Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 18: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:15, 18 December 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 December	19 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Yip

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

fails WP:RLN and doesn't seem to meet the GNG Mattlore (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I PRODed it on that basis (rationale:Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT for rugby league. Papua New Guinea did not participate in the Pacific Cup in the 1980s), unsure why Fleets contested it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails to meet lowest threshold of notability as any kind of athlete. Quis separabit? 17:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PNG played in tests and he is a former Kumul whose playing days go back further than the first Pacific Cup in 1975. https://postcourier.com.pg/taram-says-decision-not-good-youth/Fleets (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RLN & WP:GNG. There is a James Yip listed as a former PNG player here, but couldn't find anything which shows this player is notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Pukuntap

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

fails WP:RLN and doesn't seem to meet the GNG Mattlore (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PNG internationalFleets (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a player with this name on RLP or PNG's past player list here, so appears he fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus WP:NPASR. ansh 666 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nike HyperAdapt 1.0

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

Does this really need a separate article? The details can easily fit in the Self-tying shoes section. If it is to stay separate, then it should be added to the Nike navbox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing adequately demonstrates notability. Possible merge suggested by the nom can be considered by editors working in this topic area. Why not start a discussion on a talk page before going for the jugular here? ~Kvng (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely disagree with Kvng that the sourcing demonstrates notability. There are two references, one an article in Wired that relies completely on interviews with the designers and is not intellectually independent therefore fails the criteria for establishing notability. The second reference from sneakscore fails WP:RS since there is no information on who is behind this website or who wrote the review. The entire article is promotional with no indications of why this show is notable. Fails WP:SPIP and fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was satisfied with the two sources cited. If that doesn't do it for you, feel free to do your own search. I just did and found three other bylined sources in the first couple pages of news results: [1], [2], [3] ~Kvng (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Software broadcasting

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

Not a notable term. The only reference is both promotional, and doesn't use the term. Google search results are for Live streaming software. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Software as a service; and make a copy to Wiktionary. WP:NOTNOTABLE for Wikipedia. --Ne0 (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange three-stages instructions for the closer actually –Ammarpad (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose any merge/redirect, as this is original research and there are no references to support this definition. There is no such thing as "software broadcasting" in Software as a service. The article claims Software broadcasting is a way of delivering business software so that it can be accessed from anywhere, and on a subscription basis. This claim doesn't have any sources to support and verify it. The only case in which I have seen the words software and broadcasting used side by side (but not as a compound term) is in the content of discussing broadcasting (streaming) through software instead of tradition hardware based broadcasting.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge/redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is not notable term. No reliable sources coverage of the concept. I am against merging because we shouldn't merge what is not reported by independent sources and thus fails our basic inclusion criterion which requires such. Its only source is the promotional corp where it comes from. The present lone source in the article doesn't even justify the content. Ammarpad (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree entirely with Ammarpad.--greenrd (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus WP:NPASR. ansh 666 07:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sonic Dawn (band)

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

No reliable sources for the band HINDWIKI • CHAT 00:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article now has several references to reliable, independent sources, including print media, national radio (DR) and online magazines. The band has charted nationally in Denmark. The band is certainly one of the most prominent exponents of psychedelic rock from Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonWalsh420 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a release on the independent record label Heavy Psych Sounds is notable in psychedelic rock. Their roster includes Nick Oliveri, Wo Fat, Nebula and other famous underground artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GonzoWiki (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC) — GonzoWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vesta Johnson

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Coverage in reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Iridescent per A7 and G11. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patientory Inc

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

no evidence of notability beyond the usual PR attending everything in this industry DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional 'cruft on a startup with no indications of notability or significance. I requested such, let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Lace

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

None of this has been published or anthologized by a major press, and I do not see any significant critical attention. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't find mentions in large papers, indicating that WP:NBIO or WP:NAUTHOR is likely failing. —Paleo Neonate – 08:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability made on the new page on a contemporary writer, aside from a list of publicaiotn. No secondary sources appear in a news search, and the first page of a general search shows no secondary sourcing. Worse, the small press that published the books doesn't bring up secondary sources when searched. I didn't dig deep because it's rarely productive when early searches produce nothing. She has published a little fiction in small literary mags. That's not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an unsourced CV. Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Virginia Cancer Center

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

Lack of notability, and Promotionalism, trying to make it appear more important than it is. This is not even one of the Comprehensive Cancer Care Centers, the highest level in the US. The references consist on unspectacular placings of various lists--there is also a good deal of PRto be found in Google. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Most of the NCI-designated Cancer Centers have articles. Regardless of whether it's a Comprehensive Cancer Center, it's still one of the NCI-designated Cancer Centers, which represent approximately the top 4% of cancer centers in the country. The references show that it passes WP:ORG, and 11 of the 18 references are not affiliated with UVA. Natureium (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that list, almost all of the ones that have articles are Comprehensive cancer centers, the highest level. Of the 13 at the same level, only 3 actually have articles of their own : Markey (University of Kentucky), UT San Antonio, Massey (Virginia Commonwealth University) . I intend to nominate the other two also. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it would be nice to have employment and budget figures, I don't see that the article is unduly promotional. The talk page has no report of attempts to resolve concerns. The nominator added a "Merge" tag to the article in November, which proves that WP:ATD were known at the time of the nomination, and that as per WP:Deletion policy, the talk page is the place to resolve concerns. Unscintillating (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes running via B Class roads in Sri Lanka

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

Fails WP:NOTTRIVIA and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Prod removed by unreg user without citing any reason Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft lacking significant secondary sources discussing this set of routes to establish notability. It fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOR at the least. What a bizarre choice of routes!Charles (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British-American University School of Law

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

Non-notable, edits by suspicious IP (promo) and no references. References on Google are marginally minor at best, if at all. Cahk (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched about this and only saw a few mentions on forums and social networks. Could find one link[4] but that is not so enough, and results are mostly[5] those who have copied from Wikipedia. No reliable references for establishing notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs in the article, the article was created 3 years ago and only ever had one reference which didn't support notability. Schools of this kind are rarely notable. Szzuk (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka bus routes

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

Every single bus route for one country. Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOR as there is a distinct lack of sources. A list that is almost indiscriminate as well Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft lacking significant secondary sources discussing this set of routes to establish notability. It fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOR at the least.Charles (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Raza Khan (Pakistan)

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

No notability. It was created by an account with only 3 edits and that too in this article. sami ^talk 08:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet basic GNG. --Saqib (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication the subject meets WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed. Purely promotional. Someone has mistaken Wikipedia for LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 17:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Prof not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It is similar to an article that I created a while ago. The end result was, that according to WP:Academic criteria no.6, only principals/presidents or professors who have significant notability can be mentioned. Ma'az (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete that such a weak article on someone who is not even near notability or passing the guidelines for academics has survived 4 years is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Actually, criteria 6 only applies to people who are presidents of universities/tertiary colleges, and maybe heads of truly major subdivisions of them, such as top ranked law and medical schools. It also only would apply to such institutions that have a certain level of academic respectability and cultural impact. It almost never if not totally never applies to secondary level educational institutions, for this criteria to apply the place has to be clearly and without debate not a diploma mill, and deep issues of actual campus governance and organization should also be studied. While I can see for example in the US some community college presidents passing this criteria, I think if someone wants to make an argument to delete an article on the president of a community college, arguing that it is not a "major academic institution", they should be allowed to present arguments for this position, and we should not assume that term default includes all tertiary institutions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ansh 666 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uxía Martínez Botana

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

This article lacks a neutral point of view, it's full of mistakes and/or lies based on self-published sources. The most blatant one is the affirmation that she's one of the World's Top 10 bass players, totally made up by her or her manager. This is the original source: http://www.notreble.com/buzz/2011/12/26/top-ten-bass-not-bass-discussion-new-signature-basses-and-gear-plus-the-top-videos-columns-of-the-week/ and it only says that her video was the 7th most popular article on that blog on that week. Any other interpretation is invalid and all the other references prove nothing, as they have not been verified. Also, I find the article generally poorly written, exaggerating her achievements and her picture is copyrighted. Stevialover (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a) The nomination doesn't mention a single point from WP:DEL-REASON. AfD is not a mechanism to improve articles (WP:AFD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP). b) In case WP:N should be raised: the field of classical double-bass players is narrow and not widely covered by the general press or even musical magazines. Wikipedia has currently 5 female double-bassists (an underpopulated category), and <90 classical double-bassists altogether, so improving the encyclopedia's coverage of this field appears to be called for. The subject of this AfD has received sufficient coverage in independent and reputable sources, and she is the principal double-bassist in notable ensembles and orchestras. She satisfies nos. 1, 4, 6, 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the article creator has tried too hard: the "among the 10 world's best" claim is just what the nominator says it is even though it has spread all over the internet. However, the article without this and other inadequately cited content would still satisfy notability requirements per previous !vote: Noyster (talk), 11:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's multiple sources stating that she's one of the top 10 bassists in the world. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator showss clearly he want the article to be improved but AfD is not place for cleanup. You can use {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} tags to achieve what you generally highlighted in your statement. This should be speedy closed, as notability is clear. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator here. Fair enough, I mistook AfD for cleanup, I apologise. Still, it's pathetic how you all fell for the World's Top 10 statement when I clearly showed you the original source and you posted 3 other sources that fell for it as well. Quoting Goebbels, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth". Stevialover (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevialover: No. Nobody is playing down your observation here. The reason the discussion takes different route is that AfD is generally for unsalvageable, non notable and articles that totally failed verifiacation. When next you encounter statement like above which is not in concord with the source, consider being bold and remove it. In milder cases put {{not in citation}} tag next to the statement so as to alert other editors, but don't just open AfDfor such cases –Ammarpad (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for this discussion. I've just rephrased the line about the No Treble article and added some info about the new Deutsche Grammophon CD recorded by the Brussels Philharmonic. Please, check it out. As for the message that this article "considered for deletion", could you remove it, giving to the fact the problem is solved. Pavel-Kataev (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, don't worry, it will soon be closed since you withdrew. But it may not be appropriate for me now since I participated. But it will be closed. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it'd be great! Also, I'd like to note that comments by @Stevialover: were rather offensive. I think, the Wikipedia is not a place for destructive criticism. Hope, we all want to give verified information and improve it if necessary.Pavel-Kataev (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavel-Kataev: We are different people from all over the world, our approach to issues and tone of expression must differ. You should assume good faith about others. If you've more to say write on my talkpage or his talkpage, not here, please. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" does not explain how an "affiliate body" confers notability. Sandstein 12:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untamed Sports TV

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

Queried speedy delete for spam and not notable; but seems to be informative about how USA television is run. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The network is basically below relevant on both American broadcast and pay TV at this point at time (as you can see from the 'dumped it' list being much larger than the 'airing it' list, along with it being on in a grand total of three markets over-the-air), but it still had enough of an affiliate body once upon a time to pass WP:N. But the past affiliate list is definitely not needed, and a few programs it airs can be summarized because it's basically the same 'wait for the three second trigger pull/reel-in and twelve sponsors' brokered format all outdoor shows have. Nate • (chatter) 08:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless more RS can be provided, I don't think that Untamed Sports TV, which is largely unheard of in the athletic world, merits an article on Wikipedia. As of now, I'm not seeing other publications discussing the subject of the article. Carajou (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a television network about outdoors subjects, not athletics. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent and reliable sources to suggest notability. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to W. Christopher Winter. ansh 666 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleep Solution

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. NikolaiHo^☎️ 05:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively with W. Christopher Winter. The book came out in April 2017, and I've found only rather brief reviews by the Evening Standard and run-of-the-mill Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus Reviews and a handful of articles on sleep and/or Winter that quote him or namedrop his book. A reminder to Nikolaiho that WP:GNG and refer to existence of sources anywhere, not the existence of sources in any Wikipedia article, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ARTN. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the author's article, not yet notable for standalone article. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjo mayoral election, 2006

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

I see no indication that this single mayoral election in a mid-size city is specifically notable in any way that would mean it needs its own individual article. There's no parent article like Mayoral elections in Sanjo to merge & redirect or I'd do that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, couldn't find much more than routine local coverage, also the rest of these should also be considered. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too small to have own article that is referred by only routine coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Bbb23 per CSD G5 (Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanishk Sajnani

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

Fails WP:GNG; individual remains only "Wikipedia-notable" with respect to one event. Previously deleted per discussion; I don't have access to the prior version to assess the level of change. (Also, note that the changes to the prior AFD discussion arise from an issue with the new-page curation toolbar; I am reporting at the village pump.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles should not be based on recounting the contents of a blog.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Made some changes after nomination in AFD - Added another Reference/Citation, Image with caption & updated website.Nexa9911 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since last AFD of the same subject, 3 additional- unique refrences have been added (Sourced at different time/dates & for different events),thus proving notability.Nexa9911 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be written as a promo and many of the references seem to be sourced from the individual itself. Fails WP:PROMO . An example of what is stated earlier

Air India, SpiceJet, Cleartrip, Mobikwik & Faasos were the only companies I ever corresponded with. Never informed the rest of them about any Loopholes. For the same reason, I never mentioned any technical details in this article. Compromised list may still include some E-commerce websites, Home services, Travel agencies, Educational Institutions, Government applications, etc" Hagennos (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article "SEEMS" to be written as a promo and many of the references "SEEM" to be sourced from the individual itself.

An article shouldn't be deleted just because it "SEEMS" to be something. A simple Google search will show-up numerous media outlets covering him(exclusively or otherwise). The subject's profession is that of a Security researcher, who publishes his findings through a blog. So, obviously his media coverage would also involve parts of his written research. Thus, references can't be said to be sourced from the Individual himself. Also, If the article seems to be promotional, Wikipedia suggests someone re-editing the article rather than completely removing it.

The user Hagennos(talk) has quoted the subject from his last blog(for reasons not known). Here is his statement from the latest Inteview " Right now, I’m doing some security research & upgrading my skills in the InfoSec domain. My upcoming blogs will hopefully make some positive impact on the Industry. Also, some market research for a potential product may be in the timeline." Nexa9911 (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Still Delete Can you point to two intellectually independent references from the press (ones that don't rely on quotations from the individual, or has independent analysis or opinion)? Because when I looked, I couldn't find one. Hagennos (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Still Keep Dear Hagennos (talk) First of all, most of the refrences from the press rely on information from the Individual himself/herself( Oral in form of satements, Visual in form of photographs or Written in form of blogs).Secondly, even if there are no refrences having independent analysis or opinion, Wikipedia official policies doesn't see it as an issue. Nexa9911 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than WP:PROMO. MT Train^Discuss 16:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first there was an issue with the notability. Now, the article is being said to be promo. Is wikipedia full of deletionsists or what? Nexa9911 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still not notable. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Ricciardi

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

I've been trying to find better sourcing for this article since I came across it (I don't remember exactly why, but somehow I ended up at it). I did some minor cleanup, etc. and have asked for the opinions of others at User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2017-12#Blake Ricciardi, WT:BIOG#Blake Ricciardi, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business#Blake Ricciardi, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California#Blake Ricciardi and WT:FASH#Blake Ricciardi. There's been no response from anyone at the relevant WikiProjects and the only other suggestions I received was the subject of the article in not likely Wikipedia notable. I can find anything which shows how this person meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG; I'm finding the this person does exist, but most of the mentions are from primary sources or trivia in nature. If there7s some Wikiproject notability guideline that this person meets, then fine and the article then might be worth keeping; otherwise, I think it should be deleted. I've also looked for a possible way to redirect or merge the article, but I cannot find any good candidates for such a thing -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any independent coverage either. The reference in the article are all WP:INTERVIEWS which are generally regarded as primary sources. Therefore no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. He doesn't have any reliably verified achievement to meet WP:ANYBIO also. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delte a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liquivore

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

Despite the claim on the talk page that this is a legitimate term used in science, I can't find the slightest indication that that is the case. I have searched: Google, GScholar, PubMed, the Animal Biosciences section of Annual Reviews, Science Magazine & its related publications, ScienceDirect, and World Scientific and haven't come up with so much as a single hit even using this term, let alone describing it in an in-depth fashion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - especially now that the author has kindly provided a built-in disclaimer cutting off all claims of notability at the knees... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scientific name for the topic at hand is extra-oral digestion, "also known as external digestion, extra-corporal digestion, extra-intestinal digestion, or pre-oral digestion".^[1] An article should be written on this; it could start as a section of digestion, which is currently so biased towards vertebrates that extra-oral digestion is barely alluded to. However, the article under discussion has no reliable citations, and the text isn't substantive enough to be worth moving or merging. FourViolas (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cohen, Allen Carson (Apr 1, 1998). "Solid-to-Liquid Feeding: The Inside(s) Story of Extra-Oral Digestion in Predaceous Arthropoda - American Entomologist". American Entomologist. 44 (2): 103–117. doi:10.1093/ae/44.2.103. ISSN 1046-2821. Retrieved Dec 18, 2017.

Delete Initially, I was mixed, thinking "well, it's a stub, but seems reasonable that it would be added on to" then I saw this stinker was made in 2006 and I too could find roughly zero references that this was even a thing. I would of said "merge" but I don't really think there's anything worth merging here, which sucks. :D Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of well-written articles about notable fictional words, but it's important to draw the line between fact and fiction. We can't take a fictional concept and apply it to the real world as a legitimate scientific term. Fictional liquivores seem to be too obscure to be considered notable. –dlthewave ☎ 05:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to PDC World Darts Championship. ansh 666 07:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 PDC World Darts Championship

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources and no evidence of any of the information added to this former redirect. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than being deleted, I think it should be just changed back into a redirect. Whoever has changed this has put in the competitors based on who would qualify now however who qualifies depends on the rankings next December and not now.(Rickyc123) (talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. A big tournament - but lets get 2018 out of the way first. No need to delete the info some of it may be useful. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree that the redirect should be restored, per the reasons above. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. It is reasonable and traditional to keep an article for the next occurrence of a major event, but multiple occurrences are not normally useful.Jacona (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Distribution Company

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

Stub that fails WP:NCOMPANY, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, see also WP:CORPSPAM. Previously prodded by User:Atlantic306, did not improve much since. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possible merge to Summit Entertainment or Lionsgate as there is not enough content/notability for a stand alone article Atlantic306 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- film distribution companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark by a mile. There's nothing to merge as the article lists no sources. Not sufficiently notable for a redirect, in any case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Resources

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Renata3 with the following rationale "Fortune 1000 company traded on NYSE". Long ago I used to think that being listed at a stock exchange suffices, but this was not accepted as part of WP:NCORP, so we need better keep arguments - and I am not seeing any serious coverage outside the usual smattering of business directory entries and press releases. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Fortune 500 2015: Rank 649. New Jersey Resources". Fortune. 2015. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes that New Jersey Resources was ranked 672 on the Fortune 1000 and had $3,738,000,000 in revenue and $142,000,000 in profit.
2. Sherman, Ted (1994-01-07). "More Customers, Newer Markets Help Boost NJR's Annual Earnings". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  New Jersey Resources Corp., parent of New Jersey Natural Gas Co., supplies some 330,000 customers throughout Monmouth, Ocean, Morris and Middlesex counties. But in recent years, the company has looked well beyond those horizons to increase sales.
  Since 1991, the Wall Township-based utility holding company has sold more than 33 billion cubic feet of gas to customers in six states outside of New Jersey.
  ...
  "Life here truly is, and should be, an efficient load factor," remarked Oliver G. Richard 3d, chairman and chief executive officer of New Jersey Resources.
  ...
  As a holding company, New Jersey Natural has long looked beyond its regular utility business for growth. Trying to diversify in years past, New Jersey Resources already has a number of unregulated ventures, including Paradigm Power Inc., which invests in natural gas-fueled cogeneration and independent power projects; Commercial Realty & Resources Corp., which develops commercial real estate; and NJR Energy Corp., which engages in energy-related investments.
  While results from the diversified businesses have been mixed, the company has had more success selling gas in unregulated markets. In 1991, virtually all of the company's sales were to core residential and commercial customers. By 1992, the company sold 11.8 billion cubic feet in off-system sales outside the state. Last year, those sales jumped to 21 billion cubic feet.
3. Johnson, Tom (2005-08-23). "Gas unit powers utility company's growth - Stock of the Day. New Jersey Resources". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  It has been a good run for utility stocks the past three years. The sector is up 23 percent during that time frame and one of the steadiest performing players has been New Jersey Resources.
  The Wall Township-based owner of New Jersey Natural Gas, which provides gas to 450,000 customers in central Jersey, is heading for its 14th consecutive year of earnings growth, one of the longest streaks in the sector.
  ...
  In a research report, Morningstar.com analyst John Kearney said New Jersey Resources "exemplifies the stability and consistency that risk-averse, income-oriented investors look for." The company also benefits from a good relationship with regulators - an affinity it enjoys largely as a result of not having sought a rate increase for its delivery costs in 10 years.
4. Mydans, Seth (1984-02-18). "NUI to Continue Merger Bid". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  In an unusual takeover battle between two New Jersey utility companies, the NUI Corporation says it will continue its attempt to merge with the larger New Jersey Resources Corporation despite a lopsided defeat in a proxy battle.
  The defeat is expected to be confirmed at a shareholders' meeting Tuesday of New Jersey Resources, which delivers natural gas to 220,000 customers in Monmouth and Ocean Counties and parts of Morris and Middlesex Counties.
  ...
  At the Feb. 2 annual meeting of New Jersey Resources, NUI sought to place on the company's board its own slate of candidates, who would support the merger. Both utilities resorted to an unusual amount of publicity for companies their size, including radio spots and full-page ads in the financial sections of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
5. Mattioli, Dana; Cimilluca, Dana (2017-04-04). "Utilities New Jersey Resources, South Jersey Industries Hold Merger Talks". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  New Jersey Resources Corp. is considering a combination with South Jersey Industries Inc., a deal that would bring together two natural-gas utilities in the state, according to people familiar with the matter.
  Details of the talks couldn’t be learned and it is possible that there won’t be a deal. As of Tuesday morning, New Jersey Resources had a market value of $3.4 billion. South Jersey Industries was valued at $2.8 billion.
  New Jersey Resources, based in Wall, N.J., provides natural gas and other services to homes and businesses from the Gulf Coast to Canada, according to its website. It is the parent company of New Jersey Natural Gas, which serves more than 486,000 customers in Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Morris and Burlington counties. New Jersey Resources also operates a 6,700 mile natural-gas transportation and distribution network serving almost 500,000 customers, according to the website.
6. Napoliello, Alex (2016-04-08). "Amid increases in executive pay, N.J. utility company proposes steep rate hike". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  New Jersey Natural Gas -- which serves approximately 512,000 customers in Monmouth and Ocean counties, portions of Burlington, Middlesex, and Morris counties, and one borough in Sussex County --requested in November 2015 a 24-percent rate increase, or a $21.69 uptick in an average customer's monthly bill
  ...
  Kinney said executive compensation and returns on investments derive from the entirety of New Jersey Resources, the parent company of NJNG, which has several subsidiaries that reach customers outside the Garden State.
  ...
  From 2008 through 2015, the company has seen its customer base grow by 1.5 percent annually, and has already invested approximately $806 million in its natural-gas transmission and distribution system.
7. Johnson, Tom (2005-03-31). "Through ups and downs, energy chief holds steady - NJR executive's winning streak sets a sector standard". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  None of that has deterred Laurence Downes, an unflappable and soft-spoken executive who for the past 10 years has led New Jersey Resources, a natural gas company with $2.5 billion in revenue last year.
  ...
  Downes is fond of telling audiences the company - the owner of the state's second-largest gas utility, New Jersey Natural Gas - is one of the fastest-growing local gas distribution businesses in the country. Shareholders who invested $1,000 in NJR in 1952 have seen their investment grow to more than $800,000 today, he is quick to point out.
  New Jersey Natural Gas, which has 455,000 customers in Monmouth and Ocean counties, accounts for about 80 percent of the parent company's earnings. And yet the utility has not raised the rates it charges to deliver gas to residents and businesses for more than a decade.
  ...
  Downes came to New Jersey Resources in 1985 after working on utility bonds at a bank, a job he came to enjoy.
8. Sherman, Ted (1993-05-14). "Regulators Attack New Jersey Natural for Its Continuing Cost Increases". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  The management of New Jersey Natural Gas Co. has come under sharp criticism by state regulators over the company's steadily rising gas costs in the wake of a new request for higher rates.
  The Board of Regulatory Commissioners (BRC) this week called for changes in the utility's management structure. The board said the company's gas costs have gone from the lowest in the state in 1985 to the highest of the four natural gas utilities serving New Jersey, and wants the company to explain why rates are climbing. The Wall Township-based company serves 325,000 customers in Monmouth, Ocean, Morris and Middlesex counties.
  ...
  New Jersey Natural is organized under a parent holding company, New Jersey Resources Corp., which was formed to allow the company to diversify into a number of unregulated, non-utility businesses. But while New Jersey Resources has several subsidiaries involved in energy, cogeneration and real estate ventures, the overwhelming bulk of revenue and income comes from the utility.
9. Napoliello, Alex (2016-04-13). "Shore mayors, local officials slam NJNG's steep rate hike". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  ...local mayors and officials who gathered Wednesday morning to speak out against the 24-percent rate hike proposed by New Jersey Natural Gas. As reported by NJ Advance Media, the utility company that serves half a million people mainly in Ocean and Monmouth counties proposed the steep increase as its top executives have seen their overall compensation skyrocket in recent years.
  New Jersey Natural Gas says the rate increase is its first since 2007, and is necessary to mend its ailing infrastructure. It also contends its uptick in executive compensation has no impact on the rate increase.
  ...
  A NJNG spokesman, Michael Kinney, said executive compensation and return on investments derive from the entirety of New Jersey Resources, the parent company of NJNG, which has several subsidiaries that provide other services.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow New Jersey Resources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Resources was ranked 649 on the Fortune 1000 in 2015. A 2005 article notes that New Jersey Resources' New Jersey Natural Gas division was New Jersey's second-largest gas utility. In a 2005 analyst report, Morningstar's analyst John Kearney said New Jersey Resources "exemplifies the stability and consistency that risk-averse, income-oriented investors look for". Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, analyst reports are acceptable sources.
In 2016, it served half a million people. A 2016 article noted the company was harshly criticized for a proposed 24% rate hike. The company has received sustained coverage between 1984 and 2016. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Cunard (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a utility with 500,000 customers is of sufficient public interest; so a stub article is okay at this point. Sources presented above are suggestive of notability, plus WP:LISTED helps. It's a "keep" for me, on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Cunard for the thorough research on sources indisputably about the company, exceeding the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TeamHealth

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

he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. It's all press releases, business as usual factoids, or their reprints. No serious analysis, significance, coverage, etc. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Fortune 500 2012: Rank 672. Team Health Holdings, Inc". Fortune. 2012. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes that TeamHealth's ranked 672 on the Fortune 1000 and had $3,141,700,000 in revenue, $65,500,000 in profit, and $928,300,000 in assets.
2. Minaya, Ezequiel (2015-11-03). "AmSurg Withdraws Bid for Team Health". Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  AmSurg, of Nashville, Tenn., had gone public with its offers in an effort to put pressure on Team Health to negotiate a deal. Combining the two companies would represent the latest deal in a consolidating health-care sector and create a major national provider of outsourced physician services, with a network of more than 1,200 hospitals and about 20,000 doctors.
  AmSurg’s new proposal valued Team Health at $69.32, a premium of 16% from the close Friday and 32% from Oct. 19, the day before The Wall Street Journal reported on AmSurg’s previous offer. However, the latest cash-and-stock bid is below the offer’s original value of $71.47 because of the subsequent 10% decline in AmSurg’s stock price.
  As a result, AmSurg’s latest bid valued Team Health at closer to $5 billion, whereas the previous offer was worth more than $5 billion. The values were based on AmSurg’s closing price on the day before the offer was made public.
3. Beilfuss, Lisa (2016-03-23). "Team Health Adds Directors in Settlement with Jana Partners". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
4. Abelson, Reed (2016-04-08). "Small, Piecemeal Mergers in Health Care Fly Under Regulators' Radars". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  Several companies are also amassing doctors who specialize in fields like emergency medicine, trying to capture a sizable share of the physicians in that field and also expanding into related areas. In November, TeamHealth, which has about 16,000 doctors, bought IPC Healthcare, which specializes in care within the hospital, for $1.6 billion.
5. "AmSurg Seeks Merger, but TeamHealth Demurs". The New York Times. 2015-10-20. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  The AmSurg Corporation, which operates outpatient surgery centers, wants to expand its physician-outsourcing services by merging with TeamHealth Holdings. In dueling letters made public on Tuesday, TeamHealth made it clear that the financial proposal was not good enough.
  AmSurg first met with TeamHealth on Sept. 30 to discuss a merger of the two companies. AmSurg offered to pay $7.8 billion in cash and stock. But TeamHealth said the proposed valuation was too low and rejected the offer.
  ...
  One of TeamHealth’s key obstacles was its $1.6 billion acquisition of IPC Healthcare, which was announced in August. TeamHealth wanted to focus on integrating the short-term care provider after the deal, which is expected to close by the end of the year. AmSurg said that its proposed merger would not delay or harm TeamHealth’s deal with IPC Healthcare.
6. Picker, Leslie (2015-11-02). "AmSurg Withdraws $7.6 Billion Takeover Offer for TeamHealth". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  Early Monday morning, AmSurg Corporation gave TeamHealth Holdings an ultimatum: Accept our $7.6 billion takeover proposal by 4 p.m. on Tuesday or we withdraw.
  About 24 hours ahead of the deadline, AmSurg retracted its cash-and-stock offer after TeamHealth said the new bid still undervalued the company.
  The now-abandoned deal would have combined AmSurg, which operates outpatient surgery centers, with TeamHealth, a provider of physician outsourcing services.
7. Picker, Leslie (2016-10-31). "TeamHealth Agrees to Be Sold to Blackstone". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  Almost exactly a year ago, TeamHealth Holdings, a provider of physician outsourcing services, rebuffed a takeover offer from its rival AmSurg for nearly $8 billion, saying the proposed valuation was too low.
  Shareholders balked, and the stock price tumbled. Now, TeamHealth has finally agreed to be sold, but at a large discount to that offer, which was made Nov. 2, 2015.
  This time, TeamHealth agreed to be sold to funds associated with the Blackstone Group for about $6.1 billion, including debt, according to a news release Monday.
  ...
  It is a return trip for the private equity firm, which bought TeamHealth in 2005 and took it public four years later.
8. Roark, Cortney (2016-10-31). "TeamHealth ditches public 'distractions' for Blackstone". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  TeamHealth Holdings, Inc. announced on Monday that it will be reacquired by Blackstone, a leading global asset manager, as a response to "complexities and challenges" in the health care industry, TeamHealth spokeswoman Melinda Collins wrote in an email to the News Sentinel.
  ...
  It was the opposite sentiment that caused TeamHealth to go public in 2009, four years after the company was first acquired by Blackstone.
  ...
  Upon completion of the $6.1 billion transaction, TeamHealth again will become a privately held company, wholly owned by funds affiliated with Blackstone, and no longer will be traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
9. Kimel, Shelley (2015-11-03). "TeamHealth still rejecting AmSurg deal - Officials: 'Undervalues' company". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  TeamHealth is also increasing its local presence. In October, Knoxville City Council members approved a nearly $900,000 tax break for TeamHealth to expand its corporate headquarters, creating 250 new jobs. In January the company announced a $17 million expansion in Blount County that would add 450 jobs.
  ...
  TeamHealth Holdings reported 2014 revenues of $2.82 billion, up 18 percent from 2013. It employs more than 1,600 East Tennesseans.
10. Alexander-Bloch, Benjamin (2008-03-31). "Slidell hospital board approves new contract for ER doctors". The Times-Picayune. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  TeamHealth, of Knoxville, Tenn., is one of the nation's largest providers of hospital outsourcing services. It serves more than 600 hospitals, clinics and doctors groups in 45 states.
11. Koziatek, Mike (2017-11-13). "A new company will start providing Memorial's doctors, and many are outraged". Belleville News-Democrat. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  CEP America had been providing services to the two emergency departments but Memorial has decided to switch to TeamHealth for the services.“Changing the contract from CEP to TeamHealth does not prohibit any current physicians from working at Memorial, to our knowledge. Memorial would like nothing better than for all current providers to consider joining TeamHealth and continue a working relationship at Memorial,” spokeswoman Anne Thomure said in an email.
  Last year, Memorial established a partnership with BJC HealthCare of St. Louis and Thomure said nine BJC hospitals already use TeamHealth for emergency department services.The terms of the contracts involving doctors at Memorial were not released.
  ...
  TeamHealth has more than 19,000 clinicians in hospitals across the country, Thomure said.“TeamHealth has invited CEP America personnel to explore their employment opportunities,” Thomure said in an email. “While Memorial certainly supports CEP personnel talking to TeamHealth, it ultimately is the decision of those employees to talk with them.”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TeamHealth to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TeamHealth was ranked 672 on the Fortune 1000 in 2012. It went public in 2009 on the New York Stock Exchange. It rejected a $7.6 billion acquisition offer from AmSurg in 2015 and accepted a $6.1 billion offer from The Blackstone Group in 2016. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- $3Bln in revenue & WP:LISTED meets my personal threshold for corporate notability. The article is not terribly promotional at this time, and sources above are indicative of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I've read all of the references put forward by Cunard above and (as is usual with most of Cunard's posts at AfD) not one single reference is "independent of the subject". Contrary to the interpretation constantly put forward, "indepedent of the subject" does not mean that the publisher of the reference is not connected with the company - it means that the reference does not rely on company announcements or quotations from company execs, etc, but that the reference contains independent analysis and/or opinion. The fortune reference is a run-of-the-mill listing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. A couple of others like the nola.com and the bnd.com references name-check the company but rely on quotations from a hospital board meeting or other spokepersons and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. All of the rest including the knownews.com, NYT and WSJ references are based on company announcements with no independent analysis or opinion and these references fail WP:ORGIND. Without two intellectually independent references, this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a spammy article and spammy as they come, I read those sources and they're spammy as can be too. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote struck. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles posted above which mention TeamHealth do so only as a feature of TeamHealth in relation to something else: be it TeamHealth as a merger partner with another company; TeamHealth as one of many choices that another institution — a hospital — seeks to contract with; TeamHealth entering settlement talks with other partners. In none of the instances provided does TeamHealth stand alone as the single subject of a notable paper, which would seem to be necessary if it were to garner WP:N Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability (my bolding): "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
Wikipedia:Notability does not require TeamHealth to "stand alone as the single subject of a notable paper".
I have provided more sources below.
Cunard (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is a recitation of routine events in the life of any company, mostly source to churnalism. Nothing encyclopedic here of enduring interest; nothing to learn from. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources about TeamHealth:
1. Flory, Josh (2010-02-28). "Private equity good to TeamHealth. Local hospital-staffing firm in growth mode". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes that TeamHealth's competitors are Emergency Medical Services Corp. of Greenwood Village, Colo., Mednax Inc. of Sunrise, Fla.; Rda Sterling Holdings Corp. of Jacksonville, Fla.
  The article notes:
  While TeamHealth may not be a household name in Knoxville, there's a good chance you've encountered the company if you've ever visited a local emergency room. That's because doctors from the Knoxville-based staffing firm handle the emergency-room duties at many local hospitals, including Parkwest Medical Center, the University of Tennessee Medical Center and Mercy Medical Center St. Mary's.
  ...
  In December, Team Health Holdings LLC completed a initial public offering that led to the company's shares being listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
  ...
  TeamHealth, though, doesn't appear likely to join the ranks of the cautionary tales. Founded in 1979, the company specializes in staffing hospital emergency departments - although it also operates in other medical specialties, including hospital medicine, pediatrics and radiology and currently has some 530 hospital clients and clinics in 48 states.
  TeamHealth joined the private equity world in 1999 after it was purchased by a trio of private equity companies and members of management in a $337 million deal. When those private equity buyers began looking for an exit, TeamHealth considered going public. But in 2005 it was acquired by The Blackstone Group, a major private equity operator whose portfolio includes casino operator Harrah's Entertainment, The Weather Channel and the Hilton hotel chain.
  ...
  For TeamHealth, the private equity operators lived up to their reputation for liberal use of borrowed money. Total debt on the company's balance sheet ballooned from $2.5 million at the end of 1998 to more than $241.6 million at the end of 1999, the year TeamHealth was acquired by affiliates of Madison Dearborn Partners, Cornerstone Equity Investors LLC and Beecken Petty O'Keefe & Company.
  The article also includes analysis from Morgan Keegan analyst Robert Mains.
2. Brass, Larisa (2010-08-26). "From ER to executive suite, physician created an industry leader". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The artile notes:
  Emergency department services comprise about 80 percent of TeamHealth's business. The second largest segment is active-duty military hospitals. The company is the country's second largest hospitalist provider, and provides medical staff in psychiatry, radiology, pediatrics and locum tenens - industry speak for temporary physicians.
  In addition, TeamHealth's services have evolved to include billing, coding and collections, and in 2000 the company launched its own malpractice insurance.
  TeamHealth grew from a regional to a national provider through a series of acquisitions in the 1990s.
  ...
  Between 1992 and 1997, TeamHealth acquired or merged with a series of medical outsourcing firms, tapping each for particular skills - the solid managed care experience of a California firm, the best fee-for-service management in South Florida, a quality residency training program for ER physicians in Ohio, risk management skills in New Jersey.
3. Sutherland, Brooke (2015-10-21). Gongloff, Mark (ed.). "Team Health Wins By Waiting". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  The provider of outsourced physician services on Tuesday rejecteda $5.2 billion takeover offer from AmSurg. The stock- and-cash bid was valued at about $71.47 a share based on AmSurg's closing price Monday. It's now worth about $69, after AmSurg slumped4.1 percent amid concerns it's overreaching with the takeover, along with the traditional selloff of the acquirer.
  Either way, AmSurg is offering Team Health shareholders a lower price than the $72.38 that analysts on average were forecasting the company would achieve on its own over the next year. All but one analyst recommended buying Team Health before the takeover approach.
  At the announced price, AmSurg's bid is about a 30 percent premium to Team Health's average share price in the prior 20 days. That looks decent enough on the surface -- except that Team Health had slipped about 22 percent since announcing the takeover of IPC Healthcare for about $1.5 billion on August 4. At about 24 times trailing 12-month Ebitda, the purchase of IPC was pricey and will roughly double Team Health's reported leverage.
4. Sutherland, Brooke (2016-10-15). Williams, Beth (ed.). "Team Health's Best Medicine May Be a Buyout". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  As such, most analysts peg an appropriate takeout value for Team Health somewhere between $40 and $45 a share. That might still be a stretch for a private equity buyer. A roughly 20 percent premium to Team Health's unaffected price would work out to about $39 a share, or about $5.3 billion including debt. At that premium, a buyout firm would have to come up with a large equity check -- potentially around 35 percent of the purchase price -- to keep Team Health's already high leverage under 7 times Ebitda, estimates RBC analyst Frank Morgan. That's assuming Team Health gets all of the $60 million in synergies it's targeting from its 2015 takeover of IPC Healthcare, which isn't guaranteed given the challenges.
  Those takeout estimates don't look overly impressive considering that analysts were expecting Team Health to reach $45 a share on its own over the next year. Investors who have confidence in new CEO Leif Murphy and his impressive track record at companies including DSI Renal and LifePoint may want to see what he can do before selling out. Murphy only came into the top role in September.
5. Tan, Gillian (2016-10-31). Williams, Beth (ed.). "Blackstone Buyout Is Team Health's Best Prescription". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  Team Health has grown significantly since Blackstone last had control. At the time of its 2009 IPO, its team comprised roughly 6,100 professionals, versus more than 19,000 today. Earnings have followed suit.
  ...
  Analysts at Robert W. Baird & Co. estimate that if Team Health spends some $3.2 billion on deals over the next five years, it could double its Ebitda to $1 billion if the company's existing operations maintain a respectable growth rate. Even before then, AmSurg may be ready to pay Team Health a second visit of its own, at a price that makes Blackstone's efforts worth its while.
6. Jayson, Seth (2013-04-01). "Here's 1 Reason Team Health Holdings Looks Weak". The Motley Fool. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  Margins matter. The more Team Health Holdings (NYSE: TMH) keeps of each buck it earns in revenue, the more money it has to invest in growth, fund new strategic plans, or (gasp!) distribute to shareholders. Healthy margins often separate pretenders from the best stocks in the market. That's why we check up on margins at least once a quarter in this series. I'm looking for the absolute numbers, so I can compare them to current and potential competitors, and any trend that may tell me how strong Team Health Holdings's competitive position could be.
  Here's the current margin snapshot for Team Health Holdings over the trailing 12 months: Gross margin is 18.6%, while operating margin is 7.6% and net margin is 3.1%.
  ...
  With recent TTM operating margins below historical averages, Team Health Holdings has some work to do.
7. Jones, Diana Novak (2017-02-06). Pelc, Aaron (ed.). "Health Care Co. To Pay $60M To End Whistleblower Fraud Suit". Law360. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  A national provider of health care in hospitals will pay more than $60 million to end allegations it routinely encouraged its staff to bill Medicare, Medicaid and other insurers for more expensive procedures than those actually performed on patients.
  IPC Healthcare Inc. and its owner, TeamHealth Holdings, agreed to pay $60 million plus interest to settle a whistleblower suit brought by a former IPC employee claiming the company paid bonuses based on the revenue brought in by individual physicians and punished hospitals that did not hit revenue goals, pressuring its doctors to submit falsely inflated bills.
  In addition to the payment, TeamHealth entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General to increase its transparency and prevent future fraud. The settlement does not require IPC or TeamHealth to admit wrongdoing.
8. McNamara, Robert (January–February 2010). "Give a Shift a Week to the Company: An Analysis of the TeamHealth IPO". Common Sense. American Academy of Emergency Medicine. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  On October 5, 2009, TeamHealth Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of the Blackstone group, filed for an initial public offering (IPO) with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The document is available for public inspection1 and EM physicians should strongly consider taking a look at it. One will find that TeamHealth is operating with a gross profit margin of 22% in a business predominantly based in the specialty of emergency medicine. This 22% figure represents what is in play when EM physicians place their economic destiny in the hands of a corporation. From an analysis of the IPO, it is highly plausible that each emergency physician is turning over control of up to $76,000 per year to this corporation. Looked at differently, this amounts to giving one 8-hour shift per week to the company. The question to ask is, how much of that 22% could be invested in the emergency department or the emergency physicians in a non- corporate arrangement?
  ...
  Benefits do not apply for the mostly independent contractor doctors of TeamHealth, and they likely fall under “professional services expenses” for the 700 employed physicians. Certainly, at the end of the day, a good sized portion of that $76,000 would be available to further compensate the emergency physicians. Additionally, this arrangement for physicians includes negatives that need to be considered, such as the possibility of termination without cause and a routine two year restrictive covenant detailed in the IPO.
9. SoRelle, Ruth (August 2007). "TeamHealth, EP Clash over Noncompete Clause, Incentive Plan". Emergency Medicine News. Vol. 29, no. 8. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 28–30. doi:10.1097/01.EEM.0000295871.68854.c9. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
10. SoRelle, Ruth (June 2008). "AAEM Severed from Suits against TeamHealth". Emergency Medicine News. Vol. 30, no. 6. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 1, 16–17. doi:10.1097/01.EEM.0000324823.49523.e9. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
Cunard (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is substantial discussion of TeamHealth in Bloomberg News where analyst reports about TeamHealth are discussed. Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, analyst reports can be used to establish notability.
There is also very substantial discussion of TeamHealth in Knoxville News Sentinel.
Cunard (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard I get it that you like to keep things but reaching for penny stock blog Motley Fool is a new low in terms of scraping the bottom of the barrel. Sheesh. I write about companies all the time and I would not touch that with a ten foot pole. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon further consideration and a review of available sources, this company meets WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is is a small leviathan of company, passing WP:CORPDEPTH and subsequently the higher standard of WP:GNG. All these £5-10billion+ companies are notable. I don't like, but it is the face off it.scope_creep (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last set of references posted by Cunard contain at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majboor (film)

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

Fails WP:MOVIE notability requirement lovkal (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is about an old Indian film in 60s. Submitted details are from 2 independent sources and it is too difficult to collect more evidence or links about the film, because of, the film produced and released in 1964.Njaan Parayunnu (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see news articles and/or reviews of the film in order to establish the reception of the film. A plot summary would be good, too. lovkal (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the subject but:

the director Narendra Suri is notable;

the songs may be notable [6].Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a merge of Majboor (film) and Narendra Suri lovkal (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lovkal, an article about a film should be stand as an independent article. why should it merge with it's director page?Njaan Parayunnu (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the director is notable, and this film is seemingly not. It could be added in the director's list of movies. lovkal (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: As the film exists and is sourcable and as per WP:INDAFD (I know INDAFD is not warranted). This Hindi language movie is 50+ years old thus do not expect to be able to find online press archives, reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivecos (talk • contribs)

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 Diving plane#Cars. ansh 666 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper canards

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

Glorified dicdef. Untouched since 2006. Probably easier to nuke and start again, with content merged into a larger-scoped article. Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know next to nothing about performance cars, but to my layperson's eye this topic appears to be covered in either Spoiler (car)#Other common spoiler types or Diving plane#Cars. Either way, the nominated page reads like an essay, so fails WP:OR. Hopefully a motorhead can suggest whether delete or merge is more appropriate. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diving plane#Cars, which the article actually says they are. Some content may be mergeable, but would need sourcing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not cleanup. Agree with all the tags; the article needs much improvement. But a quick search finds these sources: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]], [13]. Article needs to be sourced and rewritten. MB 20:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diving plane#Cars. Without sources, there's nothing to merge. No indication that the term "bumper canard" is notable, as opposed to being one of several names for a notable thing that is already covered elsewhere. -- Visviva (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—as stated above. Partially because it has no sources as it stands. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Diving planes#Cars. Content must be either verifiable or deleted per a core content policy. As per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "core content policies...are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Luxury

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

Over reliance on Trivial mentions or blogs. Only two albums, and a fair bit of OR.

No evidence of any notability beyond a couple of minor (non music related incidents and some inherited notability) 15 seconds of fame. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NBAND and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 14:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ansh 666 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PyTorch

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

Contested Prod - no indication of notability - primarily an advertisement for a new product PRehse (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a couple of references (InfoWorld, O'Reilly) to the article. PyTorch is also discussed on page 2 of this interview. Although these are fairly strong, however, it is debatable whether it is WP:TOOSOON to sustain an article. AllyD (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to keep. It's adequately covered in the tech press, with a smattering of more scholarly publications (the bulk of which, however, appear to be on sites like the arXiv and have not yet meandered all the way through peer review). So, it may be a bit soon, but given the people backing it, it seems likely to be around for a while. XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep in light of the new references. —cnzx 21:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flex expert system

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

Tagged for notability since 2014, never fixed. Cited sources do not meet the trifecta of reliable, independent, secondary. Mostly self-published. The creator of the article believes it is NPOV, but since he's involved with the product I don't feel inclined to accept his view on that. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very non notable, no secondary coverage given nor can I find any in searching. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting also that User:Genome$100 who has made a comment has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Students for the Advancement of Global Entrepreneurship

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

Spam article. All substantive edits are by two accounts whose usernames clearly identify them as associated with the group. After pruning a veritable link farm including predatory journals, it turns out that the only two actual sources cited are also both associated with the group. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic is interesting to students and budding entrepreneurs. Add few more sources to debate to keep. Genome$100 (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for a nn group; does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. Basically, org spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable group attempting to legitimize themselves on Wikipedia. Fails NORG and GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Flewitt

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

Notability. Coverage is that to be expected of a bloke doing this sort of job. TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:SOFTDEL as the equivalent of an uncontested PROD; WP:REFUND applies. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Chiang

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

Business exec with not enough sources for GNG. Sources in article are passing mentions, job appointments, and 1 interview. BEFORE doesn't yield much more. Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, every WP:BLP needs good reliable sources that are cited in the article to make it verifiable to readers. This hasn't got any, as Spartaz' relist points out, so it must be deleted irrespective of any notability derived from music charts. Sandstein 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strings (rapper)

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

Non-notable rapper with no viable third-party sources. No albums, only guest appearances, and one novelty single from way back in 2000 that didn't chart. Fails WP:MUSIC, and WP:NOTINHERITED despite requisite namedropping, and article was created by user permanently blocked for disruptive editing and copyright violations. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article inclides a cited reference to her song charting. Wouldn't that make ner notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It charted only on the Hot Rap Songs chart and didn't even touch the Billboard Hot 100, plus that's all she's done. It's not enough to establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding interviews on BET and plenty of substantial coverage such as here. Unclear to me why making Hot Rap Billboard chart doesn't count as charting. Isn't that her genre? What ia the difference between Hot Rap and the Billboard chart that wpuld make her notable? Not a huge star, but she's a rap celeb who performed on mainstream shows and received substantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a promotional puff piece, plus interviews are not reliable sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But the sources are allmusic cruft. Glad to change if several good RS can be found. I didn't see any in a quick check. Agricola44 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her single got released and did get to touched the chart, I see as featured artist she touched the 100 chart as well to. So what you saying to be a rapper or other genre you got to touched the Hot 100 or 200 to have a article to be notable, well its a lot of rappers on here haven't touched that and still have a article such as Cha Cha, Lady May, Charli Baltimore, Glamorous, Lady B, Lady Luck and more other artists. And interviews are a reliable source she talked about her self how she grow up and how she became a rapper when MTV interview her other artists have them why not this artist can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B01E:8A03:9D3E:E15F:D39B:1916 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — 2600:1005:B01E:8A03:9D3E:E15F:D39B:1916 (talk) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This is a WP:OSE argument, and again, interviews are mainly self-promotional. Charli Baltimore barely passes GNG because she has a Grammy nomination. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree, OSE is not a valid argument for keep. Incidentally, I had a look at some of those and have since nom'd several for AfD. Others, like Lady Luck (supported by a dedicated article in the New Yorker) are solid. Sources about this person are what is required and those do not seem to be forthcoming. I'll have another look to satisfy myself, but will not change !vote unless something solid pops up. Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this is a case of source this or lose this as neither keep comment so far has provided a strong counter to the delete argument
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyahueyni ben HaKof

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

The article, as written here, is self-contradictory. It says he was from the 3rd tannaitic generation (significantly after the destruction of thre second temple) and that he was appointed High Priest 27-25 years before the destruction of the second temple. Looks like a bad translation of the Hebrew article at the time it was written; the edit summary of the very next edit there is that the article needs to be checked by an expert. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent notability. - Galatz ^Talk 12:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Sourcing in Hebrew/Aramiac is probably key here - "אליהועיני בן הקוף" (the transliterations in this article to English is probably a bit suspect based on GHITS) He does have a Mishna mention, and is treated by some later texts - including the Rambam.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - appears in Mishna and some later texts, AfD is not cleanup - at worst we can stub this down to a two liner.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. The corresponding Hebrew language article has the content and sourcing that demonstrates notability. The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Alansohn (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the magnitude of change in the Hebrew article, I think we would be better off starting it completely than starting from what we have. And the name is quite likely wrong, also - the K should be lowercase, since this person probably isn't called "son of a monkey". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might be hakots, [14] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The name is reliably בן הקוף - literally son of a monkey - this is how it appears in the Mishna and later. The meaning 2000 years ago might not have been the same as today, or it might be a fairly ancient mistake. While קוף is a tanakhic word (Appears in Books of Chronicles - אַחַת לְשָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים תָּבוֹאנָה אֳנִיּוֹת תַּרְשִׁישׁ, נֹשְׂאוֹת זָהָב וָכֶסֶף, שֶׁנְהַבִּים וְקוֹפִים, וְתוּכִּיִּים) - I don't think Monkies were common in Judea or the greater Roman world, not would the cultural connotation be the same. It could have come from קייפה. In any event - the name itself passed WP:V - we could go into discussion on what it means in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable on the basis of the sources in the Hebrew and Yiddish articles. I'm curious which of the monkeys he was a son of. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia. If we are going to merge we really need to have some sourced content to merge otherwise its a simply OR. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian commerce clause

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

Does this not just state a clause, rather than explaining any of its historical significance or anything like that? I don't even think a clause is notable unless in extreme circumstances. Its content is covered by Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia . As a sidenote it's been unsourced since 2006. Coin945 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move and Disambiguate~~Merge and Disambiguate - This page does not seem to be discussing a single concept, but two different primary clauses, with notes on different applicable law. But no single clause exists. So the existing page title should disambiguate to Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia and Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, the only true commerce clauses. But the subject of something like Commerce powers of the Australian Constitution (rather than a single clause) which collects and unifies commerce powers as it applies to Australian law could be notable, as for instance this Columbia Law Review Article and This Boston College law review article cover. ~~While the existing page needs cleanup, it could be moved to that title and include treatment of the several sections referenced (51, 92, 98, 99, 102, 104).~~ MarginalCost (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, given the current state of the article, it's probably better to merge any salvageable content into Constitution_of_Australia#Chapter_IV:_Finance_and_Trade, but I maintain that a full Commerce powers article could be notable if it was further developed. MarginalCost (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There was a previous proposal to merge that doesn't seem to have been discussed, but it also hasn't received any objections since March 2016 so I think this could have been a WP:BOLD merge rather than an AfD. I agree with User:MarginalCost except I wouldn't want to see another WP:FORK; commerce powers as defined in the Constitution can be described in the general Constitution of Australia article or in the Section articles. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer but I have pretended to be one on TV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia, which already discusses the interactions with other parts of the Australian constitution. I can't find any references that suggest this is a commonly-used term (or that the phrase "commerce clause" is commonly used in Australia), and the article has been un-referenced since 2006. It is a plausible-enough term to keep a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above .500 Inc.

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

No real sources, all only have a passing mention, so unless we get some real coverage on the subject, it should get the axe... TJH2018 talk 18:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news, NFL website, Miami Dolphins website is not real coverage or real sources?? User talk:bassmfs —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing any of the links that are used as references. The one for the Miami Dolphins works fine, but many of the other ones that could be used to corroborate this organization's notability return 404s or other errors. Perhaps the article creator could find the right links to these references?? :> Icze4r (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm sure some of them are old now, or expired, I'm sure I can find some links, which ones aren't working anymore?

Here's a few updated one...

Only Links, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, are not working, but here are 5 other new links from more recent events that I will replace them with.

Bassmfs (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I updated all the links and made some changes. Bassmfs (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The independent coverage appears to be about the events run by this group, not the group itself (and many are press releases in some form). None of the events are individually notable. It's very clear that no SNG is met; I don't see any specific source that meets the GNG as being about the group itself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for a nn group; does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. Basically, org spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human Awareness Institute

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

Non-notable workshop provider; references fail WP:CORPDEPTH (the reference to The Ethical Slut links to a promotional page, not text, and in any event I suspect that the mention of the institute is only in the book's directory of resources, given the absence of any attempt by this article's author to parlay any more robust discussion of the institute into further WP:PROMO content). If the decision is "keep," note that I stripped out most of the overwhelming amount of WP:PROMO/WP:NOTMEMORIAL content (some of which was an embarrassment to the encyclopedia for having been up as long as it was) and others may well believe more deletion is appropriate. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am finding articles from SF Gate (which is related to the SF Chronicle) and the Washington Post. But the subject of those articles is not the Human Awareness Institute. In those articles, the institute is mentioned only in passing, and does not appear to be the subject per se. Can't locate anything more notable beyond those 2 papers. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spintendo: insufficient sourcing to pass WP:ORGDEPTH, for one. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite numerous arguments that sources exist and references to google searches the Keep side have not actually brought specific sources for discussion. The nature of the sourcing has been discussed in detail and its significant that the final 4 votes who all had the benefit of reading the whole discussion and clearly show their own search for sources come down to a firm delete. That's not to say that a sourced article couldn't get written if the sourcing is clarified. On that basis while its a delete, I see no reason to see permission to have another go at this from scratch if someone wants to take this on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MikroTik

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

Page is pure fancruft - almost all unsourced and what sources are used are SPS and including the fancruft-signatures of a ridiculous list of ELs and picture gallery. Barely passed AFD in 2008 and has not developed since. Would need to be completely rewritten to make an encyclopedic article out of this. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's one of the best known companies in Latvia and it makes millions. Normally articles on clearly notable subjects are improved, not deleted, and at a glance it doesn't really look as bad as to be described as "funcruft" ~~Xil (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a rather well known router company whose products are periodically discussed in IT publications. If you think the page needs improved, then improve it, but there's rather a substantial amount of reliable sources out there to draw from. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up at Afd and making hand-waving claims about "lots of sources" is not a useful argument. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would provide more sources for you, but Offnfopt seems to have already done that below. And also pointed out that your "almost all unsourced" claim was misleading and inaccurate. You can question the quality of the sources, but a less drastic solution is to insert better sources. I also don't understand your complaint below about needing articles based on the company, not its products. It's normal to discuss a company's products on a company's page. Check out the #Products section of Apple Inc for an example. And it's especially relevant when the company name is commonly used to refer to the company's products; I hear/read discussions of "MikroTik routers" periodically. The fact that the company's products get substantial notable coverage makes clear that there's enough notable coverage to have a page dedicated to the company and its products. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For pete's sake- look at the actual article.

Here, I is will paste it here for you.

;NO SOURCES IN THE SECTION BELOW
RouterOS

The main product of MikroTik is an operating system based on the Linux kernel, known as the MikroTik RouterOS. Installed on the company's proprietary hardware (RouterBOARD series), or on standard x86-based computers, it turns a computer into a network router and implements various additional features, such as firewalling, virtual private network (VPN) service and client,^[1] bandwidth shaping and quality of service, wireless access point functions and other commonly used features when interconnecting networks. The system is also able to serve as a captive-portal-based hotspot system.
The operating system is licensed in increasing service levels, each releasing more of the available RouterOS features. A MS Windows application called Winbox provides a graphical user interface for the RouterOS configuration and monitoring, but RouterOS also allows access via FTP, telnet, and secure shell (SSH). An application programming interface is available for direct access from applications for management and monitoring.

NO SOURCES IN THE SECTION BELOW

Features

RouterOS supports many applications used by Internet service providers, for example OSPF, BGP, Multiprotocol Label Switching (VPLS/MPLS), OpenFlow. The product is supported by Mikrotik through a forum and a wiki, providing assorted and thematic examples of configurations. RouterOS supports Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) as well as Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6).
The software provides support for virtually all network interfaces that the Linux kernel 3.3.5 supports, except wireless, where the Atheros chipsets are the only supported hardware, as of RouterOS version 6.33.

ONE SOURCE IN THE SECTION BELOW

Release history

RouterOS version 6: May 2013^[2]
RouterOS version 6.38 (December 30, 2016; 7 years ago (2016-12-30))

RouterOS version 5: March 2010

RouterOS version 4: October 2009

RouterOS version 3: January 2008

ONLY SPAM REFS TO MICROTEK AND ONLY IN THE LAST SENTENCE IN THE SECTION BELOW

RouterBOARD

The company manufactures a series of integrated circuit boards, marketed under the name RouterBOARD, as well as accessory components which implement a complete hardware operating platform for RouterOS.
The RouterBOARD line, combined with RouterOS, is marketed at small- to medium-sized wireless Internet service providers, typically providing broadband wireless access in remote areas. Products include pre-assembled small office/home office (SOHO) routers, wireless 802.11a/b/g/n/ac MIMO and TDMA devices for indoor and outdoor use, and also bare routers in form of printed circuit boards (PCBs) for integration into custom solutions. Also, the RouterBOARD line includes a series of Mini PCI and Mini PCI Express wireless adapters, supporting a range of IEEE 802.11 protocols, and designed to be used together with the router boards lineup.
Some RouterBOARD boards and their versions are supported by third-party Linux-based firmware, notably OpenWrt.[6][7][8][9][10]

ALMOST NOTHING BELOW IS ACTUALLY IN THE REF GIVEN AND THE LAST SENTENCE IS UNSOURCED

Cloud Core Router

In November 2012, MikroTik released the Cloud Core Router integrated unit which is based on the Tilera CPU supporting nine to 72 CPU cores, 8 SFP+ (MiniGBIC) interfaces, as well as "fast-path" packet forwarding between interfaces (with independently tested 119 million packets and 80 Gbit/s forwarding rate^[3]). This unit targets the medium-sized network providers as well as try to be a well priced alternative to the other more well-known brands.

PURE FANCRUFT SOURCED ONLY TO MIKOTIK WEBSITE

MikroTik User Meeting (MUM)

The MUM is a conference and exhibition about networking, more targeted at MikroTik device users. Started as a regular gathering of forum users in January 2006, the events are now taking place every few weeks around the world, gathering hundreds of people at every event. The biggest event As of November 2015^[update] was in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, gathering 2650 people.^[4]

THE KEY LAST SENTENCE UNSOURCED; ENTIRELY PROMOTIONAL, "ARGUING" WITH THE SOURCED CONTENT

Vulnerabilities
On June 15, 2015, Brian Krebs, an online reporter, reported that "recently, researchers at the Fujitsu Security Operations Center in Warrington, UK began tracking [the] Upatre [trojan software] being served from hundreds of compromised home routers – particularly routers powered by MikroTik and Ubiquiti’s AirOS." A vulnerability hasn't been linked with this incident and Bryan Campbell, the lead threat intelligence analyst at Fujitsu says while a vulnerability could exist, this could also be the result of unsecured devices that still have default credentials enabled.^[5]^{[additional citation(s) needed]}

References

^ "Setup secure VPN access between client and server".
^ MikroTik RouterOS: What's new in 6.0 (2013-May-17 14:04) Archived 13 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine
^ "Stubarea Blog". Retrieved 5 December 2017.
^ "MUM webpage". MikroTik. 2015. Archived from the original on 1 November 2015. Retrieved 5 December 2017.
^ "Crooks Use Hacked Routers to Aid Cyberheists".

Now... what was that about "the content is sourced" again? People talking here are not dealing with the actual article nor Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. "Unsourced" means that there is no reference - no citation provided, that the content is actually summarizing. The content here is just fancruft added by fans based on what they know about the company and its products. That is all it is. -- Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. (1) People here are talking about this page in the context of an AfD. The criteria for an AfD is not whether the article currently has adequate sources, but whether the subject is notable and reliable sources exist. If you have problems with the content, or feel that it's too promotional, then edit it and improve the sources. (2) Please stop being so patronizing and insulting toward other editors. I know Wikipedia's guidelines, and the criteria for deletion, and the fact that a page is currently badly written or poorly sourced is not sufficient reason to delete it. That's especially true when (as noted below) another editor committed in the recent edit history to improving the page. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing. Nobody has actually demonstrated that there are sufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion of this company. That is the only thing that matters. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edit history shows a different picture than indicated by the nomination, and shows that the nomination is a reaction to an edit comment made earlier on the same day stating, "revert again, same reasoning, company's main product is routerboard and routerOS and previous edits completely blank out all mention of that. Editor doesn't see[m] familiar with Mikrotik, I've been using them 13 years, I'll work on adding refs". Recent previous edit history shows a content dispute, but when it was time for the nominator to use inline cn tags or section-ref-needed tags or take the dispute to the talk page, a continuation of reverts rationalized by allegations of edit warring ensued.
The nomination claims that the 2008 AfD "barely passed", but the raw !vote count was 5 to 2.
The nomination claims that the article "has not developed since" the 2008 AfD. But a casual glance shows close to 400 edits. Year-by-year counts I came up with:

2017 42 edits

2016 26 edits

2015 81 edits

2014 32 edits

2013 28 edits

2012 53 edits

2011 35 edits

2010 21 edits

2009 23 edits

The nomination claims that the article is "almost all unsourced", but there are 22 references and 8 external links. Two are marked permanent dead link, and one is stated to being a master's thesis, and there are some bot edits on the talk page about recovering edits. As well, a bot got tangled up in the recent repeated reverts. But collectively, I don't see that this is evidence of an argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "almost all unsourced" i mean exactly what those words say. Look at the article. Large swaths of unsourced content. Where there are "sources" they are the product website or crappy blogs. The lack of good faith much less competence in that "analysis" is actually shocking.

As to the "sources' they are exactly as follows

Used 2x "Pērn Mikrotīkla peļņa palielinājusies līdz 61,37 milj.EUR". Lursoft. 2016.
used: 2x "MikroTik User Meeting Canada 2015" (PDF). mikrotik.com. 2015.
"MikroTik Routers and Wireless: About MikroTik". mikrotik.com. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
"Setup secure VPN access between client and server".
MikroTik RouterOS: What's new in 6.0 (2013-May-17 14:04) Archived 13 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine
"OpenWrt: Mikrotik Routerboard RB493G". OpenWrt. 2013-06-24. Retrieved 2013-09-27.
"OpenWrt Forum: OpenWRT adapted to fully support RB493G (including SD)". OpenWrt. 2013. Retrieved 2013-09-27.
"OpenWRT on Mikrotik Routerboard 411/750". poettner.de. 2011-05-27. Retrieved 2013-09-27.
"Routerboard 450G and Linux". nexlab.it. 2009-04-12. Retrieved 2013-10-16.
"RB500 Linux SDK". mikrotik.com. 2008. Retrieved 2013-10-16.
OpenWrt: Mikrotik Routerboard RB493G June 2013
RouterBoard: RouterBOARD 493/AH/G User's Manual (PDF), September 2011
RouterBoard: RouterBOARD R52n-M: 802.11a/b/g/n dual band miniPCI card (PDF)
RouterBoard: RB14e adapter card (PDF), October 2013
"Stubarea Blog". Retrieved 5 December 2017.
"MUM webpage". MikroTik. 2015. Archived from the original on 1 November 2015. Retrieved 5 December 2017.
Flickenger, Rob; et al. (December 2007). Wireless Networking in the Developing World: A practical guide to planning and building low-cost telecommunications infrastructure (PDF) (2nd ed.). p. 321. OCLC 227819886. Retrieved 19 November 2008. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)</ref>
Langobardi, Federico (2007). BoulSat Project: Radio network implementation by low cost technology (PDF). Master's Thesis, Politecnico di Torino. p. 78.^{[permanent dead link‍]}</ref>
Bartalesi, R.; Catusian, S; Langobardi, F. (8 August 2007). "Radio Network Implementation by Low Cost Technology: a Case of Study" (PDF). Pisa: Ingegneria Senza Frontiere, University of Pisa. pp. 3–4. Retrieved 19 November 2008.^{[permanent dead link‍]}
Filho, Paiva (16 October 2008). "Secretário fala da implantação da internet grátis". meionorte.com (in Portuguese). Jornal Meio Norte. Archived from the original on 21 October 2008. Retrieved 19 November 2008. Diga-se de passagem, o que há de mais moderno em equipamentos para este seguimento, onde utilizaremos os rádios da Mikrotik.
Štrauch, Adam (7 November 2008). "Mikrotik: seznámení s Wi-Fi krabičkou". Root.cz (in Czech). Retrieved 19 November 2008. Mikrotiky jsou velmi populární u poskytovatelů bezdrátového připojení a ohlasy od uživatelů jsou většinu kladné.
"Crooks Use Hacked Routers to Aid Cyberheists".

And don't forget the ridiculous laundry list of spammy ELs.

External links

This is not a Wikipedia article, but rather something awful in that sordid space between fancruft and spam. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To get this out of the way, I'm the editor that Unscintillating made reference to. I'm the one that said "I'll work on adding refs", though my work schedule has been busy so I haven't had the time (just got home from a 12 hour shift). To reply to the above note by Jytdog. Company websites and press releases and technical documents have long been used for references as long as the information being used is not a opinion piece and the information is used to not give favor to that company i.e. the information used is neutral. As a example, lets say Coca-cola issues a online press release and say they're changing the formula to coke and they release another online document that says the new ingredients. We can use both the press release and the document with the ingredients as a reference. We don't have to wait for the New York Times, though in reality they would just be republishing the original information published by Coca-cola with some added flurish. With a lot of technology articles you'll find primary sources are sometimes the only source when it comes to technical reference. Not many news papers or others will publish a article talking about the technical features of Mikrotik's routerOS or as another example the technical details of a file format. This is because most people don't know how the internet works and know nothing of networking protocols. Same goes for file formats, regular people don't know about how to make a software library or program to parse a file, so you would be hard pressed to find a mainstream reference. So for notability, there are plenty of 3rd party results of Mikrotik. 13,000,000 results on google for Mikrotik. 65,200 additional results for the company name in Latvia (i.e. Mikrotīkls). 1,370,000 results for RouterOS, 1,830,000 results for routerboard. You can also find mention of Mikrotik and RouterOS from Ciscopress which is by the publishing company Pearson. You can also find Mikrotik being talking about in a book published by Syngress (i.e. Elsevier). You can also find information on non-English sites about Mikrotik though you need to use the non-english spelling when searching and depending on which language you may need to change the spelling since Mikrotik is used all over the world. A press release from Tilera talking about Mikrotik. You can also find a lot of articles talking about Mikrotik in Dienas Bizness, a long standing Latvian business newspaper. Financial information can be referenced from the Latvia State Enterprise register. If you search for Mikrotīkls 5G, you'll find plenty of news sites talking about Mikrotik and Latavia's oldest mobile provider LMT working together to bring 5G to Latvia. My point being that your comment above that said Quote: hand-waving claims about "lots of sources" is not a useful argument /End quote, there are sources though even though there are sources to talk about the company itself, as I said above, there is nothing wrong with using information provided by a company if it is used properly. I only list this information because you seem to imply with your various comments that the company isn't notable by making reference to the previous deletion request, which was solely for the reason of notability, then you try to claim made up words like "fancruft" as a reasoning for deletion. I still plan on adding references, when I get more time. I'm actually taking away from my limited sleep time just to type this reply. - Offnfopt^(talk) 20:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above, company is notable, fancruft is a made up word and the page on Wikipedia it is used on is a essay and not "Wikipedia policies or guidelines". That essay talks about a subjects notability. After reading that.. essay.. it can be summed up that some individuals seem to think that because they haven't heard of a subject/company/individual it means a subject is not notable. The world is a big place and there are a lot of people and a lot going on that you may not be aware of. Just because you, yourself are not familiar with a subject does not mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia. - Offnfopt^(talk) 20:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, please read WP:42 - I will copy the nutshell here for you:

Articles generally require significant coverage
in reliable sources
that are independent of the topic.

Press releases are not independent. Technical manuals and the company website are not independent. Blogs are not reliable, generally. What are the refs we need per WP:42? Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline (not an essay) that explains how the community implements the policy, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. (for the interaction between policies and guidelines, see WP:PAG)

Our general approach is that there needs to be at least three independent sources with significant discussion of the subject. What are those three refs? What is happening in this AfD is that instead of anybody !voting "keep" discussing GNG, they are waving their hands and saying "this is important". This is what happens in WP when there is online community of "fans" who do not care sbout Wikipedia's mission or its policies and guidelines, and show up to protect the fanpage they have created in WP. This happens sometimes - it is something WP is vulnerable to, as an open, volunteer project. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog please take the time to read my comment above fully. Your question of "What are those three refs?" shows you did not. As I said above, this it taking away from my limited sleep so this will have to wait till another day. Read my above comment and you'll find your "three refs". The world does not only speak English, even though I listed English sources, I also listed non-English sources and how to find more. - Offnfopt^(talk) 20:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did read - you provided too much to read with bad arguments "lots of google hits" but i read the whole thing anyway. What we need are refs with substantial discussion of the company. Discussion of its products is not relevant (notability is not inherited. So the Mikrotik and RouterOS from Ciscopress piece, which is about its product, is not helpful. I ask you again to actually engage with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and just present three independent, reliable sources with substantial discussion of the company. Not stuff with passing mentions. Not "google hits". Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the "fancruft" essay you referenced, that "NOTINHERITED" page has a key notice at the top of the page "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". I've come to the conclusion there is no point in interacting with a individual like you. I've provided the information I wanted for others to see. - Offnfopt^(talk) 14:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination, although it doesn't identify a deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON, appears to be a WP:DEL7 nomination. Regarding the WP:DEL7 nomination, I have identified and removed a social media website from the external links, added one Template:Unreferenced section, and added one Template:Citation needed. I also clicked on Google scholar and see foreign language references. Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the references provided enough to establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This nomination is not for notability. Since notability is not questioned, it is inappropriate to assess notability. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misrepresentation. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All AFD nominations are assessed for established notability by administrators. In fact, the only thing articles are truly assessed for here is notability. Besides that, there's almost no reason (outside of WP:SPEEDY) to delete an article at all. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:CORP - if there are sources out there matching the four main criteria can be easily tested by doing Google News search, which shows plenty of non-trivial, independent coverage in major national and also foreign media that certainly isn't about anything criminal. The article itself doesn't appear to be promotional or fan made - it uses neutral language and lists vulnerablities of their products. Including product descriptions, when article isn't severly overflooded with them, shouldn't really be a problem and it isn't advertising. It would be great, if there was a bit more content on other issues, but article lacking detail is not a reason to delete it. Nor is one user arguing that WP:ITSCRUFT ~~Xil (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promotional article for a barely notable brand. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a well-known brand of small installation/WISP network equipment and has been for a very long time. Try putting at least a token effort into finding sources instead of proposing the whole thing be scrapped and people's effort thrown away because you don't feel like doing it yourself. As an AfD, the "non-notable" argument is patently invalid if one puts in the minimum effort of typing "mikrotic" into Google News and taking a cursory look at the numerous secondary sources present there. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

typing "mikrotic" into Google News and taking a cursory look at the numerous secondary sources present there is an invalid argument at AfD. The requirement is very simple - a few actual RS with actual substantial discussion of the actual subject. Not handwaves. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above google news show plenty of exactly the kind of sources notability guidelines require. And all the guidelines require is proof that there are sources out there. An argument is not invalid just because it doesn't suit someone's agenda. ~~Xil (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You actually have to show them. All that "there are lots of google hits" says, is that there are lots of mentions, and google catches all kinds of crap along with reliable sources. Continually repeating "lots of google hits" just shows how bad the advocacy is and how little any of the Keep voters understands, or even cares about, the policies and guidelines of WP. Jytdog (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are not ordinary Google hits, but results from media sites. And even if somewhere deep down there is "crap" it's plainly obvious that top results are major national media writing about the company in particular. Also a person who nominates "cruft" for deletion "vote" really shouldn't lecture others on policies and guidelines ~~Xil (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find two *intellectually independent* references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that this company's marketing department are competent, but nothing more. Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the references for the article are primary sources and the product does not seem to have any significant coverage. There are some articles or thesis which mention the product in passing, but overall it seems to fail notability. Hagennos (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to establish notability, and the gestures at Google News above fail even worse. No reliable secondary sources. As for the notion that it can be "inappropriate" to assess notability at AfD, I'm still trying to recover from it. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:LOTSOFSOURCES arguments aside, doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Particularly per OTR500. The coverage is either trivial or unreliable, and we can't support a BLP on that level of shaky sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Hasnain

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

An unremarkable pageant contestant and winner of nn Mrs. Pakistan World; significant RS coverage for pageant career not found. There's minor notability due to an alleged scam the subject participated in link, but this does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. There have been attempts to add this to the article. For lack of notability and due to BLP concerns, I believe that the article is best deleted.

First AfD closed as "Keep", based in part on the rationale that the pageant is notable. The article on the pageant has since been deleted, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She had a well-sourced article here in 2011 (created in 2008) - version as of 2011 - prior to the scam scandal, and she was covered for her competition in various followup pageants. The alleged scam does not detract from her prior notability.Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the standalone Mrs Pakistan World page has been deleted, it is mentioned in the main Miss Pakistan World article and so remains notable. She also participated in Mrs Globe (definitely a notable pageant) in which she won several prizes. Well-sourced article. Easily passes WP:GNG. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- the extend of coverage is the parent pageant is as follows (Miss_Pakistan_World#Expansion):

"In 2007 Mrs. Pakistan World,^[1] for married women, was created as a spin-off. Both the Miss Pakistan World and the Mrs. Pakistan World pageant were created on the basis of issues faced by women in Pakistan.The pageant is running successfully since 2007."

References

^ http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/pakistan-gets-mrs-pakistan-world-221800650.html

The link is dead, but I'd venture a guess that it was the org's own press release. This does not seem like a notable pageant; "Mrs"-named pageants are generally the lowest tier in the pageant world. Miss_Pakistan_World is tagged for notability itself. I don't believe that this meets WP:ANYBIO and the pageantry coverage is routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and what we look for here is WP:What Wikipedia is not, examining spam each on different occasion isn't helping us but instead netting the blatant ones is what makes a difference. Both votes here aren't proposing anything differently than that it must be notable and that's not what makes a difference in any other AfD where a similar comment could be made. Our priority here is that we're not a discriminate collection of information or other trivia, and that's WP:Indiscriminate policy. SwisterTwister talk 17:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, we are citing policy. As long as the subject meets WP:GNG, the article is adequately sourced and not a WP:BLP violation there is no reason to delete it. The subject is notable (just) beyond the Mrs Pakistan World involvement. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- what's being argued is that there's no depth of coverage (WP:SIGCOV) to satisfy GNG. Besides, what else is the subject notable for? That she was "awarded $15,000 in a "Smile Competition" in Mrs. Globe 2008"? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plenty of coverage of her legal problems in multiple RS. I'd say being a fugitive from justice is an indication of notability. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've addressed this point in the nomination: "Former Mrs Pakistan Used her Striking Appearance to Scam California Ramilies" link, but this does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. There have been attempts to add such material into the article, and there were rightfully removed, per BLP. So Plenty of coverage of her legal problems in multiple RS does not help this specific article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article seems to fail any policy based criteria for inclusion per WP:NOT or pass the notability criteria for a stand alone article mentioned in WP:N including WP:GNG. This article doesn't come close to passing WP:NOT on several levels, most notably WP:NOTEVERYTHING (aka: Encyclopedic content) and WP:IINFO. Both WP:N and WP:GNG require an article to pass WP:NOT as having coverage alone is not enough to merit an article. Also both require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the sources in the article meet this requirement. Current sources:

Sources 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 are from mrspakistan.com which is hardly independent.

Sources 8, 9 reference that the subject was charged with a crime. I am unaware of any policy that suggests that small time, local, "alleged" scammers qualify for a stand alone article and the guidelines under WP:CRIME are not met.

A review of the previous sources in the article was of no help in establishing notability, mostly PR, blogs, or other non-independent sources. CBS527^Talk 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article is within WP:GNG. Sources are good but needs formatting. The article overall needs c/e but AfD is not a clean-up service. Several of the Delete !votes above are mistaken, the references are mostly indepth and third party, both national, international and pageant related sources independent from each other are available.BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly open to amend my !vote if such sources exist. I have been unable to find any in the article or G-searches that meet the requirements for notability. "Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". Where are these in depth and third party references? It would be helpful if you would point us to a couple that are verifiable and meet the requirements to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 11:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weak sources do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are multiple severe issues with this BLP. The subject is not even close to satisfying any guidelines of notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people) or the BLP policy. Nine references and 7 are primary sources to Miss Pakistan World (not attributed in the referencing), one primary court document that redirected me to a County of Santa Clara search site, and one reliable source. I am sure it did not go unnoticed this is a BLP and the standards are to be far higher. Primary sources do not count towards notability. The subject is reportedly a "former" Mrs Pakistan World 2008 winner, and she reportedly (I can't tell because there is no actual reliable souce) was arrested. This is another issue of "throwing dirt" without evidence and possibly justification for BLP violation article blanking. The use of primary sources has led to Puffery words such as "most beautiful Mrs. Pakistan World", "Expressions of doubt" (prosecutors alleged), and other weasel words. Even if there were more reliable sources we are talking about a "one time wonder" that is best covered under a parent article. However, some major confusion is that on a horribly referenced and tagged article titled Miss Pakistan World (is this "not" the same pageant?) I didn't see her name in 2008. There is listed a "Natasha Paracha" and a Representatives to Miss Earth 2008 "Nosheen Idrees". This article, and any BLP's like this (a drive to "just" make BLP articles regardless of policies and guidelines) have no place in this encyclopedia. Otr500 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Otr500 summed up nicely. Störm (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Participating in the Mrs. Globe pageant might not be enough to establish notability here. And the same might be true for being the subject of criminal charges. But there's something unique about the combination of the two that makes for an interesting story. I imagine that the "delete" votes will say that the story might be of some interest, but not of encyclopedic interest. And perhaps they're right; but perhaps they're not. I myself see it as a borderline case -- so much so that I'm not able to weigh in with an opinion one way or the other. But I'm posting here anyway just to address a few inaccuracies that have been put forward by the "delete" votes.

1. The court site that reports the filing of criminal charges is not a primary source. The court did not make the allegations of criminal behavior -- the county's district attorney did. And the court site is a reliable third-party source for the fact that those charges were made. But more to the point, once the charges had been filed, there was press coverage of them, including reliable reporting of the fact that the subject left the jurisdiction of the court. There are no BLP violations here.

2. Although there is common ownership of the Miss Pakistan World and Mrs. Pakistan World pageants, they are indeed separate pageants. There is no reason to expect that the subject's name would appear in a list of the "Miss" winners and no negative inference should be drawn from the fact that it does not appear there.

3. The administrator who closed the first nomination did not cite notability of the pageant as a reason for "keeping" the article. The only cited reason was the nominator's own statement that the article should be kept, so long as discussion of the criminal charges was removed.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to echo NY Actuary in that the crime and beauty pageant nexus makes this notable. The media agrees. International and US coverage includes: Mercury News [[15]], Daily Mail [[16]], The Express Tribune (Pakistan) [[17]], NY Daily News [[18]], ABC News [[19]], LA Times [20], DNA India [[21]], Business Insider [22], and on and on. There are several articles about her and that she won the pageant, pre-crime. Passes WP:GNG.
Delete. The beauty pageant coverage is superficial or not independent, and the scam coverage is WP:BLP1E. Sandstein 20:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
’’’delete’’’ blp1e when the other event is non-notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Coast

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage exists to make this notable. The article was recreated in 2013 after being deleted in 2008, but the same problem persists. Tagged for not notable since 2015. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a common term, and I find references referring to other locations ([23]) as well. The top Google hit, Tech Coast Angels, refers to the same location, but that article has its own problems. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term was coined in 1997 according to this Los Angeles Times article. It is used in this book. I am not sure if that is enough coverage to make it notable. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can merge into Southern California since Southern California#Colleges and universities mentions this term. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the term is insufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article. A definition at best; not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked pages on Facebook

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

The subject does not meet LISTN, the applicable notability guideline, and it likely runs afoul of RAWDATA as well. Rebb ing 02:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:Listcruft--Rusf10 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - found these two sources:
- http://www.adweek.com/digital/top-25-facebook-pages-september-2014-facebook-for-every-phone-nearing-500m-likes/#/
- https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2015/06/09/the-10-most-popular-celebrities-on-facebook.html

Ꞷ umbolo 11:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The top one or two pages could be mentioned in the main article, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources brought up by Wumbolo are examples of significant and independent coverage of the topic of top Facebook pages. The notability guideline for standalone lists states that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". By this criteria, the list is notable and should be kept. Malinaccier (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Listcruft, and if this list were to be kept I would imagine that many updates to this list would be based off of original research. Grapefruit17 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT. Information can be mentioned on their main pages of the listed subjects. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dog crossbreed. This is my first close of an AfD. If I got it wrong and I did a WP:BADNAC, please tell me and I will try not to fuck up second time round😄 (non-admin closure) !dave 09:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiweenie

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable dog hybrid TKK! bark with me! 18:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a feasible redirect to List of dog crossbreeds, depending on the outcome of this RfD. 165.91.13.28 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dog crossbreed. In regards to that giant crossbreed RfD, while we don't necessarily need a redirect for every "let's jam two breed names together" crossbreed name, this is a pretty well known crossbreed [24]. Google News shows many articles about individual dogs that refer to those dogs as chiweenies. As those articles are about individual dogs, not the type of dog they are as a type of dog, they certainly aren't anything that would help us build a separate article on the crossbreed, but they do demonstrate that "chiweenie" is a quite plausible search term, and that's one of the reasons we have redirects. Egsan Bacon (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dog crossbreed. I removed all the of the unsourced and, truthfully, not terribly helpful material. As I look at how scant it is now I don't think it offers much being a standalone article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Floating cities and islands in fiction. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the consensus is to delete but from the discussion there is clearly a similar article that is was suggested this was a FORK of. Redirecting to that is clearly sensible although that was an editorial not administrative decision. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of floating islands in fiction

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

Extremely crufty, barely referenced list of WP:OR popculture trivia. Doesn't even really distinguish between floating (on water) islands and floating (in the air) islands. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List with few sources, lots of original research, and lacks a clear definition of what is an "island", and what makes it floating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What they say, If a page is nonsense, delete it. Mon t ey
Delete- "extremely crufty" is right. This is nothing but trivia, poorly sourced. Like most lists of fictional XYZ there's no place for it here. Reyk _YO! 11:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No definable criteria of inclusion, largely unsourced mix of conjecture and random assortment. Also inching towards nonsense –Ammarpad (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Looking at the above scholar references, it's clear that fictional floating islands are a notable concept. The above deletion arguments are critiques of the content, which can be fixed by regular editing, rather than the concept. While I agree with the critiques (floating in air != floating in water, too unreferenced, too much pop culture trivia), none of those, individually or together, justify deleting a notable topic. Cutting it back to the Odyssey reference, or just redirecting to Floating island (fiction) per WP:ATD-R would be strongly preferable to deletion. Jclemens (talk)

Who says notable topic is to be deleted, and how this random collection become "notable"? The articles themselves are in their in their respective pages. Also redirect list doesn't usually serve any purpose because lit I not " topic" is just organizational index. So by failing WP:LISTPURP and containing random collection, deletion is the not appropriate. You an create redirect about later, because redirect such list only give room for someotto revert it to list since the content is still there. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the point of redirection is that so someone can see the underlying content, and either integrate it somewhere else, or restore the article if things change. Yes, people can use that to undo redirects, but with an AfD consensus, that redirect will quickly get protected if done disruptively. But we don't delete stuff just due to AGF failure; if redirection is the policy-based option, we go with it. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree with your fair response. The reason why I favor deletion is because redirect result in AfD is technically deletion but with simple option to restore article. In the recent, I have seen more than 5 articles which closed as redirect but their creators or IPs just removed the redirect and restore the text; many of such have to be taken to AfD again and finally get really deleted. (Sorry I can't find their diffs now, but hope you'll believe me). I also agree the redirect can be protected if understood to be disrupted, but what if not? And there is simpler option to create the redirect with only 1 history after this with larger history got deleted, it just make the process simple, for those who'll keep eye to disruption and those to be called to protect. Also at the same time do the work of the redirect. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Ammarpad says, redirection is easily reverted unlike deletion. That is why I favor deletion over redirection unless it's absolutely necessary (e.g. if there is a lot of referenced data that would otherwise be lost). When a page is redirected, pretty much anyone can reverse it easily without much, or any scrutiny. Ultimately you can probably find a redirect target for half of the articles that go through AfD, but that doesn't mean they all need to be redirected._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just reading the title of this article set me off laughing for a couple of minutes, as much as I'll go into explaining why this article should be deleted, it's perfectly summed up with this word, nonsense. Some articles are oddly obscure but aren't bad, in this case though, the article is pure unorganized cruft and I feel like it was made just for the heck of it. Definitely not meeting WP:GNG, and WP:OR. Grapefruit17 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is "nonsense", then why is this ok? Or this? Or this? Or this? —cnzx 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why this argument never holds weight._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you think distinguishes this case from the ones I've linked? —cnzx 02:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - List of fictional islands, List of fictional ships and List of fictional spacecraft seem to have potential, but need major cleanup to get rid of listcruft and unreliable references. Mythical continents seems like it should be merged with List of mythological places, as it's a list anyway. This list is overly specific though, and was original research from the start._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not convinced of the difference between this list and the others. Sure, it needs better referencing, but I think that "floating islands" is a recurrent trope in literature worthy of a list. Maybe a merge into that article? —cnzx 06:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I understand your point, this list is still poorly written cruft and doesn't meet three very important WP guidelines (WP:OR, WP:GNG, and WP:CITE which I didn't even mention before). Further more the argument of this list's topic being notable or not is pretty subjective, I don't think it's notable but you do. The reason why I believe this article's topic isn't notable is because there's not significante coverage of it (even relative to other literary topics) and there's no cultural significance of floating islands in fiction like there is with Dragons or swords for example as two more notable literary concepts (List of fictional swords, List of dragons in literature). Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another important point I forgot to mention was that by merging this list in question (List of floating islands in fiction) with any other list with a similar topic wouldn't make the reasons I pointed out for why this list should be deleted any less valid, it would just keep a bad list on the site and make the list it was merged with a lot worse. Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you find floating islands worthy of listing, they can be added to Floating cities and islands in fiction. This article is currently listcruft and when you remove all the listcruft from that article I doubt it would even be enough to merit a list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with a merge where all the substantial content sticks around. —cnzx 21:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Floating cities and islands in fiction. bd2412 T 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fancruft, trivia and original research. There's no valid topic here and no sources that discuss it directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced without any defining criteria, pretty much WP:OR. Fails criteria for standalone article per WP:N. Also, we already have an article on this as a literary device (or trope) entitled "Floating cities and islands in fiction". That article already cites generalized examples followed by sections with specific examples. That makes this article is essentially a WP:Content fork. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Papua New Guinea national rugby league team players. seems like a good compromise between lack of notability and possibility of being searched. ansh 666 07:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rero

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

I had placed a Speedy deletion tag on Alan Rero which SoWhy removed in good faith since the persona appears to be a player in the national team. I have placed a deletion notice for the second time as it can be good to be a player in the national team but that does not make published information about this automatically available and therefore does not mandate that the person needs a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information and I found a lack of reliable information about this person and therefore tagged the article for deletion. One may feel free to contest the deletion and add more reliable sources to the article. If that gets done, deletion would automatically get averted. Diptanshu 💬 15:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I fixed this nomination and moved it since there was no first nomination. Regards So Why 15:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources show this individual is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:RLN. He has played for PNG but after a search it doesn't appear he passes GNG. Mattlore (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PNG international who played in test matches against the Kiwis and Kangaroos.Fleets (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea national rugby league team players. Doesn't appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, but I think it's feasible someone might search for a player who appeared in a Test match against New Zealand and Australia. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge discussion can be opened on article talk page if desired. ansh 666 07:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Burnet

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

A person who went to Newington College and then opened a Koala park. He does not appear to be notable as an academic. No disclosed research or equivalent Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Koala Park Sanctuary. Reading the article he doesn't seem notable outside of creating the park(he doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC), so his history with the park could be added to that page(what isn't there already). 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Baby miss fortune 21:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Baby miss fortune 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite sufficient here to support WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: I may be wrong but most of those seem to be about his work with the sanctuary, (and some seem like brief mentions that don't establish notability) which as I state above seems to be what he is notable for and as such the article should be merged. The question is, is this person notable as an academic or something else. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But I think there is sufficient for the subject of this article to stand alone in this instance.

Delete not notable on his own. Not enough notability to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aoziwe's sources establish do notability as a prominent early conservationist with quite a bit of coverage in reliable sources. There is an ongoing problem with this author utterly failing to understand notability guidelines: even here, where the person does actually seem to be quite notable, the article completely fails to explain why, instead mentioning crap like what some English royal thought of his park and him having his photo taken for the Sydney Morning Herald. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: Specifically which sources give in depth coverage of this person? Most of the ones I looked at only gave brief mentions of this person, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder. It would not be difficult to write a pretty solid article on this guy (although Castlemate with his Newington-cruft never does), though I'm ill-inclined to clean up yet another piece of his mess tonight. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to clean up the article, only to indicate which sources given proper coverage. If you don't wish to, fair enough. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Koala Park Sanctuary. I'm with 331dot on this one; I can't see much to establish him as notable himself, but this could be covered quite well in the sanctuary article. A lot of Aoziwe's search seems to reveal routine/passing/duplicate coverage, although if I've missed something I'd be pleased to reconsider. Frickeg (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- an early conservationist with sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. I don't see a reason for a merge, since it's easier to keep a bio under the person's name. The article is sufficiently well cited at the moment, so it's not a TNT-redirect either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E is a reason to merge; if the sanctuary is the only thing they are known for, there shouldn't be a separate article about them. There are claims of significant coverage, but none has been offered yet that I have seen. I too would be happy to reconsider(as Frickeg would above). 331dot (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did the park make the man or did the man make the park in this instance? By this logic perhaps the park should be merged to here. In this instance I think there is enough for both articles to stand on their own. Aoziwe (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aoziwe and The Drover's Wife. The wiki article is currently sub-par, but as a pioneering conservationist and koala expert, there is enough significant coverage on him in reliable notable sources. SunChaser (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? 331dot (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Might be just enough significant independent coverage to pass the WP:GNG, but as others have queried, is he actually notable or is the coverage of the Koala Park only sufficient to give notability to the Park? Remember that notability is not inherited. Kb.au (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies: ping me or message me for a restore if sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindik Productions

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Sourcing out there is primarily in Hebrew under הינדיק הפקות. They specialize in hassidic music. Undecided on notability.Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Hebrew, but the source in the article doesn't have the appearance of a reliable source, maybe a blog.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I'm going with delete unless someone can come up with better sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P. Mansaram

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

WP:BLP of an artist, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media shown at all: the "references" here are entirely primary sources, such as a lecture he gave and unpublished interviews personally conducted by the creator of this article. However, Wikipedia requires sources to be published for proper verification that they actually say what they're claimed to have said, and nobody can ever be "sourced" by simply interviewing them personally or by listening to them give a speech -- so none of the sourcing here is acceptable, and nothing claimed in the text constitutes an automatic WP:NARTIST pass in the absence of any acceptable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -- HindWiki^Connect 23:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fact, article does not cite proper sources does not mean he does not have claim for notability. Exhibiting and being part of permanent collection of Royal Ontario Museum grants article without any doubts. We just need to find proper links and update the article. I also found mentions of him exhibiting in other public galleries. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, exhibiting at a major museum still isn't an automatic notability freebie for an artist in and of itself — it still has to be supported by reliable source coverage about him, not just "mentions", before it counts toward notability. An artist's notability is conditional on his sourceability — no artist can make any notability claim that exempts him from having to be sourced properly. So it's not a case of "keep it and then maybe we'll find some better sources" — finding the better sources comes first and then maybe we can keep it if the sourcing is improved enough, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the source I've added to the article and it was quite easy to find. Press Release from the Royal Ontario Museum stating they have him in their collection and that they exhibiting them. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be required to make that exhibition a notability claim is not a press release from the museum, but a newspaper assigning a journalist to attend and write about the exhibition. To support notability, sources have to be independent of the claim, not press releases from people or organizations promoting themselves. An exhibition isn't notable until media, independent of the artist's or the museum's own PR teams, choose to write and publish their own unaffiliated content about it. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask if information from Museum about inclusion to permanent collection is not satisfying WP:ARTIST? From my humble opinion it quite makes it a pass. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also searched for him as Panchal Mansaram and found he also included to permanent collection of National Gallery of Canada - [25], as well as exhibiting in Art Gallery of Mississauga - [26]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistorian, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Bearcat is very nice but, with respect, in this case he does entirely misunderstands the way WP:ARTIST works in terms of permanent collections. For exhibitions, yes, there need to be RS. For permanent collections all that is needed is evidence. The Mississauga entry is actually a permanent collection. 104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need something more than press releases to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally out of curiosity, and AGF, did you conduct a search before coming to your conclusion above, or did you simply glance at the article?104.163.153.162 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Does anyone do WP:BEFORE anymore, or are people just going by the "look" of the article? WP:ARTIST is met:

National Gallery of Canada permanent collection
Art Gallery of Mississauga permanent collection (read the text)
The collaborative piece with Marshall Mcluhan (!!!) in the ROM makes "several museums". 104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to what 104.163.155.42 and Arthistorian1977 have stated about museum collections (per WP:ARTIST), I have found the following sources: Canadian Art, Times of India (brief but independent), tecnoartenews.com, mybindi.com, artdaily.org; and the following books: The Critical Vision: Selected Writings, A. S. Raman, 1993, Indian Contemporary Art: Post Independence, Vadehra Art Gallery (catalogue) 2010, Studies in Modern Indian Art: A Collection of Essays, Ratan Parimoo, 1975, Graphic Art in India Since 1850: An Exhibition, The Akademi (catalogue), 1985, Reimagining India: Unlocking the Potential of Asia’s Next Superpower edited by Clay Chandler, Adil Zainulbhai, 2013, P. Mansaram Galerie de Drie Hendricken, 1964 (appears to be a monograph). Some of these are mentions, others more substantial, but combined with the museum collections, other museum exhibitions (international) and the work with McLuhan (widely exhibited), this easily passes WP:GNG. freshacconci (✉) 17:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

good job, thank you. The art itself is pretty cheesy, but the artist is, as you have shown, very notable for that cheesiness.104.163.153.162 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep after improvements. ansh 666 07:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haworth Press

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Not finding any significant coverage in various searches, just name checks in search results listing it as a publisher and minor passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT~~Delete~~ -- Haworth wasn't notable in 2008. As an imprint (subsidiary) of Taylor & Francis, even less so now. If someone wants to save some text and roll it into Taylor & Francis, do it now. Rhadow (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so is it worth a redirect? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was notable in 2008,as one of the main publisher for library science, but it was also a pioneering publisher for what was then called gay studies, and other then-obscure disciplines . There are references available, particularly for the gay studies part, and I am adding them. And of course, having been notable then, it remains notable. (I agree it became less important after T&F bought it, & one of the refs I am adding added discusses why. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG mostly. Looking forward to seeing the extra sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. New sources establish notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements and new sourcing. Suffiently notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent expansion and new sources are quite sufficient to demonstrate notability. Edwardx (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accord with WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm rather surprised at the number of Keep !votes since not one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability - which is a prerequisite for meeting GNG. References either rely on company announcements or interviews that are not intellectually independent - fails GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Am I missing something? I'm very happy to change my !vote if someone can point out two sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have discarded SPA votes which are mere assertions of notability. The keep argument that the products are notable therefore the company is do not overcome policy based voted based on notability standards for companies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lightricks

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)

De-Prodded. WP:PROMO content of a startup company that lacks coverage for WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage is on the company's applications (most notably Facetune), and not on the company itself. Article creator also created articles for the new applications Enlight Photofox and Enlight Videoleap this month which I PRODed. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sourcing that demonstrate notability. After removing some advertising hype it seems perfectly fine to me.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilabrand: Note - there is quite a bit of coverage - but most of it is on product releases and specifically Facetune. There is little coverage of the company itself (there is a Calcalist piece of their recent hiring spree, a few odds and ends, but fairly little on the company - which is a 4 year old startup with approx. 200-300 employees).Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

200-300 employees is a very sizeable company in Israel.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

200-300 employees (following a hiring spree in summer 2017) is a medium sized company in Israel, and is a typical size for a 3rd-4th round startup. The problem here is sourcing for WP:CORPDEPTH - there is quite a bit of coverage on various apps (Facetune in particular, releases of others - much of it PR of course) - but little on the company.Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really get the difference. The company develops apps. Hence the focus on what it develops. What else is missing? I am sure more information can/should be added, which is true for all Wikipedia articles. By why delete it? It is a Jerusalem hi-tech start-up, which in itself is notable--Geewhiz (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The app that received attention - has an article (and probably merits an article, it does have secondary coverage that isn't PR driven) - Facetune. Startups in Jerusalem aren't that rare (e.g. Mobileye would be a highly notable example). Startups of this size are rarely notable - with coverage being limited mainly to company interviews and product releases (in this case - since the products are consumer facing, there are quite a few product reviews) - that's not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. Due to the nature of this company, WP:PROMO, is also an on-going issue that will creep back in here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete. Company has enough proven sources that aren't PR releases. They've won an Apple Design Award, Best iOS App of 2015, been used as a Facebook case study. As a member of the tech scene, these are certainly newsworthy accomplishments. A company like Polarr, is Wiki-worthy and this company has accomplished more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kortex (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Kortex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is written as WP:PROMO. Even though there are sufficient references the overall content of the article is written as an advertisement and most of the links are for self promotion. Hagennos (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi guys, I edited the article and added some information and sources. Would love to hear your thoughts. Lightricks two app series (which are based on same image processing technology- this is not a software house), Enlight and Facetune, have tens of millions of downloads, most of them paid (not trivial- not many apps in the world have so many paid downloads), the company has at least $10m revenues last year (see in the article) and they received significant recognition, including last week, when Enlight was chosen by Apple as one of nine apps of the year, and both apps were mentioned in USA Today as some of top paid iPhone apps worldwide. Bottom line, I think what the company has achieved is significant enough to keep the article. However, it might make sense to merge the article Facetune in the Lightricks article. Thanks. --Hmbr (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire line of argument above established notability for the apps (Facetune, maybe Enlight) - not the company. The Usatoday piece doesn't even mention the company name - it might be useful for establishing the notability of the app in question, not the company. Calcalist is a bit more in depth - providing a very short company history (1-2 paragraphs) on the side. Going over the sources in the article:

These are about products, not the company (some are possibly PR release rehashes, and some don't even name the company) - [27], [28] [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36],[37], [38], [39], [40]
Product of the X announcements/downloads. Some do not mention the company, some are one-liner listing of the app names:[41], [42], [43], [44],
Financing round (PR, routine, not grounds for notability of a company): [45].
A bit of coverage of the company "on the side" or in a list (1-2 paragraphs): [46], [47], [48],
Interview (not grounds for notability, and in a blog!): [49]
Actual coverage of the company: [50]

In short - In all of this seemingly long list of references (some of whom have RS issues as well) - there is one in-depth piece (business insider) and 3 1-2 paragraph pieces (all in Israeli press). Coupled with PROMO and COI concerns (see - unblock request by article creator - this was not created "out of the blue"). This is a complete WP:CORPDEPTH fail. Facetune has grounds for notability, others applications are probably TOOSOON, and the company itself is a definite TOOSOON.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on WP:Deletion policy alone which is the sole negotiator on an article, not whether anything can supersede it, because nothing can. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are not only many sources backing up this article but just by doing a simple google search of the company, one can find extensive coverage on it. Although lots in the article is about it's products, that information is still important (arguably the most important information about a company), there's little to no history of the company in the article because it's a relatively new company which doesn't automatically make it non-noteworthy. After reading the whole article it seemed fine, nothing about it seemed bias despite the tag at the bottom. Grapefruit17 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)— Grapefruit17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Care to provide some of this coverage that establishes notability? I've been unable to locate significant in-depth coverage in my BEFORE. The company does have a large internet footprint due to its applications being in various app-stores - which leads to coverage of the applications (re-hashed PR releases, reviews, product of the X, etc.). However what is required is more than passing coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Globes, Haaretz, Business Insider, Calcalist, USA Today and Jerusalem Post are all reputable sources. If the editors who are trying to delete articles would spend as much time on improving them, Wikipedia would be a better place.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which USA Today piece? The one in the article - Facetune app solves need for facial retouching, USA Today? This opinion column doesn't even mention the company by name. The problem isn't verifying the company and its applications exist - but WP:CORPDEPTH. Facetune being notable (or other apps) does not confer notability on the software producer - WP:NOTINHERITED. The sole in-depth piece here is the business insider piece.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an nn private business. These are a dime a dozen, and this one does not stand out in any way. Sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPI. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as thoroughly promotional and thus excluded from Wikipedia by the WP:NOTADVERTISING policy. Rentier (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - It is a notable Jerusalem based company - of which there are not so many... Made the Facetune app. I don't think you should delete it. It is notable not just for being a Jerusalem company but because it is the developer of the most popular paid photo apps in the world! Now the article is less PR. Ovedc (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)— Ovedc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Ovedc: - might I ask what brought you (and I will note other hewiki editors) to this AfD? This company, notably, does not have a hewiki article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Icewhiz analysis of references. Also, references that rely or are based on company announcements fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. References that are company announcements made by partners equally fail. There are no intellectually independent references available - these are references that are published in reliable sources (which most are) but which also provide independent opinion or analysis of the company (none appear to exist). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, looks like an important startup, with wide coverage in the press. The fact that the coverage is about its products is not actually a problem: when writing about a widely-covered product, it is an editorial decision whether to create an article about the product itself or about the company. On the other hand, even after many edits the article is still spammy and poorly written. It is clear that the original article was promotional. So I really hope someone fixes that (maybe me? Depends on available time), including axing some of the content entirely. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you point to two intellectually independent references from the press (ones that don't rely on company announcements and quotations, or has independent analysis or opinion)? If you can, I'll change my !vote - because when I looked, I couldn't find one. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This sources were not cited on the article. Some independent sources are Jerusalem Post, Venture Beat, Digital Trend. Even, Apple Inc and Microsoft corp were cited by those sources. New product announcement is a part of promoting specific products, every company does that. What am i missing here? I don't know, what we are opposing here. -202.134.11.130 (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those 3 are PR product announcements, mostly not about the company, and for the most part sourced/reprinted from a press release. You need sources covering the company indpendentally and critically, preferbly as the main subject of the coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response None of those references are intellectually independent. It is not enough to have a reference from a "reliable source" and meets the criteria for WP:RS, the reference must also be intellectually independent - that means, not regurgitates corporate press release, no articles relying solely on interviews and/or quotations from connected personnel (fails WP:ORGIND and should have independent analysis and/or opinion. What's the opposite of WP:HEY? Perhaps some of the Keep !voters here should take a fresh look at find 2 references... -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cimls

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as this and this. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrang (2018 Film)

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

Upcoming film with no indication of notability yet. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The disruptive move and lack of reliable sources show clear attempt at promoting this non notable film on Wikipedia by any means. Didn't pass any point of WP:NFILM and violate WP:NOTPROMO. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dear,i think the Maker or creator Already Provide all the Evidence on reference page Which provide notability detail so plz check it out and tell that how to close this discussion and keep the page On wikipedia.–Ankit G Dubey (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2017 (Ist)

Administrator note The above editor was indeffed for misusing multiple accounts to engage in what I believe to be promotional editing. Note also this edit from one of the socks who attempted to stifle an AfD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck illegitimate vote, per Admin note above. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per Ammarpad. -- HindWiki^Connect 14:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per FUTURE -- film which has not been released yet. Wikipedia is not a publicity site. Quis separabit? 17:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article is kept, it should be moved to Sabrang (film), which already redirects to this article, to remove unnecessary disambiguation per WP:NCF. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wim Bonjean

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, none of the sources are independent from the subject. Rentier (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional 'cruft on an nn "Futurist". Basically, spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to USC School of Cinematic Arts. As a side note, I took classes in this division during my time at USC :) ansh 666 07:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Hench Division of Animation and Digital Arts

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

Sub-division of USC School of Cinematic Arts. I redirected but was reverted by an IP citing OTHERSTUFF, so taking it here. This is an academic division within a larger school within a university. The information is best contained within the school itself. Suggest redirect and merge from history. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The current text is WP:PROMO, even including a lengthy quote direct from the USC web site, and the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument won't fly, so I agree with Tony's original decision to redirect. The USC School of Cinematic Arts article is currently an ugly collection of lists, so including a section on this division would improve that article, but I won't suggest a merge due to the complete lack of creativity and objectivity. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USC School of Cinematic Arts. University schools and departments don't always qualify for standalone articles, let alone divisions of those schools and departments, and this one doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Media Arts and Practice and USC Interactive Media & Games Division are both divisions of this university school. On top of maintaining consistency, it seems arguable to call the text WP:PROMO. As for the WP:GNG problem, removing John C. Hench from the name (given that there is only one known so-called "Division of Animation and Digital Arts," which is true) will yield different search results. 68.181.206.43 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You might read WP:CoI. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go ahead and redirect it. (Though the inconsistency between the presence of a page for each subdivision of the parent school does bug me a little.) I firmly believe the page should be kept, but clearly it's not a popular opinion. 68.181.206.43 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, in case it matters, that the IP's comments above were added by 68.181.207.59, contrary to the signature. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sub-units of sub-units of universities are very rarely notable on their own. Anything of note can be included in the article on the sub-unit of the University of Southern California it is a part of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USC School of Cinematic Arts, not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Pirates

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

Non-notable straight-to-DVD low-budget horror movie. Fails WP:NFP, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Would have suggested redirecting to its "star" Sarah French, aka Scarlet Salem, except I'm going to put that article up for deletion as well, seeing as it also fails notability. Richard3120 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks sufficient coverage in RS to meet notability -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search turned up an entry in Horrorpedia, and that was it. Even the Rotten Tomatoes page is blank. Fails WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miho Maeshima

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bare minimum biography, no independent coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and no any special achievement to meet WP:PORNBIO. –Ammarpad | Talk 09:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doe not pass WP:Pornbio or WP:GNG with mainly adult film directory references. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure to pass the general notability guidelines. It is a travesty that Wikipedia has over 60 times as many articles on Japnese pornographic film actresses as on Japanese female judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vada O. Manager

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

A CV-like page on an unremarkable business executive. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions, WP:SPIP and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by a banned sock Special:Contributions/Salmonthelovedog. Not notable for public career either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate any real world notability as required by WP:GNG, WP:BLP & WP:BIO etc. Mattg82 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing even approaching notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Roost

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. I found this and this, but it hardly supports notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is high time that every article sourced only to IMDb be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Poor sourcing in an article does not make a subject non-notable. His one-man stage shows have received quite a bit of coverage ([51], [52], [53], [54]) and his TV credits are easily verified. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. This is a BLP with zero references. Consensus has determined that IMDb is not a reliable source and "External links" are not references. As a reminder, this is a BLP and as such is held to a higher degree concerning references. Four links were provided above, #1, #2, #3 are about "Pope Head" and #4 about the "one-man play". Three references are about the same thing and it is considered as one towards notability, so this is considered as being two references. The talk page shows the issues concerning a lack of were mentioned almost a year ago. and now there are two, and this is not enough to think about passing GNG. Otr500 (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Three references are about the same thing and it is considered as one towards notability" - seriously? --Michig (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Minnesota Fighting Pike. Very selective merge to parent article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Minnesota Fighting Pike season

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

Team only played one year, content can be merged into Minnesota Fighting Pike. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Once at least one other source is found for this article it should be merged with Minnesota Fighting Pike. Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the proper solution here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes sense for a one-season franchise. No need for two articles covering the same event. Cbl62 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't opine on notability, but given the length of this article it may make sense to keep it separate. Kablammo (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep treat it like any other Arena Football season article. Lepricavark (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My recollection is that we very rarely keep season articles for arena football... am I incorrect?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category:Arena Football League seasons. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm it seems that way yes. Okay, season articles are normally kept. The question then remains, what should be done about a team that only plays one season? Would a team article and season article be redundant? I think it might be and still lean toward merge--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saif Hatem

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN as well as WP:GNG. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is a pro football player, he won the AFC Cup, which is an official, competitive soccer tournament contested between clubs in Asia

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything to pass WP:GNG or NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq national football team results

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

Article fails notability. No references cited. Author has created many articles titled "Iraq national football team in <<year>>". None cite any sources. It is simply a score record, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
Note: If this article is deleted, the rest of the articles entitled "Iraq national football team in <<year>>" should be also deleted accordingly. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Needed This article needs cleanup, not deletion; I can see how this article serves a purpose in being an organized way to more easily access the Iraq national football team results by decade articles, but, clicking for example 1975 results vs clicking 1976 results just takes you to the 1970-79 results page, there's no difference when clicking either. Also the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s sections of the article should each be made into their own respective articles as done with the 1960s, 70s and 80s results information. Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: has not been shown to meet GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple google search shows that the performances of the Iraq national football team receive sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN. However, I agree with the comments above that the results need sourcing and we don't really need articles for individual years. Fenix down (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mostly agree with Fenix down, but also need clean up. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not convinced by GNG/LISTN arguments. Giant Snowman 11:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fenix Down but needs cleanup.Football is Iraq's most popular sport clearly notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much like what people has said with it needing to be a clean up and with an addition to the sources it should get better. Matt294069 is coming 11:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have a similar list for many associated football teams. The elephant in the room that everyone seems to be missing is that almost every match has a match report, so all this shagrin of the article being uncited is not actually true. Clean though is required as the first !vote states. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but all information that important must have inline citations for verification. NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I suggest add {{refimprove}} after AFD close. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite confident the result will be keep:) NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for montioning it, that action only for keep result. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Sims

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

Article about the victim of a crime, who otherwise is not notable, and the crime itself doesn't seem to be notable based on WP:EVENTS Emk9 (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, which one…BLP1E, NBIO, GNG will do. Article was written over a decade ago, when I assume policy was more lax, so no enmity towards the author, of course.L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP(?)1E/BIO1E. The crime itself doesn't meet NCRIME. Sentencing was covered locally - [55]. The crime itself had some national attention (e.g. CNN) but for a single newscycle.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per L3X1.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the nom, a victim of a crime, who is not otherwise notable, when the crime itself doesn't seem to be notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Cohen_1998_pp._103–117-1] Cohen, Allen Carson (Apr 1, 1998). "Solid-to-Liquid Feeding: The Inside(s) Story of Extra-Oral Digestion in Predaceous Arthropoda - American Entomologist". American Entomologist. 44 (2): 103–117. doi:10.1093/ae/44.2.103. ISSN 1046-2821. Retrieved Dec 18, 2017.

[2] "Setup secure VPN access between client and server".

[3] MikroTik RouterOS: What's new in 6.0 (2013-May-17 14:04) Archived 13 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine

[4] "Stubarea Blog". Retrieved 5 December 2017.

[mt-mum-2015-5] "MUM webpage". MikroTik. 2015. Archived from the original on 1 November 2015. Retrieved 5 December 2017.

[6] "Crooks Use Hacked Routers to Aid Cyberheists".

[7] ttp://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/pakistan-gets-mrs-pakistan-world-221800650.html

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Yip}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pukuntap}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike HyperAdapt 1.0}}<!--Relisted-->