Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 October	1 November >

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.

Antelope Valley Transit Authority[edit]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

Page is basically pure WP:PROMO with zero sources. The main contributor is a user who clearly works for the company. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep and cleanup. The article does have the problems mentioned, but a quick check shows that there is notability here. The nominator is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup, and that that alternatives to deletion should be considered before nomination - WP:BEFORE does not appear to have been followed here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keepyes it looks like enough to meet GNG. It's a transit authority partly in or near LA county -- where admittedly, public transit isn't too high on the list of priorities. But it serves a market of approximately a half a million and the Gnews results are adequate. Yes, there's been a lot of COI editing looks like, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep. I don't see it as WP:PROMO. Are they trying to sell you a two-dollar bus ride? Yes, maybe it was written by someone close to the organization, but they are not selling a product that is any different that the This transit agency is not more or less notable than the hundreds of other transit articles in WP. Keep based on WP:NOTPAPER. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep but needs better sourcing. Only reference listed is the official website, but there are others available, for instance this one on transit strikes, this one on their bus fleet, or this general profile from the California Transit Association.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep: No less notable than the other Southern Californian transit authorities that have the same number or less routes than this. Needs cleanup to sound less like an advertisement of course and could use more info including what exactly those "13 local transit routes" are, etc.. in addition to info on the sources found in the above comments. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 16:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD G4. A Train^talk 21:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Belgian Grand Prix runners up[edit]

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

Unnecessary and nonstandard (i.e. we don't have articles like this for other Grands Prix. Also WP:NOTSTATS. DH85868993 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Speedy delete per G4 - this article (with different capitalization and punctuation) has previously been deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Belgian_Grand_Prix_Runners-Up. (I wish I'd noticed that before creating the AfD discussion...) DH85868993 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom and prev. disc. Still not required. Eagleash (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to USC Trojans football. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Competition Tuesday[edit]

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

Not notable Mccapra (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Clearly fails the notability guidelines. Per WP:DIRECTORY. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete. Non-notable practice sessions at a single university. Searches show passing references but not the type of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that would pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect to USC Trojans football, I guess? It's a valid redirect target of sorts. ansh 666 19:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. No objection to a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. While there is a consensus to keep the list, there is also a clear consensus that it needs to be pared back aggressively and supplemented with better sourcing. A Train^talk 09:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[]

List of Donkey Kong characters[edit]

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

Massive, in-universe list that has a whopping total of nine sources (five of which are primary, and two that look unreliable). I PROD'd the article but it was contested since it's been nominated before, so here we are. JOE BRO 64 19:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. JOE BRO 64 19:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Seems to violate WP:NOTPLOT as entirely plot summary with no IRL significance indicated. The former keep rationale 10 years ago doesn't correspond to Wikipedia's current standards._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

redirect Looks like much of it is original research. You can list the character in the main donkey kong article. AGrandeFan (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect - per nom. Prior deletion discussion from 2007 that ended in keep is an embarrassment to Wikipedia policy. Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep A once notable game franchise, once notable always notable, like movies and books. --RAN (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]
- That doesn't really address why it shouldn't be deleted. You're merely saying WP:ILIKEIT. JOEBRO64 23:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]
  - Nope, he is saying WP:ITSNOTABLE - about as bad of an argument, but we should be precise :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]
- Yes, that's the sort of nonsense that tarnished the prior AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Weak keep. The franchise is notable, and I would be surprised if we couldn't find better sources for list of its characters. It is unlikely there are hoaxes here. Notability is indeed a concern, but those type of lists are usually both prolific and poorly sourced (not an excuse), and I think they should be tackled not one by one with random results but instead through a bigger, RfC-like discussion about referencing/notability standards for them. For now I'd prefer we prune it (remove unreferenced content per WP:V) and leave it shortened or merge to the main article or another list instead (ex. List of Mario franchise characters, Wario_(franchise)#WarioWare_characters). Or just stick a bunch of cite needed tags on it for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment: While I have no strong opinion either way, if the result is to delete please merge the character names and whatever relevant sourced material there is into a smaller list on Donkey Kong as was done with List of Wario characters. As there is no basic character listing on this page some of this info would be useful there. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 16:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect. Another example of trivial game information. Suitable for a wiki, not Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with a small, sourced section on the main article, instead of a huge list of unsourced and in-universe retelling of the plot. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

Keep and improve per the GNews results for two of the characters, above. If multiple characters get multiple RS coverage, (that is, multiple elements meet GNG) then yes, we ought to have a list of this. The OR and in-universe should be trimmed, development and reception added, and plenty of other improvements... but that's all fixable through regular editing, so deletion is not indicated. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Merge the single-game characters, where sourced, to their specific games. Merge summaries of the characters with separate articles to the parent article at Donkey Kong. If there is anything remaining which is sourced, it could reasonably be included there also until such time as notability is demonstrated for the group as a whole. The unsourced cruft should go, regardless. --Izno (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep and prune per Piotrus. I'm not familiar with the DK series. but there are recurring characters throughout the franchise that would be better covered on one list page. Any individual entries specific to one game should be merged there though per Izno. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep. Lists like this for series that have extensive casts are logical and appropriate WP:SPINOUTs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]
- But that doesn't address the unsourced, trivial, and in-universe issues this article faces. It's honestly a shame that this will likely be kept. JOE BRO 64 00:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep - this reminds me of the AfD for Holography in fiction, for which I voted keep, was closed as no consensus and the close is being reviewed in a deletion review.[[1]] This is a compilation of material that follows a common theme, and in this case even links some parts to to other articles. What I would like to see is better organization, and alphabetization so the list is more user friendly for someone looking for a specific character. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep there's a lot of crap here, and splitting the list up may be necessary. A valid WP:SAL of this name could probably be created so the !vote is keep, but merging this to half-a-dozen pages on specific games would also be reasonable (if anyone wants to do that work). The redirect should be to Donkey Kong#Characters if such a merge happens, though no content should be merged to that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Calathumpian[edit]

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

Fails verification. The primary use of the word (spelled Callithumpian [2]) appears to be an adjective to describe a loud and boisterous band. The use of "some other political/religious belief" is used in some sources, but the use is generally just as a nonce word, with no continuity of meaning between sources ([3], [4], [5]). The links in the references currently in the article don't work, but they only claim to support that the word was used in Australian parliament debate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete I guess, needs a WP:TNT at least. The main usage should probably be mentioned at charivari, as it is "no doubt derived" from the latter [6] and is described as a very similar act of noisy "musical" public harassment of the unpopular or socially censured [7] [8]. Several improbable etymologies of this meaning are dicussed here.

However, the sense of "one who claims an imaginary religion, joc." [9] doesn't seem to have enough sourcing to make an article. There's a short 1955 letter to the editor in American Speech in which it's defined, given as Australian, and hypothesized to have originated as a description of the Holy Rollers before being contrasted to the more common "musical" usage. That's enough for a sentence somewhere, but not an article. FourViolas (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment (if verified) this would be a dictionary definition, but the main issue seems to be that one politician used the term in a speech, perhaps mispronouncing it. If so, it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Mehdi Abdi[edit]

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

Non-notable Iranian globetrotter, photographer, journalist and tour guide. Lacks independent, secondary in-depth, non-trivial support. References are examples of work and brief mentions. Not sure that the "certifications" warrant notability, but nonetheless they are supported by non-independent "references". reddogsix (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete As per Nominator; reddogsix, subject of article fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG.–Celestina007 (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete As lacking independent sources and failing WP:GNG. I would even go near WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Unmasking by intelligence agencies[edit]

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

This does not seem to be an independently notable subject. As far as I can tell, it ostensibly relates to FISA warrants in the U.S., but really seems to be about the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and various investigations into possible collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia. This seems like a very small subject, warranting little more than a definition, with specific examples already being covered in a number of existing articles. - Mr X 18:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 18:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 19:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep, I wrote the article over the last couple days, and welcome improvements and expansion. But the footnotes show very clearly that it's an independently notable subject. We could scatter its contents to various other articles, I suppose, but that would probably cause an undue weight problem in those other articles. All of the material is presented neutrally, and it's a very interesting article, if I do say so myself. We should follow WP:Summary style, leave this article in place, and put summaries of it (and wikilinks to it) where appropriate in other articles. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep: Well-sourced. A search of "unmasking section 702" shows many more from across the political spectrum. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]
- When I ran that search phrase through Google search, I came up with one Reddit thread. A search for "Unmasking by intelligence agencies" is similarly sparse.- MrX 22:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]
  - I used quotes to identify the search terms. They should not be included. Try [10]. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Merge to other appropriate articles, largely per MrX. Not every single idea that has appeared in print merits a standalone article. If it is to be kept, the article must be substantially revised to avoid reading as a WP:COATRACK for political views. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

I emphaticaly deny that this article promotes any political view at all. But perhaps deleting it would. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep well-sourced and independently notable. Sufficient coverage exists to unmask this as a notable topic. Lepricavark (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment Not sure right now as to whether the article should be deleted, but if it is kept the title should be changed, or the content completely rewritten. This article is not about "unmasking by intelligence agencies" - it is entirely and specifically about unmasking by US intelligence agencies in accordance with FISA, and mostly about events that have occurred within the last year. The current title implies a broad overview of a topic in intelligence, entirely at odds with what the article is actually about. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

I don’t mind inserting “U.S.” into the title somewhere, but the advantage of leaving it out is that there’s room for the article to grow if info is published about unmasking in other countries. Wikipedia’s supposed to be a global encyclopedia, so it made sense to explain the general concept before getting into U.S. specifics. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep This is a legitimate subject. Please note I have boldly removed the section on Trumps aides, this is because it was not actually an example of unmasking. (at least not in the context of this article, which defines a limited definition of the term "unmasked", not this that a source may says such and such was 'unmasked', but that does not mean if fits this subject. Some international content needs to be added, it focuses way too much on the USA, even specifically on the FBI, which is fine, but that is only a small part of the subject. Dysklyver 14:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete apparently this has to include to information which is not even vaguely relevant, it appears I was mistaken about what this is actually about, it is not about the ethics of international espionage. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to the previous comments. It is just another attack page related to the US election, and we have plenty of more relevant titles where that information can be included. I suggest this is deleted and and some sourced sections moved over to ~~Trump Tower wiretapping allegations or a related article. Dysklyver 16:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)~~[]

Neutral I have given up trying to equate this to my understanding of a topic with the same name. This is probably fine, (it has enough sources to pass WP:GNG if the content is actually relevant to the US definition of the term). Dysklyver 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Trump Tower is mentioned in only one sentence of this article: “Rice has said that she did unmask Trump aides at a December 2016 meeting at Trump Tower, unrelated to Kislyak or Russia.” Nothing else in this Article seems relevant to Trump Tower or Trump Tower wiretapping allegations. I’m not sure what basis is being suggested for attacking this article as an attack page, or as containing any information which is not even vaguely relevant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

I have a very different view of what unmasking is to you it seems, but then I am British, I will probably write something at Intelligence unmasking (UK) at some point. It's clearly a different topic, and I apologise. My view is that anything talking about 'Trump + Russia' is an attack, and anything Trump writes about 'media + anything' is an attack, it is all utter POV and political maneuvering, even by otherwise reliable sources, and especially if it's connected to the FBI. I dislike the whole US system, here our intelligence service isn't political and this isn't a problem. Dysklyver 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep. Seems to be a subject separate from FISA, and it is well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. and redirect to Power steering ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

PowerSteering[edit]

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

Promotional, non-notable, and apparently undeclared paid editing. The refs are almost entirely notes about funding, which is never enough to justify an article. The others are newspaper articles clearly based on press releases, which are therefore indiscriminate and not reliable. The history of the article shows the blatant promotional intent DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Voicing the nominator DGG. Promotional article which lacks notability.–Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Power steering? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Power steering. A quick Google search shows that sometimes power-steering is rendered without the dash, [11][12] and the capitalization for the second word is a natural one. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

I suppose you mean "Delete and redirect" because there is no reason to preserve the present content in the page history behind the redirect DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

All on Me[edit]

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

Neither entry has a page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep MOS:DABMENTION. Peter James (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep MOS:DABMENTION. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep MOS:DABMENTION. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep as this is obvious, since it is allowed by MOS. But to add a little; the nomination is in good faith only that the nom didn't know MOS:DABMENTION exist or they forgot. I made this mistake too before I know. — Ammarpad (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep MOS:DABMENTION. JE98 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep MOS:DABMENTION. Sro23 (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep 3 valid entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Plus no benefit at all to readers to delete this. Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

David Berger AZA[edit]

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

not notable. only sources (aside from some obscure newspaper archive from '95) are from the organization's own website. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete. Yep, not notable. Just another club. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete and basically an advert with some WP:COATRACKed stuff about the namesake, who is equally non-notable. — fortunavelut luna 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Nothing more than a computerized brochure for a single branch of an organization that already has an article. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Does not measure up to the encylopedia's primary requirements to establish notability.–Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Merge with Ohio Northern Region BBYO #23-Peanutbutterwikipedia1230 (talk) 11:43. 3 November 2017
Definitely not merge, Delete - proposed merge target isn't any more notable than the article at hand, both per WP:BRANCH. John from Idegon (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:BRANCH. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete some stuff about an organization that reached a peak of 90 members and has an annual Dude Night, but nothing that approaches notability found here or in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Lav Grigorije Pajkić[edit]

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

To begin with, the article is in a different language. It also appears to be created by the subject of the article. Is he notable? Can this be translated/salvaged? PidgeCopetti (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

The article hasn't always been in a different language. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete having read over the old English version, I see no actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Weak delete. Borderline notable, but mostly "famous for being child of famous parents", a twitter activist and Serbian wannabe version of Milo Y. No such user (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Gerald Kisoun[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage provided at all, of a person notable primarily as the deputy commissioner of a Canadian territory. This is not a role that hands a person an automatic WP:NPOL freebie; it's a role that would be enough if he could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that automatically guarantees him an article or an exemption from having to pass GNG just because he exists. While some (but not all) of his predecessors do have articles, all of them have other notability claims besides this alone, such as having served in the territorial legislature or going on to get appointed as the actual commissioner -- nobody else has an article if "deputy commissioner" is the only notability claim they have. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep - have expanded article - Polar Medal (Canada) recipient and subject of a speech in Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. PamD 16:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep He served as Interim Commissioner of the Northwest Territories for nearly a year which suggests he meets WP:NPOL as having held "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". He has also received the Polar Medal, which may suggest passage of WP:ANYBIO for having received a "well-known and significant award or honor" AusLondonder (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep. The article has been expanded enough to establish notability overall, and WP:NPOL has been established as clarified by AusLondoner. (Also I noticed that the original prod was placed on the article less than an hour following its creation; I can't help but feel there was a bit of WP:BITE going on here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as a commenter has found an actual basis for notability and a high-quality source for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

William Todd (1803–1873)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person whose only stated claim of notability is that he decilined an offer of appointment to the Canadian Senate. We could, of course, still keep the article anyway if it had any sourcing or substance about anything else he'd done in his life besides that -- but if literally all there is to say about him is "he declined a Senate appointment, the end", there's no need for an encyclopedia article about that. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kagundu Talk To Me 15:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete This Canadian William Todd seems potentially notable but not the one in question.--TM 19:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Er, yes, that is our boy. User: Namibia may have been misled by the confusing wording in the 2nd paragraph of the bio that tangles the life of Todd's father up with Todd's life. (I had to read that paragraph twice). But this is certianly a bio about the subject of this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep WP:HEY I added a couple of sources to the page; the bio in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography confirms his notability, imho. I added only a bit of the info on the page. Still needs a link to the bank and one of the railroads of which he was President. Plus, there are other sources (older books on New Brunswick and on Canadian constitutional history) from which a better article can be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Thanks for that. What's especially strange about this is that even when I checked the page's "what links here" in the process of trying to determine whether there was a basis for notability, our existing projectspace tasklists for the Dictionary of Canadian Biography weren't in the results at all — he actually is in the T list, but redlinked because the compiler of that list used a different disambiguator than the creator of this article did. That, accordingly, is why TM and I both missed his presence in the DOCB. Consider this withdrawn accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

MC Vacela[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Speedy Delete No sources available. No claim of significance. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:BIO. But hey, this could have been speedied on A7. And it can be now. Lourdes 15:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Voicing what Lourdes said. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete lacks sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Sherten[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER. No substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Not enough evidence of notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that there are enough sources to merit an article. Remember that the outcome at AfD generally depends only on the existence of sources, not on their presence in the article - that's an editorial matter, not a notability one, and there's plenty of time to add them in. ansh 666 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Jonathan Desbiens[edit]

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

This had been deleted at an earlier AfD, then brought to review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 28. The result of that review was to endorse the close but relist at AfD, given the new sources. This is a purely procedural action; I offer no opinion on the outcome. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Ping--@DGG, Timtempleton, Bearcat, and Milowent:--Please share your opinions at this AfD.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[]

I haven't found specific notability guidelines for video directors or music video directors. As stated by TonyBallioni in the deletion review, Juno Awards nomination may serve to verify notability for musician under WP:NMUSIC 8. I guess this could also serve here. I hope the provided awards and nominations references may also help.DanielFarad (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete. The notability standard for music video directors needs to be, and is, that they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage to properly support the article. It is not enough that directories and unreliable sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of the musicians he worked with nominally verify that he did the claimed work; the requirement is that media coverage exists about him. And even for a musician, a Juno Award nomination would still depend on their being the subject of reliable source coverage — it would not make a musician notable enough to be kept if they were so unsourceable otherwise that nominal verification of the Juno nomination in the Juno Awards' own self-published database of its own nominees was the strongest source that was actually present anywhere in the entire article. But this isn't based on reliable sources; it's based almost entirely on unreliable and namecheck sources, not reliable source coverage about Jonathan Desbiens. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can do better than this, but this as written and sourced still ain't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[]
- Bearcat have you considered the Journal de Montreal article? The "largest-circulating newspaper in Quebec, and the highest-circulating French-language daily newspaper in North America".DanielFarad (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[]
  - WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources, not just one. That source is the reason I said this was almost entirely, rather than completely, based on unreliable and namecheck sources, but it's not enough to get him over GNG all by itself as the article's only substantive and non-garbage source. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment I brought AfD1,at a time when the article was extremely scanty and almost unsourced. there seem to be many more sources now, and as a non-expert, I wouldn't now have thought it clear enough to take by myself to AfD. Those who know more should decide. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete - I'm going to reiterate my earlier delete vote. There are not enough reliable sources to suggest sufficient notability. I know very little about him after reading the coverage that is there now. Were he more notable, there'd be more biographical info. Most of the coverage focuses on the subjects of his videos, but not him. There is a mention of an upcoming feature film, so perhaps this is WP:TOOSOON. The article also suffers from WP:OVERCITE, which I suppose is an unfortunate side effect of trying to pad the reference section for the deletion defense. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[]

keep The guy has worked with the biggest artists on the planet and gathered hundreds of millions of views on Youtube. He has received awards and nominations all around the world. He is cited by the most renowned magazines in the field (shots.net, Indiewire, Short of the week, i-D). Keep in mind that music video directors are not mainstream superstars. You will never have the kind of coverage you guys are asking for. I have been browsing through the Category:Canadian_music_video_directors trying to understand what more you guys would like to see here but that just doesn't exist. This is one of the most extensively sourced article.DanielFarad (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[]

This is not even close to being "one of the most extensively sourced article" — and no matter what notability claim a person may have in theory, he does not get to claim an exemption from our reliable sourcing requirements just because his field doesn't get the depth of media coverage that WP:GNG requires. One of the reasons we insist on reliable source coverage is that as an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, our articles are regularly edited to add information that's wrong or even inflammatory (e.g. allegations that the article subject committed a crime) — and without reliable sources, we have no other way to determine what's right or wrong. So we insist on verifiability in reliable sources in order to protect the article subject from the harm that having a Wikipedia article can cause, and if the required depth of reliable sources simply doesn't exist at all then a Wikipedia article doesn't get to exist either. Having a Wikipedia article is not an entitlement — the presence or absence of reliable source coverage is the be-all and end-all of whether a person qualifies to have a Wikipedia article or not, and a person can never accomplish anything that ever exempts him from that just because it's been asserted. Even a president of the United States would not get to have an article if he somehow managed to not get any media coverage for being president of the United States. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Take an honest look at Category:Canadian_music_video_directors. This article is easily on the top half of best sourced and referenced articles. Take a special look at Jamie_M._Dagg, Lyne_Charlebois, Glen_Hanson or Kevan_Funk for example. None of these articles meet the requirements you are invoking above and yet, you have created these articles yourself... What is going on here? DanielFarad (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[]

I'll take a shot at this. Three of the four are award winning directors with films that have been released. That's why I voted this one as WP:TOOSOON. The fourth, Glen Hanson, is poorly sourced and so I hatnoted it for needing more refs. If you want to challenge any articles you can nominate them for deletion, but based on film output the other three directors seem more notable for now. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Thanks for your answer TimTempleton. For the sake of completeness, here are 4 other articles I found in the same category that have been created by Bearcat and that do not meet his reference requirements: Andrew_MacNaughtan, Jeffrey_St._Jules, Jeth_Weinrich, Gabriel_Pelletier. Now, I'm not saying that these people aren't notable and I don't want to change the aim of this discussion. And I surely don't want to propose deletion for any of those. The current article may also very well be WP:TOOSOON like you're suggesting, although I would have thought that his award and nominations would be of some importance. My point is that, from what I understand from Bearcat posts, awards and nominations aren't enough to make someone notable. "The requirement is that media coverage exists about him" and "WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources, not just one". These 8 articles of his would fail that test. You guys are power contributors, and I admire you guys for that. You guys know all the codes, conditions, terms and stuff. You're impressive. But with all due respect, it is clearly a common practice for Bearcat to create stubs with too few and too week references, not meeting the requirements he's imposing here. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and clearly subjectivity is screaming here. How can a simple user like me understand? An article is being deleted on a 2 against 1 vote with such a subjectivity? DanielFarad (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[]

One of the most frustrating thing about Wikipedia is something called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In a nutshell, each article has to be judged on its own merits, and there are lots of lousy articles that should be off the site - people just haven't got enough time to clean them up. Standards are much higher now that there are +5M articles and so many editors. Editors try to create formal guidelines to help others determine notability, but sometimes there's a bit of instinct that comes from experience that's not obvious to newcomers. In this case, it's clear as you noted that the other articles don't have as many sources, but with the few I looked over, the fact that there are released films and notable awards in the limited sources that we can read makes their notability higher than what I'm seeing for Mr. Desbiens. Don't get discouraged - a career is a marathon, not a sprint. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[]

I still think this is very subjective. Instinct is also very subjective, and the reference argument invoked here is totally artificial. I have also been looking at tools.wmflabs.org/langviews/. This article has gathered more views this year than any of Bearcat articles listed above. In a +5M articles contingency plan, I don't see any reasons why this one should go first. For what it's worth, I will proudly stand by my original vote. And for the record, he is a music video director. He does not do films and he should be judged accordingly.DanielFarad (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Firstly, Funk, Dagg, Charlebois, St. Jules, Pelletier and MacNaughtan are all properly referenced to real reliable source coverage in real media — every single one of them cites multiple real reliable sources. So I don't know where you're getting the notion that none of them meet the standards I invoked above, because every single one of them most certainly does fully meet the standards I invoked above: real coverage in real reliable sources is present to support them. Sure, they could stand to have more sources added, just as any article always could — but they already have enough to cover off basic notability, and more sources would be just bonus material. We measure the quality of the sources when assessing whether an article is properly referenced, not the raw number of footnotes — an article can cite just one high-quality source such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and still be considered better referenced than an article that cites ten sources of low quality such as blogs or IMDb.

Weinrich, I'll grant, is problematic — that article was created a full decade ago, when we didn't insist on sourcing to the same degree that we do now because of all the hard lessons we've learned since then about what can happen if we don't insist on proper sourcing. And that's also an article that has had conflict of interest problems, because Weinrich himself has edited in the past to advertorialize it into his preferred PR version — so what you see now is in no way representative of the quality of my Wikipedia editing skills just because I was the page's original creator. But he's also repairable, because even if the article itself isn't adequate right now the depth of reliable source coverage about him needed to get it back up to scratch does exist out there in the real world. So he's still not comparable to a person who has virtually no reliable source coverage at all.

And secondly, Wikipedia does not measure notability by how many page views an article does or doesn't get — I could get a million page views for an article about me, if I stuck my name at the top of Beyoncé's article so people were clicking on it to find out more about why it was there, but that wouldn't make me notable in and of itself if I hadn't cleared WP:GNG for anything. We measure notability by whether the person has or has not been the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear GNG. Which St. Jules, Weinrich, Pelletier and MacNaughtan all have — but which you have yet to demonstrate that Desbiens has. And we don't give a flying fig how many views his work has on YouTube, either. YouTube is not a reliable source, and notability lives or dies on media coverage, not on how many people did or didn't click "like" on a social media platform — a person with no YouTube views is notable if he's gotten media coverage, and a person with a million YouTube views is not notable if he hasn't gotten media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Bearcat I don't agree with you. References are given to 3 newspaper articles talking about him (Journal de Montreal, La Presse & l'hebdo du St-Maurice) and according to reliable sources, journals and Mainstream newspapers are reliable sources. Now the required number is up to your personal feelings. As an example, for Jamie_M._Dagg, which you stand by, you gave 2 and these 2 references are absolutely not more solid or reliable than the 3 given here for Jodeb. Please, take an honest look at the references provided. DanielFarad (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not — opinions don't trump objective facts. This is the way notability works on Wikipedia: if you're going for "notable because he passes a subject-specific inclusion criterion, such as winning a notable film award", then one, two or three sources are enough to get there as long as they specifically verify the passage of said criterion. But if you're going for "passes WP:GNG just because media coverage exists", then it takes more than three sources to get there. Three pieces of media coverage exist about my mother's neighbour who once found a pig in her yard, and three pieces of media coverage exist about me — so that's not enough to constitute a GNG pass in and of itself. If one, two or all three of those articles actually verified anything about him that passed an automatic must-include criterion, like winning a Canadian Screen Award as Dagg did, then three newspaper articles would be enough coverage — but if you're going for "he's notable just because media coverage of him exists", then you need much closer to nine or ten pieces of media coverage about him to actually pass that hurdle. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

He can't win a Canadian Screen Award, he's a music video director. He won the Berlin Music Video Awards and has been nominated for 5 other awards. The Journal de Montreal article also cite both Berlin and Juno awards nomination. Are the Berlin Music Video Awards, Juno Awards, MTV Video Music Awards, Antville Music Video Awards and Much Music Video Awards not notable to you? They're the best in the field... What's the difference with your Canadian Screen Award for a video director?

Nobody said music videos had to (or could) win Canadian Screen Awards; I was addressing the CSAs in relation to why your comparison to Jamie Dagg didn't wash. And at any rate, firstly, there's a big difference between winning an award and merely being nominated for one — winning a CSA or a Juno automatically makes a person a topic we must include on just one legitimate source even if the article is still technically inadequate, while getting nominated for one makes a person a topic we can include if the sourcing is solid, but is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts them from having to pass GNG.

And as for the Berlin Music Video Awards and the Antville Music Video Awards, Wikipedia doesn't have an article about either of them and thus it's impossible for me to assess their notability or lack thereof. What determines whether an award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it or not is whether the media cover the granting of that award as news in its own right. It is not enough that the award gets glancingly mentioned as background information in an article that isn't about that, because self-promoting people can and do overplay non-notable awards in their PR bumf — the award win has to be sourced to news coverage about the awards themselves to count as a notability-conferring award win. (For another comparison — again, for similarity's sake and not because it has a direct bearing on Jonathan Desbiens per se — there's a reason why there is not a single redlinked writer in Giller Prize, but tons of redlinked writers in ReLit Awards: the awards aren't equivalent in how much media coverage they actually get. The Gillers are highly sourceable as a thing the media cover like kudzu, so even a nomination counts as a notability claim for a writer, while the ReLits get such spotty coverage that sometimes we can't even properly source the winners anywhere but the ReLits' own self-published website.)

So find me a source which is about Jonathan Desbiens winning the "Berlin Music Video Award", whatever that is, and we'll be getting somewhere — but it's not enough that an article about something else entirely just says he won an award, if we haven't actually established that said award is actually a notable one by virtue of coverage that's specifically about him winning Berlin Music Video Award. And same for the Junos and MMVAs: source them better, and we'll be cooking — but merely being nominated for either of those awards is not an automatic freebie that exempts Desbiens from still having to be sourced better than this. The rest of the article is still refbombed with sources that aren't aiding notability at all, which were added out of a mistaken perception that we assessed footnotes by their quantity rather than their quality — and many of them still need to be replaced accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

FWIW, Bearcat's comments are exactly how I see notability. One decent source that says something was done that is notable and that few others have done, is sufficient to judge notability. If the item being mentioned is not that notable, no number of middling sources reporting on that item will move the needle. And if an award can't pass a notability discussion to get its own article, it's not considered notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Godin, Sandra (2017-02-19). "Un autre réalisateur québécois fait sa marque" [Another Quebec director makes his mark]. Le Journal de Montréal (in French). Archived from the original on 2017-10-23. Retrieved 2017-10-23.
  From Google Translate:
  But another Quebec director is making his way onto the world stage. After making a name for himself three years ago for the production of Imagine Dragons' video clip I Bet My Life , Jonathan Desbiens has just won a Juno nomination for the short film he directed for Skrillex, the star of electronic music.
  The road map of Jonathan Desbiens aka Jodeb, who lives in Bécancour, is long. It includes video clips for Cypress Hill, Marie-Mai, Imagine Dragons and three for DJ Zedd. The one for the song Clarity has 189 million views on YouTube, and for Beautiful Now , 91 million.
  This fall, he shot an ad for Europe's largest organic milk company, Arla, which will be broadcast in the coming days across the continent. The director also shot a short film with Karine Vanasse, for a project that must remain secret for some time.
  Jonathan Desbiens has just signed with Prettybird, one of the largest production companies in the world, which will bring him other major projects. Prettybird has just won the Grammy for best music video with Formation , Beyoncé. They have produced recent clips of Coldplay, Drake, and the Rolling Stones (with Kristen Stewart).
2. Montminy, Marie-Josée (2010-09-18). "La passion de l'image, pour Jonathan Desbiens" [Passion for the image, for Jonathan Desbiens]. Le Nouvelliste (in French). Archived from the original on 2017-10-23. Retrieved 2017-10-23.
  From Google Translate:
  This weekend, Jonathan Desbiens is in Toronto to shoot a music video for the American group Deftones. He had made a round trip Thursday for locating places, between filming and editing a car advertisement in Montreal. Jonathan Desbiens is 24 years old and traces his way in the world of the realization.
  ...
  Barely a year after graduating from UQTR with a degree in Fine Arts, Jonathan Desbiens can include in his resume the production of commercials for Ford, Bell and the Régie du Cinéma, as well as the signing of two clips for The New Cities and the duo of Marie-Mai and David Usher. Among others.
  But when one mentions his bachelor's degree in plastic arts, it is not to name the training that taught him his craft in its technical aspects. He chose it more to draw theoretical references and depth that he could integrate into his approach to the image.
  Same principle with his college diploma in Communications, Arts and Literature at Laflèche College.
  ...
  After his refusal at Concordia, he bought the camera with which he began making clips for bands in the area, including CloseDown and Aksys. Subsequently, he also directed the first two New Cities clips ( Dead End Countdown and Leaders of the Misled ) - and devoted his last Monday to the shooting of the fourth group.
3. Bois, Anne-Sophie (2014-12-30). "Jonathan Desbiens, l'homme derrière de nombreux vidéoclips" [Jonathan Desbiens, the man behind many video clips]. L'Écho de Trois-Rivières (in French). Archived from the original on 2017-10-23. Retrieved 2017-10-23.
  As noted at Media in Trois-Rivières, L'Écho de Trois-Rivières is a print source.
  From Google Translate:
  Since the release of Imagine Dragons' last music video, I Bet My Life , on December 12, the whole of Quebec is talking about its director Jodeb aka Jonathan Desbiens. However, this Shawiniganais has been producing for many years in both Canada and the United States.
  ...
  For this project, Jonathan Desbiens surrounded himself with a few people to complete this project, he who had only three weeks for editing.
  ...
  So far, the music video for the song Radioactive by Imagine Dragons, posted on December 10, 2012, has been viewed more than 271,415,231 times on the YouTube platform.
  As of December 29th, the video of I Bet My Life has been viewed more than 4,259,982 times.
4. Beronilla, Pola (2015-07-24). "Jodeb: Double Exposure". Status Magazine. Archived from the original on 2017-10-23. Retrieved 2017-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Canadian filmmaker Jonathan Desbiens a.k.a. JODEB journeys across the universe to tell four-minute stories of surreality through his music videos. Whether it’s reloading dragons and Game of Thrones-esque action sequences with Sebastian Ingrosso and Tommy Trash or creating worlds grounded neither in fantasy nor reality with Dane DeHaan and Imagine Dragons, people might call his videos too ambitious–but maybe he’s just a zealous guy.
  “I got turned down by the Mel Hoppenheim School of Cinema at Concordia University in Montreal, but I decided to keep on working on my craft while studying fine arts instead. I was a filmmaker without really believing it or understanding it,” recalls Jonathan Desbiens, who also shoots under the name Jodeb. “Paradoxically, now that I’m acknowledged as a filmmaker, I try to find that same spirit I had back then when I was doing it for naive reasons.” Hailing from Shawinigan Falls, Quebec, the film director got his break at 19 years young, shooting a music video for Closedown, an electro-hardcore band from his hometown. Though he didn’t make the director’s cut at university, his first serious attempt at filmmaking got on heavy rotation at MuchMusic in Canada, which eventually reeled in a nomination at Much Music Video Awards.
  Since first hitting that record button, he has been on an honorable roll, filling his portfolio with giants from every other genre. Collecting music videos from the likes of hip-hop veterans Cypress Hill, alt-metalheads Deftones, R&B songstress Tinashe, and Harelem-bred rapper A$AP Rocky, Jodeb has come a long way since his first reel experience. “I just turned 29 last month, and that video actually happened when I was 19, so it’s already been ten years,” he recalls.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jonathan Desbiens to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the newly presented sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment - Thanks Cunard for finding more sources. They flush his biography out a little bit better, but there's still not enough mainstream media coverage to hit my threshold for notability. I like to see 8-9 reliable sources, including a few in-depth pieces mixed in to build a decent narrative. The ones there and the ones you found are somewhat light in biographical content. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

I don't consider the sources to be "somewhat light in biographical content". Here is what the sources tell readers about Jonathan Desbiens:
He graduated from Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières with a fine arts degree.
He produced advertisements for Ford, Bell and the Régie du Cinéma.
He directed two videos for The New Cities band, "Dead End Countdown" and "Leaders of the Misled".
He worked on clips for the duo of Marie-Mai and David Usher.
He received a degree in "Communication, Arts and Literature" from Collège Laflèche.
He was turned down from Concordia University's Mel Hoppenheim School of Cinema in Montreal.
He produced Imagine Dragons' video clip I Bet My Life.
He won a Juno nomination for the short film he directed for Skrillex.
He is from Shawinigan Falls, Quebec.
He lives in Bécancour, Quebec.
He worked on three videos for Zedd, including the song "Clarity" (189 million views on YouTube) and "Beautiful Now" (91 million views on YouTube).
He joined the production company Prettybird.
He works under the name Jodeb.
He has made videos for hip-hop veterans Cypress Hill, alt-metalheads Deftones, R&B songstress Tinashe, and Harelem-bred rapper A$AP Rocky.
I consider this to be enough material about the subject to justify retention.
Cunard (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep Cunard's sources are enough to qualify the subject on notability (hats off to him, as always). Contrary to what is mentioned above, one doesn't necessarily require mainstream media sources to prove notability; one requires reliable sources – and all sources provided by Cunard seem reliable. WP:BASIC applies here quite appropriately. This Afd should be closed at this point. Lourdes 15:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep. Per Cunard's reliable sources. While a particular editor is within their rights to prefer to see 8 or 9 sources, that's not required by policy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment; as it stands right now it consists of 1 (one) sentence and then a list of stuff. It's not an article. Cunard's information is compelling, but I'm not about to lean one way or the other until it's moulded into an article that tells people about the subject. PK T(alk) 16:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With few exceptions, both sides' arguments are poor; there is little analysis of the sources. A renomination after some time might help. Sandstein 18:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Magali Febles[edit]

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

Has 1 solid reference, but the rest is web ephemera. Notability-tagged since 2010. Questionable claim for notability, though there seems to be plenty of web presence. Thought it time for community to weigh-in. Agricola44 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Strong keep There is sufficient third party news coverage of her [1] and besides she was the director of not only one, but three Miss Universe national organizations, which is a rare feat in itself.Antonio el Pisca Martin (orale) 11:41, 18 October, 2017 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.google.com/search?q=Magali+Febles&rlz=1C1PRFE_enUS694US694&oq=Magali+Febles&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.10613j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Yes, I saw the numberous YouTube/Instagram/Twitter/FaceBook hits too. The question is whether there is anything else. Agricola44 (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Have you seen the Primera Hora (Puerto Rico) and several Dominican Republic leading newspaper articles about her?Antonio el Rico Rico Martin (loser's talk) 09:44, 19 October, 2017 (UTC)
If you are unsure yourself, why did you even nominate her? You do need to dive into a topic before a nomination. Not just nominate for any case and ask others questions. gidonb (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[]

You seem to be addressing the editor who created the article. Agricola44 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Speedy keep. Easily meets the WP:GNG. Should not have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[]

It is completely appropriate to have the community adjudicate an article that has been notability tagged since 2010. I will be glad to withdraw this AfD if you can attach any convincing evidence to your flippant "easily meets GNG" assertion. Agricola44 (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Been there, done that with others and it appeared to be a quickly moving target. I do not know how it will be with you but Febles does not interest me enough to make an extensive mapping and then argue each item. The above is the conclusion of my unbiased analysis and I stand behind every word and letter I wrote. I invite each and everyone here to look in depth into the online references themselves. gidonb (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[]

You stand behind every word you wrote about notability from your unbiased analysis on this particular article, which does not sufficiently interest you to actually analyze the sources, so you invite other people to do this for you. Do I have that about right? Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Nope. It interested me enough to read through the online sources and provide a well considered opinion. It does not interest me enough to go into lengthy discussions, as the one you invite me to hold. Hence I invite everyone to form his or her own educated conclusions based on the sources that are out there, just as I did. gidonb (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Just to make sure we're looking at the same sources: [1] As a brief bio in a book, I agree this one is legit, [2] is a website, but the link is broken, [3] is a private blog, and [4] is another broken web-link. Are these the sources upon which you found your well considered opinion? Some searching turns up peripheral hits in, for example, Primera Hora, but nothing very convincing. So, I guess I'm still at a genuine loss as to what these sources to which you refer to actually are. Could you kindly elaborate?...because it may change several people's minds here, including mine. Agricola44 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[]

I think you are trying to hold onto the sources in the article. Sources that are available through Google News should be considered to decide if Febles is notable. Perhaps you failed to do this? gidonb (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[]

As I just said: Some searching turns up peripheral hits in, for example, Primera Hora, but nothing very convincing, so I ask again for the n-th time if you would kindly elaborate on the sources to which you have been cryptically referring. It would save us all a lot of time if you would just list a few links. We could all then just have a look. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

See my earlier comments. gidonb (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[]

What I see is another refusal to share sources you claim to have with the panelists here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete lack of indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

It would be nice if those who are claiming there is plenty of coverage would provide actual evidence of that coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]
- With so much pressure saying keep is becoming a day job while saying delete or just shrugging is the easy way out. This is how WP loses many notable articles. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable businessperson. Sources are not WP:SIGCOV; just passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Not notable enough to have an article for the subject.---Richie Campbell (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep - sufficient third party sources to comply with WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Might you elaborate? Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment. This is an odd discussion. The "keeps" are mostly flippant claims that GNG is satisfied. I've asked gidonb to elaborate, but to no avail. I've also asked if BabbaQ could elaborate. I've described a number of serious problems casting doubt on the notability of this individual and it seems to me that there is some burden (yet to be met, IMO) for the "keeps" to defend their position with more than just playing the GNG card. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Vijay K Chopra llc[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: No reliable sources. FailsWP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kagundu Talk To Me 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kagundu Talk To Me 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kagundu Talk To Me 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Kagundu Talk To Me 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete a promotional article with no claim of notability and nothing found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete - a multinational company based on home inspections? Rhadow (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete this spam, Draft:Vijay K Chopra LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) too. – Athaenara ✉ 06:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete To answer Rhadow: more like a US company with Information technology outsourcing to India than "multinational". But still WP:NOTYET. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was merge to Herston, Queensland. Selectively. Sandstein 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Herston Quarter[edit]

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

This is a real estate development project that has been flagged for WP:NGEO for two months. While there are some secondary references, they are mainly from the architectural press, or local media behind a paywall making them impossible to verify. While the article was created by a WP:SPA in good faith, it should be noted that User:Elliot Duff seems to be involved with the local residents group [13] which may explain some of the political bias in the lead. At best, this article needs a complete rewrite, but I'm loathe to do anything other than a half-assed job if its going to fail AfD anyway. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment Having come from Brisbane myself and having a general familiarity with the area, I can say that this is almost certainly going to have political interest, but I do not think that the article has any hard POV at this time. Rather than the soft possible OUTING above, it might have been better to approach the author with COI advice on their talk page? Aoziwe (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment, from the first couple of pages of a gsearch under "Herston Quarter brisbane" brings up some stuff, not behind paywalls:)), from The Courier-Mail - "State Government releases plans for the Herston Quarter project", The Australian - "Australian Unity opts for Watpac for Herston Quarter project", ArchitectureAu - "Hassell-masterplanned $1.1b health precinct in Brisbane underway", so lots out there about this precint. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep I think there is enough WP:NEXIST to demonstrate notabilty. Certainly it is more than a single event or news, with ongoing IRS over a number of years and is likely to go on for some time, with interest across multimedia generally, industry, government, history buffs, and the public. I have tweaked some sections, but yes it does need a bit of work but that is not grounds for deletion - it is not WP:TNT. Aoziwe (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete, it does exist, but basically all the coverage here is purely WP:ROUTINE stuff. Show me a major property development in Brisbane these days that doesn´t get objections of the same form as this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC).[]

the 3 sources i listed above do not mention any "objections" (may or may not be "routine", a subjective term), btw the precint includes a number of heritage-listed buildings, already in wp, here and here. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete not enough coverage to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Speedy Delete. G11. This is not an encyclopedia article. It's a promo brochure. Even IF found sources above are good this needs TNT. Contrary to claim made when removing a speedy tag, a Keep !vote here does not make G11 inapplicable. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Merge to Herston, Queensland. Looking back from 2030, we would look at this article and wonder why it is not just part of the article about the suburb it is in. At the moment, the suburb article does not appear to have anything about the redevelopment, which seems odd for a major (re-)development. This content also needs a major cleanup to remove the inline external links, standardise the citation format and write paragraphs instead of bullet lists. the core of the content appears notable enough for inclusion somewhere, but it appears unlikely that Herston Quarter will be created a new suburb requiring separation of the content along exactly the current article boundary, so I see no need to retain a separate article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Merge to Herston, Queensland, as ScottDavis well details why. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Response Thanks, yes I obviously do some advice - this is my first page, and I have tried to make the page as objective as possible. But I am confused by the comment about political bias. Could someone point me to the text that reflects the political bias? Is the page, for or against the development? As to the issue of the media pages being behind a pay wall - this was not the case when I created the page, so I will try and find a solution. As to inline references, I will fix this up ASAP. As to the issue of not enough coverage, this is just the start. The development plans have yet to be approved. The Herston Quarter development will last at least 10 years, and as information comes to hand, I (or others) can publish. As to the issue of merge, then someone could equally argue that it should be merged with the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital. And can someone explain what G11 refers to? Elliot Duff (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment Having a closer look at some of these arguments (in particular about the merge), I believe I made a mistake with the category (sorry this is new to me). It appears that I should have made the category: Proposed buildings and structures in Australia. This is more aligned with the intended content of the page (it is about proposed buildings and structures), and would align with the Queen's Wharf, Brisbane development. 13:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliot Duff (talk • contribs)

Selective Merge to Herston, Queensland, which presently has no mention of the The Herston Quarter. A functional outcome per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as a G4 recreation of an article deleted at AFD. The text is virtually the same as the deleted version, and none of the original concerns were addressed. The consensus at the first AFD was that an obituary and an imdb link were not sufficient to establish notability, and nothing further has been added here to change that. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria Lloyd. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Gloria Lloyd[edit]

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

NN "actress," her career consisted of a bit part in a single film. Child of two notable actors, but there being two of them, WP:XY shoots down a redirect. Fails NACTOR by a landslide, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Previous version AfDed in 2015. Ravenswing 11:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment. I've moved this nomination from the original AFD and completed the other steps. No comment on the merits, except that the text of the article when it was reposted is a close enough match to the deleted version that I'm surprised this didn't go to speedy deletion as a G4. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Reply: @Ultraexactzz: - Thank you for the correction; that being said, not being an admin, I've no ability to compare this with the previously deleted version, but I've certainly no objection if you elect to speedy it. Ravenswing 13:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

You're right. I'm treating this like a G4 nom and closing accordingly. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Nathan Christoffersen[edit]

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

Notability, subject appears to have been mentioned in two articles in the The Advocate in 2006 only. Can't find any other significant coverage. Freikorp (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Strong delete This is one of the most POV-pushing, unbalanced articles I could imagine, plauged by one sided sourcing and unsourced accusations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to Intercompany crossover#1999. Feel free to merge sourced material as appropriate. czar 06:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Superman/Fantastic Four[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Been uncited for months with no sign of improvement, is largely WP:ALLPLOT, and a quick google reveals no reliable secondary sources, beyond a few lines from a Dan Jurgens Interview. Killer Moff (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Nothing but a plot summary. No evidence presented of notability nor can such be found. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Intercompany crossover. Plausible redirect, can be mentioned at the target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Merge the lede to the appropriate year section at Intercompany crossover. Intercompany crossovers as a whole are notable, individual ones not notable should be merged to a parent list. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

List of Formula One driver numbers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is little more than WP:TRIVIA. The only real audience for this article is budding Formula One drivers wondering which numbers are available for use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

It's not very useful in its current shape, nor does it contain much more than trivia right now. This would be more valuable if it listed all the historic driver/number combinations since 2014 when the new system went into effect. Having said this, I'm leaning towards a "delete" in its current form unless it gets improved dramatically and the notability of the subject in its own right gets established. cherkash (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]
- Comment: That would mean listing every single driver who has ever competed and the numbers they used. Bearing in mind that the early days of the sport did not have assigned numbers, that's a massive undertaking with little encyclopaedic value. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]
  - "listed all of the historic driver/number combinations since 2014", so any driver since 2014 should be on this list, not before, read the the comment again2604:2D80:800A:862D:482D:64A6:AB6:8C5 (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)— 2604:2D80:800A:862D:482D:64A6:AB6:8C5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
    - And that is just arbitrarily listing a specific set of numbers, while completely ignoring the previous 67 years of Formula One racing.T v x1 12:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep This is a list of all career driver/number combinations since 2014, and the table will have more drivers as the years go on, with more shared numbers. This is not a list of CURRENT combinations. In a decade or so, there would be 2-3 drivers sharing many numbers, because at the time of writing, only Kobayashi, Vergne, Sutil, Chilton, and Stevens have been gone for long enough that someone else could have taken their number2604:2D80:800A:862D:482D:64A6:AB6:8C5 (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)— 2604:2D80:800A:862D:482D:64A6:AB6:8C5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
- Comment: but what is the encyclopaedic value of the article? How does it satisfy the general notability guidelines? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[]
  - These are the selected numbers permanently attached to a driver for their entire career. Once chosen, the permanent numbers cannot be changed except for the champion's number(1), and the unlikely event that a driver returns to F1 while another driver has taken their number. It meets the guidelines because the numbers are mentioned by multiple media outlets when referring to a specific car(in addition to the the name). Your point regarding that it is only for budding drivers wondering what numbers are available for use is not true, it may seem that way with the little of names at the current time, but drivers having the same number for their careers will be listed with the same number, not just active drivers.2604:2D80:800A:862D:482D:64A6:AB6:8C5 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)— 2604:2D80:800A:862D:482D:64A6:AB6:8C5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
    - That doesn't change the fact this is duplication. All the numbers, and when they were used, are already listed in the season articles.T v x1 12:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Strong delete I have nominated this myself before and still have the opinion that this should deleted. This is WP:FANCRUFT. It's trivial information with little encyclopedic value in a stand-alone list. Everything we need to tell our readers about F1 drivers' numbers is already presented in the season articles. While numbers are assigned for a considerable time, they are not permanent. In a couple of years all numbers will have been used by multiple drivers. Making this list more and more pointless. If a particular driver has a particularly notable reason for picking a particular number that can be explained in their biography.T v x1 11:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep Nothing has changed since the last nomination, which had clear consensus to keep. Repeatedly renominating the same article for AfD is unhelpful. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Firstly, you clearly did not look at its version prior to the previous AFD and the current version. The article has been completely overhauled since and as a result has become even less useful. Secondly, there is no guideline or policy regulating the number of times an article or list can be AFD'd. Thirdly, the existence of a previous AFD is not in itself a justification to keep an article. Consensus can change. To sum up, you have not provided any guideline or policy-based argument to keep this list.T v x1 11:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

The second AfD had a clear consensus to keep. So we don't need a third AfD discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep I'd love to state the obvious; if it has survived not one, but two previous AFD's, voicing Joseph2302 what is the salient need of this particular one?? seeing as the article hasn't been significantly developed since the last Afd which had a 'Keep' as consensus.Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Same flaws as Joseph2302's arguments. You haven't looked at the history either as a result of which you missed the complete overhaul as well. And I'd say that if a list is repeatedly nominated by different users that is a strong indication their are a significant number of people who think it should be deleted. The first one even ended in "no consensus". Same summary here: no guideline or policy-based argument to keep this list provided.T v x1 11:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep I'm for keeping as well. I do have a look at this list once in awhile and I don't think there is other place that aggregates that.danfalleh (talk) 17:54, 03 November 2017 (UTC)[]

We don't keep a list merely because someone likes it. Everything you need to know about the numbers can be found in the season articles.T v x1 11:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep I think this article provides a good reference for driver numbers, it's not the most important information but having it is definitely useful. It doesn't do any harm keeping it. MetalDylan (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep While the article/list could be improved, that is no reason for deletion. Article starts with prose so its certainly not just listcruff. Seems to be a notable topic and article is relatively well referenced. Mattlore (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Elphel[edit]

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

Fails GNG; almost all refs are SPS; other sources are passing mentions. Did a BEFORE and all there are low quality blogs. Article has been edited extensively by eponymous account. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

It is a notable Open Source Hardware company IMHO, in the sense that they are known by many practitioners of OSHW like myself. I remember seeing a presentation by their CEO in Geneva in 2014. They are listed in a list of companies/projects using the CERN Open Hardware Licence, maintained by CERN. --Pam pam orellut (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC) — Pam pam orellut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []

I created this article, due the importance of this Open Source Hardware company, the creators of the Elphel camera, a camera that is Open Source which isn't a common practice amongst the photography/videography hardware makers, I ask not to remove this article, as I find very important to allow more people to know about the open source cameras, it's important for me to allow the people to consider openness when it comes to choose a camera, and this article helps it to be possible. I'm not and I've never been affiliated to the company, but back in time I fount It unjustifiable to not have a article on Wikipedia about those open cameras, I've been working on Elphel cameras software outside the company out of the importance it has to me this openness: [1] albeit very incomplete it is a first step from me, and the other pals we where working, our intend was to open up the possibilities for cinematographers in the future. I also worked within the Apertus community back when they where working with Elphel cameras (today no longer in their path) ^[2] so to me this article function is still very useful, and I ask not to remove it, and in case of a technicality being the problem, I ask what could be changed in the article to not be suitable to be removed as I'm looking forward to amend whatever from the article. --Biel Bestué (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[]

That is all ideological and has nothing to do with how we think about whether to delete or keep an article. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[]

well I proposed I could give a hand on changing whatever it was needed to be amended in order to keep the article, and let me ask you again, what could I change in order to maintain the article?

besides, my reasons can be ideological, it's my freedom on why I consider an article important and why I made it, isn't the whole Wikipedia concept about the freedom of the individual to know more in an efficient way? and yet isn't this the same ideology stance as mine? all my articles I've made where made following this ideology (specially the ones about Anarchist cinema production companies in Barcelona in the 30's), then why this article is not wanted and those are kept?

I also introduced my ideology in my previous statement because when it comes to OSHW companies or the OSHW "way of life" there is always a component of ideology in their endeavours, in fact defending the freedom of the end-user is clearly a ideological stance.

But do you consider, maybe, that this article is about them making an advert out of it? because I don't find this article any propagandistic for the Elphel company to gain money, as it only states their existence, the cameras they produce, and even there is a reference to Axiom which isn't made by them.

So let me reiterate, as a friendly gesture, what should I change so Wikipedia keeps the article? Biel Bestué (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[]

I also consider the work that this company has done: 1) first hardware Theora implementation, 2) first open camera effort (before CHDK, Magic Lantern, and reason for the starting the Apertus project) 3) their radical different approach in camera calibration for stereogrammetry more than enough reason to justify both a company page. I would even say that Filippov as scientist would deserve a personal entry. Like Biel, would want to support this article with writing effort. --Skinkie (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Elphel is a peer recognized and part of Open Source Hardware Movement history. This is not enough as you said, so here are a few more references about the company. Elphel is cited in books [3]^[4], magazines ^[5] and over 150 papers on Google Scholar ^[6], many of those are peer reviewed ^[7] ^[8]. Elphel was the origin of [14].

Elphel has received distinct covergage on the most relevant news site in the area, like Imaging Sensor World ^[9], Linux Devices ^[10], Make Magazine, Xilinx's Xcell journal ^[11] and others ^[12]. The article could be improved to cite those sources and make sure it records the participation of the company in the social and cultural development of open source hardware.

References

Phsilva (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Please read WP:Golden rule. Some of those refs are in the article. Others like github are not independent reliable sources with significant discussion. A paper using the camera, is not a source about the camera. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Dear Jytdog, as a founder of Elphel I am not discussing the company, but I have a concern related to the process. Can you please confirm that there is no CoI here, that you have found Elphel page on your own (using some software tool, or just manually scanning all company pages from A and by now reached E), not with the help of some anonymous tipster who may have used your great service to Wikipedia without disclosing possible CoI? Andrey Filippov 166.70.117.129 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Non-notable company which fails primary notability requirements for inclusion into the encylopedia. All this WP:BLUDGEON is getting very irritating and furthermore @Jytdog i think you should open a sockpuppetry investigation. i suspect suckpuppetry at play here.Celestina007 (talk) 01:19, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Dear Jytdog, please excuse me my "spamming" and don't take it personal - I'm not accusing you of any wrongdoing, like PE. And I'm not advocating for my company - nomination for deletion does have negative impact on any business, but it will fade soon after page will be deleted. The number of users coming to the company web site from Wikipedia is negligible compared to those coming from the search engines and more specific sites discussing related areas. Once we had referrer block on the company web site for links from Wikipedia to make sure we are not using it for promotion - it is easy to restore it. But I believe I have a legitimate concern related to manipulation of the Wikipedia editors in general, especially with such predictable behavior. Google search knows you as a "notorious Wikipedia editor" and while you are proud of 100K+ edits, amount of the pages deleted by you should also great. And when it comes to large numbers, statistics kicks in and you are very predictable. Let's assume you are 100% politically neutral concerning American political parties. And some organization (e.g. Putin's Internet trolls :-) ) tips you off with small Wikipedia pages that are pro-democratic. And you honestly, believing in the good for Wikipedia and humanity as a whole nominate those pages for deletion. Don't you think it would make Wikipedia biased? My insider info does not provide a prouf, but gives me a strong evidence that this time you acted within 24 hours after receiving the tip, as a well-oiled machine.Please excuse me and do not take it as an insult. Andrey Filippov 166.70.117.129 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC) (yes, it is one of my company's IPs for the last 10 years)[]

I have no connections, financial or otherwise, with any camera companies or any organization that might compete with Elphel. There is no "russian inteference" tipsterism going on. I am not sure how i stumbled across this hijacked Wikipedia page - I was looking at some digital imaging stuff around that time and it happened then. That was days and many, many WP pages ago.

The page remains abysmal and has gotten worse as this AfD has unfolded - someone has even added another WP article as a "source" which is invalid per WP:USERGENERATED. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Thank you Jytdog, I'll take your word that it was your free will and not an anonymous tipster. Please be assured that I never accused you with any connection - financial or otherwise to some "competitors" and could not do it even theoretically. "Anonymous" implies absence of connection. Andrey Filippov 166.70.117.129 (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep - Elphel developed the cameras used for Google Street View, per this Forbes article [15]. The Forbes article and the fact it developed cameras used by Google (plus coverage in Make Magazine [16] makes them notable to me. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete as the claims do not really prove that this is a notable company. Furthermore, the citations used are not exactly the high quality references I expect, which makes me sceptical of some of the claims. Some observations
Ref #1 (Forbes) is a contributor article which actually quotes from Wikipedia. See the sentence "...I didn't find the Elphel name mentioned in any recent Google posts, however, I did find them mentioned on other sites including Wikipedia..." An article which uses Wikipedia as a source of claims is not useful for proving notability.

Nasa.gov seems to have no mention of Elphel that I could find. I found a mention on Nasaspaceflight.com, but that is not an official website.

When I evaluate OpenSouceProjects, I look for not only sources discussing them but also how widespread is the use of the project among the community. There is a google blog [17] which does mention that Google used Elphel cameras in 2007 for book scanning and street view. (Which they later replaced with their own design if I am not wrong) However, apart from this, there is little else which I see as a claim to notability.

Google Scholar lists papers, but the top 3 are by the founder of the company himself. While some of the other papers mention Elphel, there is hardly anything by the way of a description. I cannot find mentions in Tier-1 Graphics/Vision conference papers. To me this strikes as a niche scientific product, used in certain experiments but perhaps not widely used.
I will go for a delete here. As the only claim to notability is that it was once used in Google Street View, I believe a mention in the Google Street View article is warranted. But I don't see enough for it to have a separate article.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Hello DreamLinker, as you mentioned GSV article, may I request related Wikipedia edits? I do not have (and may not have as an interested party) any objections to deleting Elphel page, but red links in Google Books and Google Street View pages may become misleading to Wikipedia readers as there will be no explanations available through the links. What is important for me is that readers know that over 30 billion available online images (through Google Books) of the most valuable books (what Google scanned in the first 8 years of the project are made with free hardware designed cameras, running free software under GNU GPL, not just some no-name Elphel proprietary company. Similar for GSV, but the GSV imagery will eventually be replaced by more recent shots, while the valuable book pages will remain there for a while. It may leave the wrong impression that Open Hardware is only something like blinking LEDs or nice (I love and use them), but still simple designs like Arduino. So my request is to change references to Elphel to references to free hardware designed cameras running GNU GPL software in both Google Books and Google Street View pages (perfectly OK not to mention our company name). Andrey Filippov, founder of Elphel 166.70.153.65 (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep - Passes GNG. Leading firm in the manufacture of open-source panoramic cameras. In addition to the Forbes coverage above, see THIS COVERAGE in the book The Frankencamera: Building a Programmable Camera for Computational Photography,by Eino-Ville Aleksi Talvala. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

I guess you can call somebody's dissertation a "book" and get all-caps excited about it if you like, but in my book somebody using X to build Y as part of an academic project is not exactly notable. And yes the use in the Google Street Views camera has been mentined as the only real claim to N. That's it. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

The Try Guys[edit]

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

Article about a web series, referenced entirely to its own primary source profiles on the websites of the platforms that carry it, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about it in any unaffiliated sources shown at all. As always, every bit of social media content does not automatically qualify for an article just because its own self-published web presence verifies that it exists: media that it's not affiliated with need to pay it attention to establish that it's notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment: here are two sources about "The Try Guys": The Highlander, Vanity Fair. AdA&D 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

"The Highlander" is a university student newspaper, not a general-market daily, so it doesn't assist in demonstrating notability at all — and the Vanity Fair piece is just a blurb in a "many blurbs about many things" column, not a source that's substantively about the Try Guys. So, no, neither of them help. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep - Independent sources appears to give notability, and general good level of coverage. Nominated for award and considerable quantity of subscribers. I quickly added some of the references...however, page is still stub-level in my opinion and should be expanded.Thsmi002 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Pais Movement[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This is the only thing which resembles non-copy-pasted, unaffiliated coverage and still falls short of demonstrating notability. DrStrauss talk 18:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Tricky to search because searches on "Pais movement" produce so many hits on: Alianza Pais Movement, a very common translation of the PAIS Alliance, a socialist political party in Ecuador. Since it was founded a while ago (and I guessed it might have been more active back then) I tried Proquest News archive searching "Pais Movement" + Christian, but got nothing. So I tried "Pais Movement" + Texas, and "Pais Movement" + Manchester, still nothing. Nest I tried "pais movement" + Paul Clayton Gibbs, then "pais movement" + Paul Gibbs. Still nothing. Finally I searched Pais + Paul + gibbs and hit paydirt. Well, a modest amount of paydirt:
A global education: Christian group exposes youths to other cultures, Johnson, Petrina J. Longview News - Journal; Longview, Tex. [Longview, Tex]03 Sep 2006: n/a. "Paul Gibbs in Manchester, England. "There was a need in schools for role

...2000 when Gibbs spoke at the Longview church, and she heard PAIS had a touring" Sadly, only that snippet view was available, no link to full article.

Spreading the faith at area schools, Levy, Abe. San Antonio Express-News; San Antonio, Tex. [San Antonio, Tex]13 June 2010. No link to full article, only this snippet: ","They talk about things with the kids that aren't part of our regular curriculum - things about morals and character," said John P. Kelly, superintendent of the Boerne school district. "The campuses were more serene and peaceful after Pais had been there a while." Pais , pronounced "pays," is an ancient Greek word meaning "child or servant of the king," and its motto is "missionaries making missionaries." Brandeis High School denied access on campus. Vice Principal Jerry Woods said Pais had no track record at any Northside ISD high school and the Pais representative he met with last year was "evasive" and "vague" about his intentions."
Teachers wary of evangelical volunteers working in schools, Steffenhagen, Janet. Alaska Highway News; Fort St. John, B.C. [Fort St. John, B.C]10 Feb 2012: A.11. Full article is available behind paywall, the first paragraph gives a pretty good summary of what it says: "A global evangelical group that strives to place young missionaries in public schools has sparked concern among some Vancouver teachers who fear Pais Project volunteers in their school are trying to convert students." Article ran originally in the Vancouver Sun, 2 Feb. 2012, title Evangelical group targets schools; Teachers concerned that young missionary volunteers helping out with aim of converting students
Volunteers aren't welcome back at school, superintendent says; Christian group breached regulations by contacting teachers directlyGyarmati, Sandor. Delta Optimist; Delta, B.C. [Delta, B.C]24 Feb 2012: 5. Summing up I am leaning keep, but article would need to have the hot air let out and be reduced to what can be reliably sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep -- This claims to be an international movement. Even if it had one representative in each country, its coverage would probably be enough for one article. It looks as if it is an evangelistic organisation, which is encountering difficulties with secularists; but I do not know, having not heard of it before. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep Perhaps not endowned with WP:SIGCOV but the movement is notable and possess global recognition. The article is not the best, but definetely far better than many problematic articles left unbothered in the main-space.Celestina007 (talk) 01:39, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Nicola Stilo[edit]

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

BLP supported by a single trivial mentioned in a reference. Notability tagged for > 6 years, orphan, etc. Seems to assert notability as being inherited by virtue of having worked with Chet Baker. Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep. Playing with lots of other musicians is normal for highly regarded jazz musicians. Some reasonable coverage found: [18], [19], [20]. --Michig (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Yes, the theme of the article is certainly "playing with lots of other musicians" (actually really just one), but is that not to claim that notability is inherited? As far as refs, I think the JazzTimes one is helpful. However, the first one is a web page and the third is already in the article, though it's a fairly trivial mention. Agricola44 (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. Doesn't satisfy GNG or BIO. None of Michig's sources really say much about Stilo. If Chet Baker Quartet existed, this could redirect there, but it doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Weak keep: The subject has recorded both in Chet Baker's group and in albums of duets with Toninho Horta as well as albums with his own group. While I would prefer to find more critical evaluations of his work, I think that is just about enough for WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete a lack of sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete. I just looked the subject up in my copy of the Penguin Guide to Jazz Recordings, the most comprehensive tome on jazz that one can imagine. Stilo is listed twice as personnel on Chet Baker recordings, but there is not even one sentence of prose devoted to him. Not enough sources out there to support a BLP. A Train^talk 09:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to Masters Champions League. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Gemini Arabians[edit]

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

Only trivial coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Masters Champions League. On the whole I tend to think that the one year existence of the league means that the teams are largely non-notable other than in the context of the league. If there's pertinent information other than lists of players then this could perhaps be moved across at the same time. The lists of players might either belong in a table in the league article or just possibly in a standalone article. Overall given the lack of content at the MCL article I'd say that lists could be added without too many problems as has been done at 2017 Pakistan Super League. But that would involve doing so for every team really.

I don't know what the history is of the other team articles. Did they exist as we AfD'd them or were they never created? I forget. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

@Blue Square Thing: Deletionpedia has at least one article for another of these teams, so that means the articles must have existed and been AFD'd: [21]Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 02:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

@Moaz786: sort of as I remember - I think they were all done in one AfD. As there seems to be so little interest here, I'd suggest a simple redirect. If anyone's that fussed they can go and find the team sheets and recreate them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Vuy Aman[edit]

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

NN recording. I changed this to a redirect to the artiste (which I favour over deletion) but the edit was reverted by page creator. TheLongTone (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

I do notice a claim of notability...No 1 on Armenian iTunes. Seems inadequate to me, tho.TheLongTone (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Yeah, it could go either way. One one hand, platform-specific charts like iTunes fails WP:BADCHARTS, but that being said, usually something popular enough to top even a "bad chart" would probably be likely to have the coverage to scrape by on the WP:GNG. Purely hypothetically speaking though, "Armenian pop music" is far from my area of expertise in the music world... Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Weak keep from a google search it is made manifest that the song does bare notability to a reasonable extent.Celestina007 (talk) 03:07, 01 November 2017 (UTC

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Patent Lens. It seems like a redirect was proposed and not contested so implementing. As for notability, it looks like consensus indicates the sources don't discuss the topic enough to establish notability. Also, while the dissemination of free knowledge is part of our remit, we have policies of what topics we cover and without sources they cannot be reliably met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

The Lens[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Obvious WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG in that it heavily relies on primary sources and yet no source can be found. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC).[]

Question / confused - delete The (almost) SPA who created this blanked the whole article replacing it with UDP and COI and Advert, but the NOM then reverted and brought it to AFD. Why was it not just speedied? There is some confused discussion on the talk page, indicating edit conflicts? Regardless there is far too much reliance on primary sources, and almost no IRS in the article, and none that I can find quickly, so fails GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete. It's difficult to find any reliable sources. The product is apparently new and there's already a page for Patent Lens which describes the replacement with The Lens succinctly enough. Until there's more meaningful content, I don't think this needs its own page.Luminum (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Patent Lens with no prejudice against deletion either. The Lens doesn't appear to have significant coverage (though it is hard to get a specific search term), but being an iteration of Patent Lens gives a bit of a case for redirect until/if The Lens gets more coverage. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep. the Lens database serves nearly all of the patent documents and is free. The platform provides a number of excellent resources to navigate patent data. The Lens is substantially different to its precursor PatenLens. The Lens resources are unique among tools/resources available elsewhere, which assist in analyzing complex patent data.

The Lens page has its place alongside of the pages created to describe similar resources such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIZ_Karlsruhe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derwent_World_Patents_Index, which are proprietary patent resources and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espacenet, which is also free.
Agree that secondary sources have to be added as, for example, those similar to those listed below, which discuss (or indirectly demonstrate) the importance of having tools to freely and meaningfully navigate the difficult patent data, the course to which the Lens, it seems, is dedicated. A number of the sources below discuss the Lens: Zanga, D., Capell, T., Zhu, C., Christou, P., & Thangaraj, H. (2016). Freedom‐to‐operate analysis of a transgenic multivitamin corn variety. Plant biotechnology journal, 14(5), 1225-1240. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.12488/full Southan, C. (2015). Expanding opportunities for mining bioactive chemistry from patents. Drug Discovery Today: Technologies, 14, 3-9. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740674914000304--WindsorForest (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — WindsorForest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []

The first source only gives a passing mention as being used in the methods. The second mentions Patent Lens in passing too. This is not the depth of secondary coverage needed for an article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Thank you kindly for looking into the references I suggested and your interest and time. I agree with your suggestion and proposed a couple of others, as eg. Oldham, Paul (with contributions from and under the coordination of Ms. Irene Kitsara ) (2016) The WIPO Manual on Open Source Patent Analytics ( https://wipo-analytics.github.io/index.html#authorship). Thank you so much again for your advice.WindsorForest (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[]

This is passing mention yet again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment There are now two WP:SPAs involved in this AfD or article and a third account that has only edited one article other than this article. Aoziwe (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

~~Keep~~ I believe, that the Lens Wikipedia page shall be retained. In the form the page is now, it is very much a ‘matter-of-fact’ description of this important service/patent database. Thera are numerous Wikipedia pages for proprietary services including databases, which also ‘serve’ patent documents such as SciFinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Abstracts_Service, STN International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIZ_Karlsruhe, Scopus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopus, Web of Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopus, among others…

Only few Wikipedia pages are at present in existence, which describe free services/databases such as Espacenet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espacenet and Google patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Patents. The Lens is another free patent database and offer in addition to the content, which to some extent is similar to that available via Espacenet, also patent information analytical tools, which are not available elsewhere, such making it an excellent complimentary service/database to Espacenet. Espacenet Wikipedia page has attracted over the years a reasonable number of views. Since the Lens page creation, there has been increase in Wikipedia Espacenet page viewing https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Espacenet%7CThe_Lens, likely, due to the discussion about the ‘fate’ of the Lens Wikipedia page and also Espacenet mentioning on the Lens page. Thus, this example alone shows an interest of Wikipedia users in knowing about these free services/databases serving patent information. Certainly, more editorial work is required to make the Lens page up to a high standard of Wikipedia pages, but the matter of a discussion on improving the Lens page is a rather different one from the one about deleting it entirely. Supporting and making the world aware of the free to use patent database with interesting and useful analytical/viewing tools, I believe, is essential into effort to make the world a better place and give free access to the information, especially to such as how to make things and improve processes, that the patents are about.WindsorForest (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

@WindsorForest: You're allowed to state your rationale, but you're not allowed to vote more than once. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Misty Jones[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated claim of notability is serving as director of a city public library system. This is not an inclusion freebie that automatically entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, but this isn't well-sourced enough to get her over WP:GNG -- the only references here are one primary source and one piece of routine media coverage of her appointment to the job. Any director of any public library on the planet could always show those same two things, so they aren't enough coverage to deem her special. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Non-notable local public servant; nothing special. Emeraude (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete subject of article fails primary requirements for her to be included into the encylopedia. Also article looks too promotional.Celestina007 (talk) 03:17, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Masaaki Ōkura[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor. Most notable role was as Al in Dominion Tank Police but that's an OAV and there were other actors who played the part too. Other roles are supporting level at most. JA Wikipedia shows no biographical information of use, just a rehash of their list of works. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep: A cursory search on Google and Yahoo! comes up with significant number of pages covering his work in anime and animation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YborCityJohn (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete per AngusWOOF. Too few major roles to pass WP:ENT, and lacking in significant coverage in either Japanese or English. It's possible offline coverage from pre-2000 might exist, but considering his lack of major roles, that seems to be unlikely. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete not enough major roles to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Language as violence[edit]

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

Synthesized title/article name. Article's title is not established as having come from sufficiently sourced material Edaham (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete (from the nominating editor) Aside from the virtually irredeemable issues with formatting, referencing, sectioning and original research issues, this article seems to be an academic essay (possibly created as a student project), in which the title its self fails WP:NPOVTITLE as to whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. There's no lede section, but the body of the article seems to be being used as a coat rack for a selection of sources combined to support a personal view of a variety of subjects and opinions held by the editor who created it. Edaham (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Agreed. Certainly reads like an academic assignment, and not a particularly good one at that. Article creator has no substantial edits other than this, and no edits for over a year. The formatting etc are not entirely irredeemable, but there seems no point. Emeraude (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

delete Well, it was an academic assignment, and it shows. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete or redirect per WP:CHEAP to microagression. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:G7, per page creator's !vote below. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Biked[edit]

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

Having soft redirects for every possible form of every possible standard verb seems like massive overkill. Fram (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

delete and to think that it's not even a Neelix redir, Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

delete; as it's so old I can't think why I set this one up! S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Seems like the consensus indicates that the lone award is not sufficient to establish ANYBIO notability and neither is GNG met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Jamie Lynn (actress)[edit]

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

Fails Pornbio and GNG. Doesn’t claim to have won any awards and penthouse has long not been grounds for an article. Left with rubbish sources. One is a photo credit for an illustration so have no impact on N and the other is a ‘confessions of a porn star’ effort that is therefore primary and apparently of littke biographical value if the quote is porn helped her learn how to ejaculate. Blps deserve better. Suggest delete and redirect to list of penthouse pets. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Absolutely no show of notability. It is high time we started getting Wikipedia back into balance. It needs to stop overly catoring to the intestest of 20-year-old American males.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep Penthouse Pet of the Year satisfies ANYBIO#1. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Article shows no BLP problems. Unscintillating (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete and redirect to Penthouse Pet list reflecting standard practice. Fewer than half of the "Pets of the Year" have individual articles, and the celebrity attaching to post-Guccione winners has generally been quite low. No real argument that the subject satisfies the GNG or otherwise satisfies PORNBIO. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

You've not made a delete argument, and your redirect argument fails to explain ANYBIO#1. Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Pointing out established consensus practice supports the delete argument. Several Pets of the Year have been deleted in the recent past -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina LaMarca (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Vixen (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination)]]. Consenus has developed that this really isn't a significant award -- if it's an award at all; it's mostly if not entirely a job making promotional appearances for the magazine. And it's very much worth noting that the great majority of "winners" who have articles aren't hardcore porn performers, but have more traditional film or reality TV credits leading to reliable source coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Anybio1 states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete -- A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. I do not find the argument that "Penthouse Pet of the Year satisfies ANYBIO#1" to be compelling and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Yes, this is a BLP. It reports no sourcing problems, which negates your claim that it lacks sources. What is your standard whereby Penthouse Pet of the Year is something other than satisfying ANYBIO#1? Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

"Lack of sources" means that the subject is not notable; see WP:N. Also relevant: WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

WHYN is not a part of the standard, and WP:N doesn't require GNG sources when ANYBIO#1 is satisfied. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete. No proof of notability. All sources are unreliable or dead. Nice photo. My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

What defines "proof"? Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Fails the established notability guidelines of the project, pet of the year is not an automatic qualifier for WP:ANYBIO, it's just a girl who gets her vagina on a few more pages than the usual girls. Over half of the Year "winners" at List of Penthouse Pets do not have standalone bios, and there are at least 3-4 that have the same level of poor notability as Ms. Lynn, and could probably be tossed as well. TheValeyard (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Jackals (2017 film)[edit]

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

A non notable movie with fan sites and blogs as references. My own independent search didn't yield anything to warrant notability from WP:RS.While the main actor is notable it doesn't necessarily mean the movie is notable too since Notability is not inherited.

The first reference is an announcement about an actor joining the film and nothing about the movie.
The second reference is also an announcement of an actor being part of the movie.
3rd reference is also an announcement with nothing meaningful to state about the movie. TalkMe (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep as notable due to significant coverage from multiple third-party sources. There are four "Top Critics" reviews for the movie on Rotten Tomatoes, and there is nothing wrong with sources that detail a film's development and production. Notability means that reliable third-party sources found a topic worth noting, and there are many instances of that here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]
According to WP:MOS There is a consensus against using the "Top Critics" scores at Rotten Tomatoes.... It also states; The Top Critics" section on Rotten Tomatoes is a smaller sample size and may be statistically inaccurate. TalkMe (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]
That's not relevant to this at all. Rotten Tomatoes aggregates a wide range of film critics to calculate their score (and thus for us to report in the Wikipedia article), but the so-called "Top Critics" are the ones that can and should be referenced directly in this Wikipedia article. This is completely separate from whether or not to report the RT score. So we have reviews from Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, RogerEbert.com, and the Tribune News Service. Metacritic shows Slant Magazine as another review. There is also a review from Bloody Disgusting, which has precedent to reference. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep per Erik. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

KeeP Film notable for reasons mentioned above. The film is currently being played on most OnDemand services such as Charter. It also has received 1000s of ratings on IMDB so people are watching it. In addition, numerous critics have written about the movie both on IMDB and elsewhere. Nottoohackneyed (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]
- That sounds a lot like WP:BIGNUMBER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep. While the arguments for Keep above are fairly weak, I think there's just enough here to be suitable for an article; the overall 'is Wikipedia improved by not having this' answers to 'no'. (Unfortunatly MichaelQSchmidt seems to be on Wikibreak, otherwise I'd toss it in his direction and expect miracles to be worked.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The two last "delete" opinions are very cursory and don't address the sources, so aren't very helpful to establish consensus. Sandstein 18:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Sophia Moestrup[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass our notability guidelines for academics, in addition to failing our general notability criteria. Thus, based on a lack of notability, and thus verifiability, the article should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete – institutional affiliation is with a think tank, so needs some 3rd-party coverage to make the bar. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep – she has enough scholarly published work, notably with Robert Elgie, another scholar, as in their most recently published book Semi-Presidentialism in the Caucasus and Central Asia. --B.Lameira (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Note that B.Lameira is article creator.[]

@B.Lameira:, Whatever your motivation is for adding articles on minor intellectuals to Wikipedia, and there are many excellent reasons to do so, I urge you to learn how to write a decent article. This article needs sourcing, WP:SIGCOV. If she is a notable intellectual, it will be simple to find discussions of the nature and impact of her work in reviews of her books and in journal articles that discuss her work in some depth. When you have done that, feel free to ping me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep -- in addition to academic qualifications, she has also edited a notable book:

Semi-Presidentialism Outside Europe: A Comparative Study, eds. Robert Elgie and Sophia Moestrup. New York: Routledge, 2007.

The book has been reviewd in Political Studies Review, May 01, 2013; Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 263-264 & Demokratizatsiya, Apr 01, 2010; Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 182-184. The editors of such collections of essays are generally acknowledged experts in their field. It's a "keep" for me, on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Although I usually agree with K.e.coffman on these, here I hesitate. This is a new article on an intellectual and the sole book to her credit is an edited volume. Feel free to flag me to revisit if someone finds more persuasive sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Weak delete. She seems prolific as a co-editor of books (four at least on semi-presidential) but they're not very notable (I didn't turn up more reviews than the ones already listed by K.e.c above) and for book editing rather than authorship I think we'd need a lot more than that. Other than the books, there seems not much of note in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete it as there is not enough coverage so she can pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 07:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Article as is, doesnt potray its subject as being notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article on the encylopedia.Celestina007 (talk) 03:29, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Brett Young (EP)[edit]

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

Non-notable EP. Sources mostly mention EP in passing. The rest of the sources mention either the full album or the singles, which are notable but do not transfer notability to the EP. While this EP charted, there are no third party reviews, nor anything that establishes notability independently of Brett Young's other work. Redirect repeatedly undone by Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete. Redundant to the Brett Young article. All that's here and not in the latter is the tracklisting, which could be added in the 'album details' (sic) column in the EPs section if really needed. --Michig (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep or merge - Because the EP and its singles have charted, the EP was notable before the LP was announced. Per WP:NTEMP, 'once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage'. I will attempt to gather additional sources in the next few days, however, an EP is a collection of songs. Therefore, a review of the songs is equivalent to a review of the EP. Using a top down approach, if a song on an album is notable, if the song was originally sung by that artist, that album should be notable (especially if that is the only album on which the song is contained). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

@Jax 0677: " Therefore, a review of the songs is equivalent to a review of the EP. " Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from songs to album or vice versa. All of these songs are on the full album. The EP has no individually notable content nor reviews of it proper. A merge is acceptable IMO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment - I have added referenced "Background" and "Critical reception" sections to the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[]

A breakdown of the sources added by Jax:
This is about his career, with the EP mentioned only in passing.

This is about the release of the full album, and only mentions the EP in the first sentence.

This is a passing mention in a Top 10 list, erroneously being cited as a review. I removed it.

This only passingly mentions the EP in the context of his full album.

Most of the "background" content had nothing to do with the EP proper, so I snipped it. The two reviews from Taste of Country and Stage Right may confer notability, but they're borderline at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Reply - "Background" is a standard header according to the Manual of Style. I am restoring all of my content so that it can be discussed during the AFD. We now have a sufficiently long album article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

@Jax 0677: Just because it's "standard" doesn't mean you have to shoehorn in filler content that has jack squat to do with the EP proper. The content you've added is more appropriate for either his biography or the full album. There is still the issue that little of the sources address the EP. They're either about him or the full album, not the EP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep - a lot of fluff to create what looks like a full-fledged article but after some paring down to sources which discuss this release specifically, there seems to be enough for retention. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 07:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Feature Films for Families[edit]

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

Has received some coverage, but not enough to qualify for a standalone article as per WP:CORPDEPTH. Many sources found via searches only provide passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete I agree with op. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Eric Crown[edit]

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

lots of namedropping, inhouse publishing and vagueness, but the years-old tags at the top suggest nn. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert D. Parker, as Alansohn says "The article has a lot of stuff, much of which comes across as a very thorough search of media mentions, almost all trivial. There's nothing here to support a claim of notability and nothing further found in a Google search." Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Tim Crown[edit]

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

lots of namedropping, inhouse publishing and vagueness, but the 4 tags at the top suggest nn. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert D. Parker, as Alansohn says "The article has a lot of stuff, much of which comes across as a very thorough search of media mentions, almost all trivial. There's nothing here to support a claim of notability and nothing further found in a Google search." Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Hemantha Warnakulasuriya[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, there is no inherent notability in being an ambassador even to/from a "major" country. Has been tagged for notability issues, with no improvement, since October 2016. Dan arndt (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

delete no inherent notability of being an ambassador. and his legal achievements don't meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep: Per WP:DIPLOMAT, heads of missions can be considered notable if the individual appears in multiple sources. Cossde (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

WP:DIPLOMAT is just an essay. clear community WP:CONSENSUS has shown no inherent notability of ambassadors even if covered in multiple sources. over hundred ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

In that case per WP:GNG the person in question has gain significant coverage on RS. Cossde (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete does not meet notability requirements, ambassadors are not inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Barbara London (actress)[edit]

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

NN actress, largely in bit and uncredited parts. Fails NACTOR, and not merely no evidence she meets the GNG, the article's never been sourced. Ravenswing 06:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete - all this article says is that Barbara London is an actress (which is obvious from the article's title) and then gives a list of performances by her. The sole reference given is a reference to the subject's own website, meaning the article relies too much on primary sources. Vorbee (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment: the source isn't to London's website (if any exist, I couldn't find it), but to IMDB, which of course cannot contribute towards notability. Ravenswing 13:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete - Article is terribly written and poorly sourced. This article is not worthy of being in the encylopedia as it is.Celestina007 (talk) 03:42, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete - Couldn't find a thing when looking for sources - seems to just be a minor bit player. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete It is scary that this article has existed since 2009 without any reliable sources. It is high time that we stoppped trying to be IMDb, started applying reasonable criteria to articles on actresses, and deleted all articles that lack reliable sources. This has been happening a little, but there is a lot more work to be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Miles M.26[edit]

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

Should have remained a re-direct, WP:GNG and the M.26 is more than adequately covered in Miles M.30}} Petebutt (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Having nominated it I have revised the article considerably using a reliable reference--Petebutt (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

The way I looked at it was that the M.30 was an actual aircraft, so that article should really focus on that. But the larger project ran for the best part of a decade through several evolutions and I think it's probably beyond the scope of an article based solely on the M.30.

Perhaps it should be looked at the other way around - an article for the whole project and a section for the M.30?JN5556649 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

That demotes the actually-flown type, which is a rabbit hole we shouldn't be going down - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep. A combination of a star to Pete (and others) for improving the article, and a {{minnow}} for not having done so before bringing the article to AfD. As expanded, the type family is clearly notable enough to stand on its own despite not being flown, squeaking past WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Wet {{minnow}} slapped across the face accepted--Petebutt (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Should have been a {{|tltrout}}--Petebutt (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Eh, I'm feeling generous with my glorious return to the Wikipedian's Republic. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. A Train^talk 16:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Paul Pimsleur[edit]

~~Not notable person and inventor of non notable language method. Sources are not independent of the subject and do not treat the subject in depth. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)~~ []

Keep The nomination exhibits animus for a reason I don't know. Pimsleur probably doesn't need separate articles about the person, the method, the book series, and so on, but the topic is clearly notable, a bestseller in the language study field for a half century. I am regularly astounded by the scant respect paid to academics who create or write something that thousands cite and millions read, compared to a Sri Lankan fast bowler who made a single first-class appearance.
I found a number of independent sources on my first search. Whether they are reliable is another question. Google scholar turns up citations for Pimsleur and Rosetta. Rhadow (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]
the problem at hand is the lack of coverage in reliable sources and whether we can show the subject meets the GNG via reliable sources. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment -- a non-paid obituary in the NYT is reliable secondary coverage. That's half a justification right there. An award granted forty times named for the article subject -- that isn't a prestigious honor, even if it's posthumous? In life, he was a Fulbright lecturer. That's notable. This article is fine as it is. Rhadow (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

@Rhadow: Thanks I see that I have erred. Will withdraw as obviously I was off form when I looked at the thing. Thanks again. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

withdrawing nomination as I made a mistake in nomming. Never did this before if someone can help me tidy up my mess. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Peltsman[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO agtx 18:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to Orson Scott Card bibliography#Anthologies edited by Card. Nothing sourced to merge. No prejudice against spinning out separate articles, as long as they're reliably sourced. czar 00:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Dragons of Darkness[edit]

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

not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[]

I'm tempted to say Merge to Card's bibliography, but there's no other text there. I'm undecided, but making a spinout article of Card's anthologies, and merging this and its peers there, seems like a reasonable approach. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Comment I like the idea of merging these to a new Anthologies edited by Orson Scott Card page, though having so many infoboxes and tables interleaved will likely cause formatting issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 05:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

To Ji-hun[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Her results: http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00103406.htm Hergilei (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 12:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 05:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Guðlaugur Kristinn Óttarsson[edit]

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

This artcile came to my attention after reverting apparent vandalism here, the IP editor, possibly the subject, then posted a long message on my talk page here claiming the article was wrong and they were not a Musician but an "Alchemist, Ghostbuster, Healer, Composer and as a contributor to Mathematical Physics.". After looking at the article almost all is unsourced, and the few sources are nothing in depth. Under WP:BLP I was going to trim the unsourced material, but found little left to justify them as an indivdual musician outside the bands they were in. There current activity as a "Alchemist, Ghostbuster, Healer, Composer and as a contributor to Mathematical Physics" also does not appear to be notable (his YouTube account has 47 subscribers, his researchgate publication have 0 citations). Note they don't have an article about them on the Icelandic Wikipedia either. They appear to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO and if all the uncited content was removed its dificult to see what would be left. KylieTastic (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[]

It appears there are two people here. Dysklyver 15:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 05:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Exceedingly weak keep. I don't get the sense of there being two people with the same name (at least, I think the musician and the alchemist/healer/etc are the same person), and there seems to be either a level of notability for the subject or one or the other of the bands he's been in, although it reads to me as though we're roughly at the "threshold" of notability, so we may be just below it rather than just above it. I'll keep looking for proof in either direction. Assuming that we're just above the applicable standards and that the notability applies to the man and not the band/s, the question of COI can be addressed separately. Certainly there's more out there talking about Guðlaugur playing the guitar (which makes him a guitarist, regardless of the IP's beliefs that it does nothing of the sort) than talking about him ghostbusting, for example. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to Arcadia Group. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Outfit (retailer)[edit]

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

Non notable clothing company, Found a few sources on new shop openings but nothing substantial, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 04:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Arcadia Group. Störm (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect Article lacks references, I couldn't find much - high street store and other new stores, kidswear range launch, new managing director, and a few mentions in lists. It's possible that more coverage exists but searches don't find it, particularly with a name such as this. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. Renaming may be proposed as WP:RM. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

List of Israeli companies quoted on the ASX[edit]

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

I don't see how two Israeli companies being on the Australian exchange meets WP inclusion standards. Does not appear noteworthy, and further I don't see any sources or text which explains why the fact is notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

I see where you are coming from; but this list is analogous to the accepted and established page on Israeli companies listing on the NASDAQ. There aren't two companies, rather 14 (the table isn't completed yet) and there will be around 20 within a few months. Israel is a significant player in the start-up world and the increasing visibility of Israeli companies on the ASX is of significance as they use it as a base for Asian expansion. If you look at https://www.google.com.au/search?q=israeli+companies+listing+on+asx&rlz=1C5CHFA_enAU729AU730&oq=israeli+companies+listing+on+asx&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.9183j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

you will see that this is considered of some significance in the Australian and Israeli media. There aren't references pointing to notability as the article is still under construction... Markbenjamin (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

The articles referenced refer numerous times to the "fourteen" Israeli listed companies; this appears to be the only list of them all on the internet. I think people reading about the increasing rate and number of listings should have a reference on the internet where they can look them all up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbenjamin (talk • contribs) 08:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

keep/rename? The list itself seems to be of secondary importance; the phenomenon of Israeli firms choosing ASX listings seems notable. A new name and a rewrite seem to be in order, however. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep Phenomenon is notable. Globes is a respected financial paper and would not write about it unless it was significant.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep. Possibly rename. This has been quite a phenomenon for the past 2-3 years, and has been covered in RS.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aquarium. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Quarantine tank[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Quarantine tank

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

Written mostly as a how-to, and I can't find any reliable sources. The only one cited seems unreliable.Antrogh (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

malformed Afd. @Antrogh:, you need to removed all of this nowiki markup you've inserted into the template for some reason. I've fixed the header. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

User:jd22292 has done the clean up, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Redir to fish tank: This is a fish tank. Just a fish tank. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect to aquarium. No mention at all there, and anything that is added should be properly referenced. Also needs to be removed from Template:Aquarium if deleted, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm going ahead and closing this early based on the snowball clause. Leaving aside the arguments already made, there's the fact that Division I ice hockey facilities are all but univerally covered by articles. Whether or not this should be so across the board may or may not be something that should be discussed, but AfD is not the place for that 'umbrella' discussion, and shooting individual articles out from under that umbrella, one way or another, is something that shouldn't be taking place. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Compton Family Ice Arena[edit]

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

Refs consist of dead links, press releases, and internal publications that lack independence. No meaningful coverage in independent reliable verifiable published sources, no evidence of notability. KDS4444 ^(talk) 01:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep, tentatively (may change to merge/redirect depending upon further discussion). There was a recent AFD about a list of Notre Dame residence halls which ended in "Keep" decision. Is this a continuation of that quest? (Maybe not, this is not the same deletion nominator.) There have been many AFDs about individual buildings on university campuses which either end "Keep" or "Merge" or "Redirect" to a list of university buildings. To the nominator, could you please address what are the list-articles about Notre Dame buildings and whether this is covered, or could be covered in one of them?

Also, a 5,000 seat stadium is usually significant as a sports venue, especially one partly serving a university as well as larger community.

I am not judging yet on whether this topic is individually notable yet (it depends on sources) but I am sure that a better alternative to deletion is available. --do ncr am 04:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep It's the home of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's ice hockey team. They're a Division I powerhouse. Unless it's some literal 'metal building with a rink', we generally don't delete the articles involving NCAA arenas, especially Division I teams. Nate • (chatter) 04:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep It is a major area that is home to a power house university hockey team. As Mrschimpf said, NCAA arenas are generally always notable, especially D1. -DJSasso (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep Division I arenas are notable, especially a powerhouse like Notre Dame. Smartyllama (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to Avenged Sevenfold. Please do not revert the redirection unless multiple RS are found that indicate that Johnny Christ is notable outside of Avenged Sevenfold. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Johnny Christ[edit]

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

Contested redirect. Not individually notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I found http://loudwire.com/tags/johnny-christ/ with links to four articles, but none are significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Avenged Sevenfold. Everything written about this musician is connected to the band Avenged Sevenfold. Johnny Christ has not seen fame from beyond his connection to the band. Binksternet (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[]

Keep needs more information, deleting is the wrong way Norschweden (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[]
- For the record, @Norschweden: was the editor who contested this redirect and PROD of the related Zacky Vengeance article. Please supply this "more information" rather than claim it simply needs more. My argument is that there isn't more information, which is why it's best to delete the article. See GNG and MUSICBIO linked above for what sort of information we need. Without that, it seems obvious that the article would need to be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]
  - "would need to be deleted" in an encyclopedia this is rediculus. there is more information about him, and even that what is there at the moment is enough to keep the article imo, most musicians have articles with the same length/information mass Norschweden (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]
    - @Norschweden:, I'm sorry you feel that way. Unless you can actually show that there's more information about the subject, the article will have to be deleted. Just because there are articles about musicians with the same length or information mass, but are similarly unsourced is not a reason to keep this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]
      - i never got why wikipedia has so much double standart, is it so hard to use the same rules for all articles? both of them are importent personalities and the articles feature information that is not featured in the avenged sevenfold article. I dont have time to write the article. Norschweden (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]
        Do you have time to find the sources? That's the underlying issue. The state of the article is not the issue in any AfD discussion, the notability of the subject is. We prove the subject's notability with sources. If sources can be found, then the subject is notable and someone else (maybe even me) will update the saved article. If not, the community usually determines that the subject doesn't deserve an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Redirect Agree that subject has not demonstrated reason for stand alone notability outside of his band. The references provided are all about him in context of his role in Avenged Sevenfold. My independent search did not turn up anything (although, admittedly, the name is a confusing one to search as there are others with the same.) I'll reconsider my ivote pending user @Norschweden: provided the sources he can provide to back up his argument, but until then I say redirect. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[]

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

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=Magali+Febles&rlz=1C1PRFE_enUS694US694&oq=Magali+Febles&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.10613j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[2] ttps://github.com/BielBdeLuna/ElpAPI

[3] ttps://www.apertus.org/elphelcamera

[4] ttps://books.google.com.br/books?id=kyb4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&source=bl&ots=lOxpudgCpI&sig=JmMtM4xmbGWiGmZA7x8aQGc5_Oo&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGldCez5nXAhWJQyYKHQ_zDCUQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q&f=false

[5] ttps://books.google.com.br/books?id=QDS5DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&source=bl&ots=SqnJxS4g86&sig=nz-ZFOVfgcwjvvD86MAwteyZUIc&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2nfbBz5nXAhUIOiYKHQJ4DEYQ6AEIcTAN#v=onepage&q&f=false

[6] ttps://makezine.com/2009/02/07/inside-the-elphel-open-source-camer/

[7] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=elphel

[8] ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3231626/

[9] ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3346977/

[10] ttp://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com.br/2017/10/quad-3d-vision-betters-stereo.html

[11] ttp://linuxdevices.linuxgizmos.com/linux-camera-launched-at-lunar-x-prize/

[12] ttps://www.xilinx.com/publications/archives/xcell/Xcell53.pdf

[13] ttps://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/11/russian-dnepr-record-breaking-32-satellite-haul/

[2]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]