architecture). 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:57, 12 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. Note that I have moved the article to the title "The Garden (pastoral station), as suggested by Gnangarra herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[]

The Gardens (Pastoral Station)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Delete~~-~~The place is nothing notable!!! Dearth of source!!~~ Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep-The article has enough sources to be allowed without a doubt!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 12:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Nominations can allow more than 27 minutes from the time the "no sources" tag is placed on an article to the time of opening of an AfD. WP:BEFORE C2 states, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. Seems to be a random property. I've found stuff like ~~this, but that's all I found, really. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)~~[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep a quick search returns reference in National media[38], a book about the station from 1987 Grant, A. R., (Arthur Russell); Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1987), Pastoral land survey of the Hale plain : The Garden Station, Soil and Land Resources Unit, Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, retrieved 7 October 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Add to that all mention fact that part of the station was excised to create the Trephina Gorge site of Arrernte people rock art, to me this looks very much like a notable topic. Unlike mayor Australian cities and some east caost country towns references to NT subjects arent going to be digital. Gnangarra 14:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]
- note for closing admin the Station should be at The Garden (Pastoral Station) not The Gardens (Pastoral Station) as an errant s Gnan garra 14:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep - it used to be part of Undoolya station which was the first legal cattle station on the NT. It's very historic in terms of the development of the NT. Just give us a chance to keep working on the page. NT pages take longer to build. Not many online resources! User:tenniscourtisland User_talk:tennuscourtisland 08:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep The article was sourced a day after it was created. Additional sourcing has been provided by Gnangarra. Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep self evident from sources, notable and sourced easily JarrahTree 13:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep. Sourced now, was too quickly nominated. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep. The addition of sources that I didn't have access to makes it clear this is notable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep as per the sources indicated above. Speedy tagging within 13 minutes of article creation is not helpful and only serves as WP:BITE. --Oakshade (talk) 19:20, 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) 19:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[]

J.C. Cleary

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable translator. references only to books translated, no notability shown. Killer Moff (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

See for example, the comments of the Buddhist scholar Professor Cuong Tu Nguyen

“Once again, Cleary’s combined expertise in Chinese history and Zen literature shines through in this highly accessible volume. Among other things, he shows convincingly that the Zen message in these teachings are timeless and that “engaged Buddhism” has always been an integral part of the true teaching, not a creation of modern Buddhists.”—Cuong Tu Nguyen, George Mason University

[1]

Delete a non-notable translator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete - very run of the mill, little evidence of notability. wisdompubs.org is not reliable. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 13 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Michiana Paranormal Investigations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Virtually all coverage is from Metro South Bend Elkhart. No indication of any coverage outside North Central Indiana. John from Idegon (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

leaning delete per nom, extensively sourced to local fluff pieces - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:ORG, sources aren't impressive either. Yintan 22:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep Sources cited are credible. There are numerous paranormal groups listed under the topic "Paranormal Investigators" that meet the same criteria as this group. If you delete this then you need to delete all other groups as well. The group is based out of northern Indiana, which is why the articles cited are from the metro South Bend area. All sources are credible news agencies and media organizations. - Uediver (talk) 11:11 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The following is the attached location of where other groups similar to Michiana Paranormal Investigations is listed. There are other groups listed have less citations and references than this group does however are not being considered for deletion. If you believe that this group needs to be deleted then I would and expect you to follow suit with every other group listed as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Paranormal_investigators Uediver (talk) 01:01 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been considered a good argument at AFD. We know there are lots of bad articles on Wikipedia, this is why there's a deletion procedure - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 9 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) 05:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Nguyen Tu Quang

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible autobiography (from 2007) with serious NPoV problems. As written it does not establish notability; even with serious help from Google Translate (as all mentions of his name are in Vietnamese), I can't find much more than incidental mention of him, and that not necessarily in WP:RS. FalconK (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete non-notable software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as the history and information shows the PR intentions and actions, therefore nothing can be taken as guaranteed non-PR and that's exactly what the solution is by deleting it; the fact everything emulates an entire job listing explains enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Alex Hershaft

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find independent reliable sources or other ways to establish notability. Most promising source is this local newspaper article. Utsill (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete an animal rights activists without a significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Although I agree with the vote, I don't think it's Wikipedia policy to use "animal rights activist" or "significant impact" as criteria. Maybe you just mean notability. Utsill (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Is this your personal opinion, or based upon notability guidelines? Note that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which is a basis for notability on Wikipedia. See sources I have provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep His name comes up quite a bit in reliable sources when I search for it at Google Books with "animal rights activist". I'd say he's notable in his field, with significant coverage. ABF99 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

~~Still Delete~~. Not finding any WP:RS from Google Books searches, even though there are quite a few results. Utsill (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Your nomination counts as a delete !vote, you don't have to repeat delete, although comments are allowed. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep or Merge with Farm Animal Rights Movement, I think he has just enough coverage to pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

What coverage qualified as WP:RS? Utsill (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep I find enough coverage to pass WP:BIO, notable in his field. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[]

But what's the coverage? Utsill (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[]

References

The Jerusalem Post
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Ynet News
The Huffington Post
Jewish Journal
Haaretz
The Baltimore Sun
The Jewish Chronicle
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Jerusalem Post (subscription required)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Anacortes, Washington. Opinions are split between 3 delete, 3 merge and 1 keep. This only gives us consensus not to have an article. What I do in such cases is close as a redirect to the possible merge target, which allows editorial consensus to determine whether and how much content to merge from the history. Sandstein 07:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

What the Heck Fest

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Search found nothing beyond routine event listings. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete no assertion of notability independent of Anacortes, independent of sources directly related to or affiliated with What the Heck Fest. —Mythdon 12:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[]

~~Delete~~ (changed to merge, see below) no claim to notability made. Town has a population of 16,000. ¡Boz zio! 05:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment - I found and listed these sources when I deprodded this: [39], [40] ~Kvng (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources need to be analyzed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Merge Merge with the city that it was held in.--JJBers Public (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Why is this a good solution? ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New sources still haven't been discussed,. I'll ping users who have commented previously. A Train^talk 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment These sources help, but I would still merge it with the festival section for the town it's based in.— JJBers (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

The above sources are just routine event listings. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [41], [42], [43]. In sum, I do not consider this to to be WP:ROUTINE coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete -- the sources offered above are unconvincing; all are either passing mentions and / or from extremely local sources (brooklynvegan.com; The Spokesman Review; etc.). This does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. The merge to the city does not make sense, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I'm guessing your "passing mention" complaint is associated with trivial mention. These references are not trivial mentions of the subject, they are, for the most part, primarily about the subject. A reference can be disqualified for being WP:ROUTINE and others here have made this criticism but I personally beleive there's more meat than that. WP:CORPDEPTH does impose some restrictions on local sources. I don't beleive WP:CORPDEPTH applies to this subject. ~Kvng (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment. I was asked to evaluate the new sources provided by Kvng. The new sources are an article on brooklynvegan.com and an article in The Spokesman-Review. The Spokesman-Review article devotes four paragraphs of its article to the What the Heck Fest, which it notes is "scheduled in conjunction with the quaint coastal town's annual Shipwreck day flea market". Not exactly screaming "notable". Brooklyn Vegan is a self-described "music blog", which suggests that its article is probably routine coverage. Both articles are reliable sources, but even with the earlier sources I don't think there is enough to satisfy the WP:SIGCOV portion of WP:GNG. I think JJBers Public's suggestion of a merge is a good one. ¡Boz zio! 15:25, 11 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) 05:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Barsha (Ritu)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Strong delete-The topic is entirely about a Bengali word-transliterated to English; written in the manner of an entry in dictionary!The English equivalent of the topic is well-covered in the article of Monsoon which also have it's sister article in Bengali language!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 05:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete: per nominator. Seems like someone unknowingly tried to write an article on a topic we already have an article about. Anup [Talk] 19:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. WP:NOTDIC. Yintan 19:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom and above comments. Nobody is going to type "Barsha (Ritu)" to search for this page on Google. In whichever case, dictionary terms don't belong here. I suggest closing this Afd now. Lourdes 03:42, 27 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[]

AdRoll

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My extensive PROD here still applies as the mere few sources (2) listed now are not at all actually convincing since the one book seems to be a company-supplied informational listing and guide and then the Fortune article, now only is not largely focused with them, but whatever is, is simply then trivial and unconvincing PR and such, note how the article actually ends with listing all of their involved clients and investors.... SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment – Not !voting at this time, but to clarify, below is a summary of the sources I added to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

References

1. Allen, K.R. (2015). Launching New Ventures: An Entrepreneurial Approach. Cengage Learning. pp. 454–458. ISBN 978-1-305-44571-0.

Note that this content within the book is not based upon company-furnished information whatsoever. The book content is derived from the following source:

Finkle, Todd A., Professor of Entrepreneurship, Gonzaga University (2013). "AdRoll: A Case Study of Entrepreneurial Growth". New England Journal of Entrepreneurship. Volume 16, Number 1. 4 pages.

2. Primack, Dan (April 21, 2014). "AdRoll raises $70 million as its expands 'retargeting' into mobile". Fortune. Retrieved October 5, 2016.

Comment sorting out these articles is terrible ... are they notable in advertising? Where of course even the good sources are written like ads because that's all they know how to write. The article needs a serious cleanout, but it's plausible they are notable - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep - Based on the 4 references currently in the AdRoll#Further reading section[44][45][46][47] plus the voluminous coverage in advertising and tech trade mags. A significant company in the online advertising field, with more then enough WP:RS material available to help any article cleanup needed. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment - Simply repeating the Fortune article since it was listed above and is not anything different at all, and this is because the Fortune magazine is literally interviewed information by the company in that it only lists their own business plans and it goes finish with listing clients and investors, that's not independent especially not when the article was actually an interview. The Forbes is then simply a "subscriber contributor", so not an actual employee, and as it is, Forbes is becoming notoriously used by companies to host their own PR, given the fact there will not even always be a staff employee, and instead someone else which often even includes the company person themselves. The SacredHeart link is still questionable because it cannot be guaranteed it was not company-supplied information especially given how it lists a "business-listing page". Although the link says they were a fastest-growing company, we would have still needed other links because one mere link like this, especially coming from a non-news substantial source would still be questionable. The Forbes itself is only a mere 2 paragraph about it, clearly simply stating the general information to know about it, so it's certainly not in-depth. SwisterTwister talk 16:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Your argument is entirely unconvincing and seems to show a bias that is not appropriate for AFD discussions. I remain with my keep !vote. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. The Fortune article is a promotional interview, no matter where published, and the rest of the sources are at least equally useless for notability . Even more important, the article is essentially advertising, and should therefore be deleted even if it were slightly notable. Listing of the really trivial prizes is a fairly reliable indication of promotional intent. (and , for that matter, very often paid editing, though there's no way to prove it in this particular case) DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as corporate spam on a marginally notable company. With the lead opening with:

...privately held global technology company. It provides advertisers retargeting products for cross-platform, cross-device display advertising.^[2]^[3]

References

^ http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/zen-under-gun/praise
^ "AdRoll Features". Retrieved 20 June 2014.
^ "AdRoll Offers Mobile Ad Retargeting On Facebook". Retrieved 20 June 2014.

the article is not in compliance with WP:NOT and should be deleted. The case study listed above is possibly a fluke and is not an indicator of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Thank you for noting that the company is "marginally notable". Notable is notable, marginal or not, and means it passes WP:N. But could you explain what you mean by "possibly a fluke" regarding the case study? A fluke in that you found a reliable source when you did not expect it? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment -- I mean "marginally notable" in a pejorative way. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment -- the article created and extensively edited by an account with no other contributions (Special:Contributions/Dwerboff), so paid editing is highly likely. See WP:BOGOF; let's not encourage the spammers by keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

That's an issue for WP:COIN and/or WP:ANI. It has no bearing on the notability of the article subject, which you yourself have continued to acknowledge is notable. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Clarification -- the article should be deleted both because it's spam and due to the subject being non notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

~~Delete.~~ as promotion for a non notable company. The Awards section is indicative of both -- these extremely minor awards for best local workplace arethe customary way of writing such articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Duplicate !vote struck. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete This is patent WP:CORPSPAM. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium and this should not be encouraged, hence a WP:DEL14 delete. The company is is a minor company (whose notability is questionable and is largely inherited due to association with other companies) and is intent on using Wikipedia for promotion. I see no point in encouraging such behaviour. Asking volunteer editors to clean up (WP:BOGOF) is essentially increasing the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 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 redirect to The Conglomerate (American group). Apparently there isn't too much to merge, as the Lord Have Mercy article is mainly unsourced. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Lord Have Mercy (rapper)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSICBIO. It appears that he is known for his association with a notable music ensemble, and not much else. The subject has failed to become subject to non-trivial coverage from third-party reliable sources; there is no evidence that he notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. — ξ ^xplicit 04:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Merge or redirect to The_Conglomerate_(American_group), of which he was part. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 23 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 22:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[]

A State of Mind (band)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actually deleted in 2012 but, given that it is not exactly the same thing since then, here we are again and I can confirm I have searched and examined but found nothing to suggest what we would seriously need for a substantially convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

comment fr:A State of Mind (which this appears to be at least partially a translation of) has some RSes. Interviews: [48][49] Reviews: [50][51] Not quite sure those three alone bring it up to WP:NMUSIC, but it's not implausible ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

comment Not to be confused with the Polish band also called A State of Mind - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. I will note that I've reviewed the original deleted article and can confirm that it was not about the same band, so this is definitely not speediable. That said, this article makes no strong claim that this band passes WP:NMUSIC for anything, and cites no reliable source coverage to support it — and I don't see David Gerard's new sources above as improving the notability case at all. It's a standard rule at AFD that because they represent the subject talking about themselves, a Q&A-formatted interview cannot assist passage of GNG — it's a type of reference that can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been passed, but not a type of reference that can bring GNG in and of itself. And the reviews are in a blog and a user-generated discussion forum, so they're not reliable sources. And while France Info has the possibility of counting toward GNG, in this case it's just a blurb wrapped around a YouTube video of the band in performance rather than a piece of substantive coverage — and even if we did accept it as a GNG-eligible source because France Info, one GNG-eligible source is not a GNG pass all by itself. So no, nothing shown so far is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 26 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. Michig (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Patrick Zielke

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ails WP:politician. Mayor of a small city with no other claim under WP:GNG. He apparently served in the position for 22 years, but even with that I don't find much coverage in RS. MB 04:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete I agree. It doesn't appear to meet WP:politician.Dolotta (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete another non-notable mayor of La Crosse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 9 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. Michig (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Mark Johnsrud

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:politician. Mayor of a small city with no other claim under WP:GNG MB 04:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete La Crosse is far below the level at which a city's mayor is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 9 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. Michig (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

W. Peter Gilbertson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:politician. Mayor of a small city with no other claim under WP:GNG MB 04:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC) MB 04:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete I agree with User:MB for the reasons stated above. Dolotta (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete mayors of La Crosse are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as, after watching these as this nomination has continued, there's simply nothing for any actual WP:POLITICIAN notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 9 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. Michig (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

John Henry Ahrens

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:politician. Mayor of a small city with no other claim under WP:GNG MB 03:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep La Crosse is Wisconsin's 12th largest city, a county seat and Wisconsin's largest city on its western border. Ahrens was also mayor during an important time in American history. The article need to be expanded, not deleted. Igbo (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

The notability of a mayor is not contingent on the city's ordinal ranking as a population centre — it's contingent only on the raw population number itself, and 50K is not large enough to give its mayors an automatic "include because he exists" pass if they're not sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG. And "served during an important time in American history" is not a credible notability claim either, if you can't demonstrate and source that his mayoralty had any direct bearing on making it an important time in American history. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete This article runs afoul of the "no original research" guidelines. The sources are A-the social security death index, which merely establishes someone claimed his death benefits, and is not even a secondary source. 2-the 1930 US census, another non-secondary source that can say nothing substantive of the subject. 3-an autobiography. At least this is moving out of original research, but it still is in the not indepdent of the subject and by no means reliable area. Thus I am unconvinced we have any secondary sources, reliable or not, all sources are primary. Lacrosse only had 47,000 people in 1950 when he was mayor. Even if we allowed for ordinal inclusion, I fail to see how we would ever allow default inclusion past maybe the 10 largest cities in any state, and even that seems unwise. The "important time in American history" argument makes no sense to me. How is 1949-1955 "an important time in American history"? How is it more so than any other given time in American history? I have to admit that this is one of the worst articles for sourcing I have come across. No original research is rarely so fully violated. Wikipedia editors should not be drawing sources from the US census or social security death indexes. No Wikipedia article should EVER cite the census report on an individual as a source. It might mention something said in the census, if that has been mentioned in a secondary source, but people should not go digging through the census to learn about individauls.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete -- being a mayor of Wisconsin's 12th largest city is not exactly a claim of notability; merely a local politician. Sources would need to be much stronger, indicating they were notable for something else, to be able to keep this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 11 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) 05:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

The Next Web

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequate refs for notability. Almost everything here is their own site. I couldn't find the Wired UK item, but it alone wouldn't support this article. And promotional writing--the tell-tell "to improve your personal and professional life" is representative. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete: I'm not finding any WP:RS to indicate sufficient notability. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete and this is an amusing one because it's largely used by companies of which we delete themselves entirely, so there's therefore questionability of guranteed non-PR, since that's exactly why churnalism exists and is exists quite so. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete In agreement with SwisterTwister . People/ companies are using this as source for their notability. Nothing here itself. Light2021 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]

delete as it stands - given it is in fact a minor RS, I'm actually surprised there's nothing about the site or company itself that I could find either - David Gerard (talk) 09:16, 9 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. In view of the lack of participation this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be re-nominated. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Top Less Gay Love Tekno Party

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and little reliable source coverage to support it. With the exception of one (deadlinked) article in an alt-weekly, the referencing here is otherwise entirely to blogs, primary sources like their own website and the site of a company with which they had a direct sponsorship deal, a Flickr photostream and a Yelp listing -- which means we're at exactly zero for sources that can carry WP:GNG. And the only substantive claim of notability here is that one member went on to form another more notable band as a side project, which means nothing here actually passes NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:16, 12 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) 05:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Avenida Plaza

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Building development that fails WP:GNG. In fact, it doesn't even exist as the article says it is an "upcoming" development. There is no in-depth coverage to satisfy notability. G11 already declined. CNMall41 (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete On top of failing WP:GNG it seems almost promotional with the "Restaurants" section included in there. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Thought so too. I went G11 but it was declined unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete Concur with nom. One reference to a future development does not confer notability. MB 03:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 5 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. In view of the lack of participation this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be re-nominated. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Indrek Erm

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CREATIVE; only minimal, trivial mentions found in independent sources. WP:CREATIVE 4c is not met without evidence for the significance of those awards. —swpb^T 18:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment the awards from Cultural Endowment of Estonia appear somewhat significant: link. Not sure about the rest. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:16, 12 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. Cavarrone 08:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Victoria Plucknett

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress, Has been unsourced since 2010, Found 2 sources, One isn't a reliable source and the other is BBC source[52] however it's only a mention (I don't have an issue with adding these sorts of mentions to articles however in this case the article cannot rely on a one-line mention), Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 02:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

delete as it stands, as unsourced BLP - I'm finding a lot of passing mentions of her, particularly on a books search, and I think she's likely a plausible article topic readers would in fact look up ... but I haven't found a thing about her that would let us write a BLP. I would be most pleased to be able to change my mind on this one - e.g. I can't read the Welsh sources, but if they're meatier they'd be great. cy:Victoria_Plucknett is unfortunately sourced only to IMDB - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

A fair few hits in google books yup David, I will try to improve this tomorrow. She's a notable face in Wales, I recognize her!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Hi Dr. Blofeld, Ofcourse if you are able to turn the article around I'd be more than happy to withdraw, I would withdraw now however I don't want to withdraw and then find out you can't find anything (It's happened before unfortunately), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I think it might be a case of Martin Miller syndrome, where few sources really have many details, but she is credited and becomes notable on weight of the works she was in. Notable actress, but difficult to write. We shouldn't have any unsourced BLPs though in 2016.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Yeah. She should be notable and I'd like us to have an article, but we do in fact need sources other than just a list of what she's been in. Surely somewhere in the last 20 years has run a profile ... - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep I remember her from DoDS, must be sources somewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]
- If you can find them, you'll be doing better than me ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]
  - I remember watching the goddamn show - she had a major role. Am surprised there isn't something more...found ~~one~~ two measly refs so far. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]
    - I genuinely do appreciate your help in trying to find and adding sources however the sources are extremely poor, As this actress has been in this industry for around 31-41 years there should be better sources than this (Ofcourse there may well be sources offline however that's simply a wild guess), Anyway she still fails GNG, I don't mean this in a funny way nor am I trying to start an arguement but being on a show doesn't automatically make someone notable either, Thanks for your efforts tho they are appreciated. –Davey2010^Talk 23:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]
      - I think she's actually plausibly notable, and people know her name and might reasonably look her up ... but we have no sources suitable for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete Regretably, there does not appear to be any scholarly sources (biography, interview primarily about her, etc) readily available. It is presumable that because the actress has been on multiple programs there's a record of an interview, but because we're online we don't have as good access to offline sources. No objections to recreating if/when sources that can verify the actress' notability, but until then with almost 10 years of effort on this article, I'm starting to doubt the existance of the sources. Hasteur (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as it stands Unfortunately I am unable to find any sources beyond simple listings. There is literally nothing which actually discusses the subject itself and I have to regrettably put a delete here per WHYN. Nothing much in any books either nor in any of the newspaper archives I have access to. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Comment I found a number of sources on HighBeam that confirm her roles in 2 soaps. I added to the article. I'll try to add more later. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[]
- We have sources to confirm the fact of her being in the soaps. What we need is RSes that say anything actually about her ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[]
  - Wouldn't she pass NACTOR if she has enough significant roles? Or are only the soaps being counted towards NACTOR? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[]
    - Likely, but we still have literally have no information actually about her except that she's from Wales, and not even that's sourced to an RS. we have zero sources about the putative subject of the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[]
      - Does anyone know anybody who speaks Welsh? Some of the articles seem to be in that language. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[]
        I watched her in the Duchess of Duke St when I was a kid - she was one of the main characters in it. I might have an idea where I can find an offline source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep She is notable, but needs some work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep. main character in an important series. Since that shows her notable , there's no need for additional bio to keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[]

She may of been on an important show but regardless the sourcing is unfortunately still very poor and as I said above this BLP's been acting for 30 odd years (and has been in for the past 17 years) yet there's nothing source-wise (I honestly mean that in a nice way), If sources can be found that are of the actual BLP then I'd happily withdrawn but unfortunately there's no notability source-wise. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:33, 27 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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Representatives of Indonesia to international pageants

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a duplication list to include non-notable contestants to non-notable pageants. Indonesia's representatives to notable pageants were already listed in the yearly editions of Miss Universe Miss World, Miss Earth, Miss International. Likewise, the national winners and representatives were also listed in the Miss Indonesia, Puteri Indonesia, Miss Earth Indonesia articles. Notable pageants for men have also another lists like the Mister World. This article is just an expanded list to include non-notable pageant contestants without sources. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete WP:DEL7, with WP:IAR added to bring WP:DEL7 to consistency with failure of the core content policy WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:NN (both the individuals and most of the competitions), and WP:NOREFS Davidelit (Talk) 04:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete This article lists people who were representatives to the like of Miss Scuba International.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete with fire; unreferenced WP:LISTCRUFT only. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 9 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 22:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Byron Crawford

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm unconvinced of subject's notability. Sources are poor. Some are deadlinks, primary sources etc. Cannot see any significant coverage of the individual beyond these articles: http://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/the-mad-blogger/Content?oid=2457188 & http://www.houstonpress.com/music/cold-cuts-bun-b-vs-byron-crawford-6546177 Article has numerous issues such as unverifiable claims and departure from NPOV but this nomination is based solely on perceived failure of WP:GNG Rayman60 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

leaning keep the article is terrible and tempts one to set it on fire, but he's been interviewed a fair bit concerning his book, including internationally: [53][54][55] - may be legit famous - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete What we need is articles about him, not just interviews about his book. Nothing else suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable blogger. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 24 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. Michig (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Tim Kabat

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't meet wp:politician and doesn't meet the broader wp:anybio requirements (just the city's web site and the local newspaper as references). Dolotta (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I'll try and add some stuff. the former mayor Mathias Harter has a wiki page I think we just have to make Tim Kabat's better - Wikideas1 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Thanks for pointing it out. Now also nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Keep I was able to find a few articles via google search and google news that seemed notable. Couple that with the comment above - I went ahead and added some sources and info. I think expansion first, then revisit the WP:GNG question. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete Even with the references above, everything is routine local coverage of a small city mayor and not sufficient to establish notability. MB 04:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete. A well-sourced and substantive article about a mayor could potentially be kept regardless of the city's size, but WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors. A city would have to be twice the size of La Crosse before his mere existence as a mayor was a compelling enough claim of notability in and of itself to get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment rather than the "delete" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete non-notable mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Delete as not at all convincing for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 9 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) 05:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

MobilityWare

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My extensive PROD boldly removed with no actual explanations and my concerns listed there still apply and I'll note again none of this is actually convincing as it's only trivial and unconvincing sourcing and information. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[]