Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 July	5 July >

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. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargav Narasimhan

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

Narasimhan's cubing results, if notable enough, would allow pages for hundreds of cubers. Guinness World Records should not satisfy GNG for cubers, as Guinness is not the authority, World Cube Association is. Consider, for example, the one-handed single solve world record: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-average-time-to-solve-a-rubiks-cube-one-handed/, which has in fact been broken 6 times since in official competitions: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?eventId=333oh&history=History Notice that Bhargav Narasimhan's record is the obscure record of 5 consecutive one-handed solves. Narasimhan's first media appearance is the highlights of day 2 of some event, and the second is about the Guiness record.Tkwikihelper (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rubics cube solver.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ANYBIO. DrStrauss talk 13:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 11 July 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. Consensus is that while WP:RS exist, they are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Lee (speedcuber)

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

Currently not ranked in the top 1000 in any WCA event.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkwikihelper (talk • contribs) 21:34, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2003LEEJ01?tab=results-by-event

Comment This page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I remain neutral on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no assertion that the two offline references already in the article don't cover her. Both appear to be independent RS, so GNG appears already to be met. The nom's complaint might be relevant if she needed to meet an SNG and the GNG, but I am aware of no SNG for speedcubers, and meeting the SNG or the GNG would be adequate for inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find either original source article. However, the first being an article in a magazine is unlikely to establish notability, while the latter is in a local newspaper. It seems that meeting GNG could best be done by considering her achievements as a cuber. Although she held numerous Oceania records, her times are nevertheless not particularly impressive, even given what I know of the methods and cube quality of the early 2000s. Cubing was only just returning to popularity when she held these records.

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2003LEEJ01?tab=records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkwikihelper (talk • contribs) 00:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A trivial reference to her participation in a Rubik's cube solving competition isn't sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:33, 29 June 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. Clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miltiades Varvounis

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

Delete. Not a notable person or scientist. Just a writer of a couple of popular history essays which appeared in "pulp", mass-market editions sold in kiosks. Promotional article, may be written by Varvounis himself. The article on the same person created by the same user in Greek WP (see el:Μιλτιάδης Βαρβούνης) has been already deleted (14:36, 2nd July 2017 UTC) as lacking notability. ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entry is fine accompanied by numerous reliable references, while the author's biography on Jan Sobieski seems to be a popular book, which has nearly 50 reviews on Amazon, not bad at all for a "not a notable person", whose mother tongue is not English. Let's show respect to the author and his work. Historians, academic or not, with a bibliography (even if they have written only one book) deserve to be in Wikipedia for they represent knowledge. And Wikipedia is about knowledge. ——Dothraki1965

Comment Amazon registration of his book and reviews about it does not mean that he is either a notable historian, or a notable person. There is no substantial or in depth coverage of Varvounis work as a historian in given sources. References are mostly interviews of himself, e.g. not multiple, independent sources. On the other hand, there are stong indications of conflict of interest (COI) as fas as user Dothraki1965 is concerned, because of the pattern in creating the (now deleted) article in GreeK Wikipedia, which was repeated in en-WR: the article on Varnounis in both cases was created by user Eques sarmaticus, with contributions of only user Eques sarmaticus and user Dothraki1965. User Dothraki1965 seems to have a special interest on poromoting Varvounis in WP (the same is true of many of Eques sarmaticus contributions: e.g. this, and that etc). See, as well, addition of Varvounis name to this list of notable poeple born on February 9th in Greek Wikipedia by user Dothraki1965; the rest of his contributions in Greek Wikipedia include just 6 more edits, now all deleted, since they were all contributions to the deleted Greek article el:Μιλτιάδης Βαρβούνης. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable person, and the article is distinctly promotional in nature, even if it is slightly less so than an earlier version of the same article created by the same user which was recently deleted for copyright infringement. It is extremely likely that it was written by Varvounis himself or someone otherwise connected to him, thus having a conflict of interest. Chamboz (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete It is a shame for someone to minimize the works of historians, even if some of their works are popular history essays! I am sure you know that only notable historians, even academics, have also written or co-written popular works or articles for several historical periodicals and newspapers such as Istorika by Elefterotypia, etc. All these people who write occasionally for these publishers are notable and worthy to be part of this process. And many historians in Greece would wish to have a published book in English and to have a success in sales and many reviews on the most prestigious platform - Amazon. As far as I am concerned, Varvounis deserves to be in Wikipedia, as every historian with a work behind him. Historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.250.79 (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not a matter of "shame" but of notability. It is neither a moral issue. Varvounis is not notable even as a writer of "popular" history. He is totally unknown in Greece, and seems that he is stuggling to promote himself by start giving a couple of interviews in Polish websites, and by trying to be in WP (he failed to do so in Greek Wikipedia). It is not a matter of Varvounis deserving to be or not in Wikipedia, but he mustn't be because there are no multiple, independent sources to support the contrary. ——Chalk19 (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok, perhaps he is "totally unknown" in Greece as you claim, does it apply the same for Poland? And how can you be certain of that? Do you know Polish or his activities in the Polish press? It seems that he is not "totally unknown" in regards to Poland, as we can notice from his articles or interviews in that language, besides he was even interviewed by English-speaking websites. Being interviewed, it means you have a credibility, right? In addition, checking the internet, his articles have been presented in Visegrad Insight, Pangea Magazine, or the European Conservative. So how a "totally unknown" historian manages to be so active and being noticed beyond greek boundaries? You are thinking in narrow terms, of his work in Greek. That is the weak point of your weak arguments (actually, speculations), forgetting the fact that this person is also active beyond Greece. Apart from his books, his work in multiple periodicals or websites, plus his interviews, are appropriarate sources to claim his notability. Otherwise, his work would not be presented in the non-Greek press. So you cannot convince someone about his lack of notability. Unless you think that only giants of knowledge like Ostrogorsky or Halil Inalcik must only be presented in Wikipedia. It is like claiming that only Hollywood stars should have articles in Wikipedia, and not the rest - actors noted for their secondary roles and have not the fame of Brad Pitt, etc. Look around you, Wikipedia is full of individuals like Varvounis, even some of their articles lack references. And not all these people have nothing to do with the precious activity of history and knowledge. Yet, they are in Wikipedia. Eques sarmaticus (talk • contribs) 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have not answered why is he notable? Because of a couple of interviews? No reliable, multiple, and independent sources support your claim. And most important, you have not answered about your special interest in fiercely promoting Varvounis in both Greek and English Wikipedia. ——Chalk19 (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why? I have answered above, unlike you who fails to convince the reader with your speculations. Furthemore, isn't it obvious? Or you consider totally insignificant and unnoticed his latest work. But of course, there could be an addition of more reliable and independent sources which mention or praises Varvounis' work. More references coming soon in the beginning of the article. Eques sarmaticus (talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puppets are voting? This and that is strong evidence, if not 100% proof, that users Eques sarmaticus and Dothraki1965 are the same person, most likely Varvounis, or at least they cooperate in WP to promote Varnounis. ——Chalk19 (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate the work done by Varvounis, and it does indeed lend him notability. However, Wikipedia has a higher standard for notability than Varvounis appears to meet. Wikipedia does indeed contain other "individuals like Varvounis," but that is just because no one has taken the time to delete them yet. Many pages are created that are not notable enough, and there are only so many people picking through deleting them. Having too many pages clutters up searches, as well as providing more work to keep them accurate and up-to-date.Tkwikihelper (talk) 21:15, 5 July 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) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tefik Bajrami

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

Non notable boxer or kickboxer - does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:KICK - contested PROD by original author PRehse (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for boxers or kickboxers. I also didn't see coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE. DrStrauss talk 13:24, 11 July 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) 20:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terradive

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Normally I'd say redirect to a list, but this name has been used by heroes and villains across multiple series, so there's no obvious target. When I tried to figure out when one might be the primary version, it became clear that it's been a minor character in every appearance. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the content is largely uncited original research; what's cited is trivia sourced to blogs, fan pages, in-universe publications and other unsuitable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOR and WP:CRUFT. DrStrauss talk 13:24, 11 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbar (Transformers)

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of Autobots isn't valid because the character's most prominent role was as a decepticon in the Robits in Disguise series. Every incarnation has been minor. No redirect needed - anyone searching this term will be familiar enough with the Transformers fiction to find what they're looking for on another article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable. There's nothing to merge as the content is largely uncited original research & fancruft; what's cited is trivia sourced to blogs, fan pages and in universe publications. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per K.e.coffman, it's mainly unsourced OR. DrStrauss talk 13:25, 11 July 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 10:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of BotCon characters

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

This seems to be a list of minor original characters created for a convention, some of which are put into the actual fictional canon. Those should already be on the twenty or so character lists the series already has, so this seems like pointless doubling up that really doesn't need to be merged anywhere. TTN (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT; not notable enough for a stand-alone list. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 9 July 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) 20:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Mei Li Josephine

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

Per WP:NPOLITICIAN being elected to office doesn't necessarily mean you deserve a wp page. "Is being appointed" makes me think she has yet to be appointed? Sources provided are not reliable and additional secondary sources could not be found. Comatmebro (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia doesn't even seem to have an article yet about the government office to which she is reportedly going to be appointed as Head of Information and Publication (i.e. not to be the chair of the office, but a lower position than that). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The position in question makes her a bureaucrat, not a legislator, so there's no automatic presumption of notability just because she exists — but the "references" here are both primary sources (her own Facebook and her staff profile on the website of her own past employer), which are not independent of her and thus cannot support notability. No prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but merely existing is not grounds for an improperly sourced article. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Metropolitan90 and User:Bearcat. --Hirsutism (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is a doctoral student. I found nothing to suggest any kind of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and also because the article has no inline citations which fails the WP:BLP criteria. DrStrauss talk 15:56, 11 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns and Elections

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

Non-notable journal. only purpose is to promote the founder and this one. From tone of article to intentions everything is blatant promotions. Light2021 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article may need improvement, this is a publication which has been published since 1980 (first in print and now online) and has been subscribed to by hundreds of libraries. The magazine itself is considered reliable enough to be cited in books published by university presses. [1] [2] [3] [4] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Metropolitan90. bd2412 T 16:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable long-time publication which is the journal of record for those in the U.S. political industry. A few notes: the search hints above may be inaccurate since the publication's title is Campaigns & Elections rather than Campaigns and Elections (the article should be moved accordingly, but I think that can wait until this discussion is resolved). Also, the publication was known as Politics magazine beginning in 2008 (not sure when it changed back), so that would impact search terms as well. There are good sources out there-I've added a few-but they are harder to find online due to the prevalence of the term "campaigns and elections." Marquardtika (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable for sure. SL93 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm usually fairly content with blowing up and starting over, but the article meets notability standards and won't take long to clean up in its current state. DrStrauss talk 15:57, 11 July 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 sources were provided, the majority of editors opined keeping the article. So Why 11:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Meakem

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

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Nothing is there. No other media coverage. some unknown non-notable, insignificant personality blatantly promoting himself and his company. Ridiculously violating standards of Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Glen Meakem on the Weekend red flags as brokered programming, where the subject paid for airtime on the radio, which we usually don't judge well (Basically the subject got thrown off WPGB when they converted to music because they were done with brokered weekend programming, thus the involuntary move to another station). Nominator has hit it well; reads like a WP:RESUME, and badly. No objection to Forever (website) being combined with this on grounds of being a clear WP:ADVERT. Nate • (chatter) 21:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable outside his company, and the company itself is only marginally notable, if at all. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (website) (2nd nomination), which closed as no consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tully, Shawn (2000-03-20). "Going, Going, Gone! The B2B Tool That Really Is Changing The World". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  This article is a 3,840-word profile of Meakem.
  The article describes how his significant impact on industry:
  In late 1994 a preppy, apple-cheeked MBA named Glen Meakem presented his proposal for a bold new business to his bosses at General Electric's headquarters in Fairfield, Conn. With a visionary's passion, Meakem told his audience, which included Gary Reiner, now GE's chief information officer and a favorite of CEO Jack Welch, that his venture would cost up to $10 million--but it might just change the world. His project would do no less than reinvent one of the murkiest, most backward, least sexy processes in industry: the purchase of the parts and materials that go into everything from granola to cars.
  ...
  GE makes few bad calls, but underestimating Meakem was one of them. Five years after Meakem made his presentation, FreeMarkets Inc., the Internet auction company he built for $50 million on the banks of Pittsburgh's rusty Monongahela River, boasts a market cap of $7 billion. Meakem himself is now one of America's new Internet megamillionaires (net worth: $750 million).
  ...
  More important, though, Meakem's breakthrough is beginning to have a seismic impact on industry in the 21st century. Call it the rise of the Auction Economy. General Motors, United Technologies, Raytheon, Quaker Oats--big, shrewd buyers that thought they were already getting rock-bottom prices--have saved more than 15%, on average, buying parts, materials, and even services at FreeMarkets auctions. Within a few years Emerson Electric may send one-fifth of its procurement budget (or $1 billion) through FreeMarkets, and Kent Brittan, vice president of supply management for United Technologies, waxes almost Meakemesque on the subject. "This FreeMarkets auction idea," says Brittan, "is revolutionizing procurement as we know it."
  The article also provides significant biographical information about Meakem:
  Meakem wears his squareness like a combat medal. While an undergraduate in the mid-1980s, he joined the ROTC; in his crew cut and starched uniform, he could not have stood out more in the liberal groves of Cambridge academe had he come to class in a grass skirt with a bone through his nose. By summer 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Meakem was at Harvard Business School, pursuing his MBA and serving an eight-year stint in the U.S. Army Reserve.
  ...
  Unable to bear missing the action, Meakem volunteered for service in the Gulf war, and in the middle of second-year exams, he was called up. Over the next six months, Lieutenant Meakem headed a platoon of dump trucks and soldiers that built airstrips, plowed roads, erected POW camps, and dug berms for Patriot missiles. In his spare time he started a PX, searching dusty Saudi towns for batteries or candy and literally sleeping with the cash box. The PX, in fact, earned a $7,000 profit, which Meakem returned to the Army.
2. Ante, Spencer E. (2000-10-08). "The Big Kahuna Of B2 B Exchanges? Glen Meakem's FreeMarkets could be one of the few survivors of the bloody shakeout ahead". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The article notes:
  
  The fight to lead business into the Digital Age is Glen T. Meakem's second war. While attending Harvard Business School in 1990, Meakem, a U.S. Army Reserve engineer, volunteered to fight against Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf. Meakem, today the co-founder, chairman, and CEO of online exchange FreeMarkets Inc. (FMKT), left in the middle of exams and served five months as the leader of a combat engineer platoon.
  ...
  The son of a corporate executive and a stay-at-home mom, Meakem grew up in Armonk, New York. Admirers say he's a big thinker who has always yearned to be a captain of industry. "He conceptualized this company at a time when Netscape had barely been founded," says Marlee S. Myers, a managing partner with Philadelphia law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, which is FreeMarkets' outside counsel.
  After the Gulf War, Meakem returned to the career track. He finished his MBA and landed a job with McKinsey & Co. An associate, he worked with companies involved in industrial sourcing and commodities trading. Max Scoular, a general manager at FreeMarkets who met Meakem when the duo worked at McKinsey's Houston office, remembers one incident that illustrates Meakem's leadership skills. One December, Meakem had organized a golf outing for his McKinsey colleagues. Tee time was at 7 a.m. on Saturday. It was sleeting, so most of the players figured they could sleep in. But that morning, Meakem left his compadres a voice mail insisting they play. "He got the whole field of 24 out there, and we had a tremendous time in the sleet and rain," says Scoular. After McKinsey, Meakem moved to General Electric Co. (GE) for a chance to run a business.
3. Rack-Amber, Tara (2017-05-26). "CEO Glenn Meakem shares life and entreprenurial lessons". The Herald-Standard. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Glenn Meakem has worn many hats throughout his career. He served as an officer in the United States Army, worked on the marketing team for the Jell-O gelatin and pudding division of Kraft Foods Inc., and provided consultation to an energy company.
  ...
  It was this experience that propelled Meakem to start FreeMarkets in 1995. The purpose of the company was to work with businesses to improve their purchasing functions.
  In 1999, FreeMarkets went public and in 2004, the company was sold. In 2005, Meakem founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a leading Pittsburgh based, early-stage venture capital firm.
4. Betz, Frederick (2001). Executive Strategy: Strategic Management and Information Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 314–315. ISBN 047138402X. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The book notes:
  
  CASE STUDY: FreeMarkets
  
  ... Glen Meakem was a pioneer in altering the business marketplace of manufacturers purchasing parts and supplies from supplying vendors with his new company, FreeMarkets.
  In 1993 Meakem first pitched his vision for a new kind of market to his then employer, General Electric:
  [quote from Shawn Tully of Fortune]
  In his pitch, Meakem claimed that GE would save billions of dollars in its own manufacturing divisions. In addition, Meakem foresaw that GE could become a trading market facilitator for all American manufacturers, collecting billions more in transaction fees.
  Meakem got his idea, while working at General Electric. After graduating from Harvard Business School (and also having served in a reserve unit in the Gulf War) Meakem joined GE in 1994. At GE, he joined purchasing.
  [quote from Shawn Tully of Fortune]
  Meakem then had the idea that if GE held an auction like this electronically, GE could build a kind of commodity market for industrial supplies. In 1993, the Internet was still primarily a research tool. At that time, GE had a private electronic network for supply management, and Meakem proposed using it to try his electronic auction concept. His boss, Gary Reiner, told him to try it out at an experimental level. Meakem did this, holding his first GE auction on their private network, which resulted in a deal for circuit-boards from a new supplier in India that saved GE 45% less in cost of parts supply.
  Next Makem proposed to GE's headquarters in Fairfield, Connecticut, that GE should start a parts auction business. Meakem told his boss that the new venture would cost $10 million, but it would change the world. But at the time, GE's leadership worried about the cost and risk of the new business Meakem had proposed. His boss decided that Meakem should continue to experiment with his idea with the GE Information Services group.
  They thought the idea had promise but preferred to have Meakem try it out in GE Information Services.
  Meakem knew he was so right that he had to pursue his vision. He quit his job at GE and started his own business, FreeMarkets. It was an early success with a large market capitalization ($7 billion in 2000), and Meakem had become a multimilliionaire. ...
5. Buchanan, Leigh (1998-09-15). "Seller Door". Inc. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Meakem became knowledgeable about electronic markets during a brief stint with General Electric, where he labored on a forebear of that organization's high-profile Trading Process Network, a Web-based sourcing system that was originally limited to GE suppliers. He developed his belief in the power of procurement at the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., his first stop after getting an M.B.A. from Harvard. (He graduated a year late, having skipped out on finals to lead a combat engineering platoon in the Persian Gulf War.) It was at McKinsey that Meakem met his cofounder, Sam Kinney. The two launched FreeMarkets Online in 1995 with $500,000 from their own savings and from family and friends. Angel investors put up the second half-million, and last year the company raised several million more through Saturn Asset Management, in Boston.
6. Newman, Michael (1997-08-03). "Cyber Auctioneer Free Markets Online Finds Suppliers to Bid for Your Business". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Glen Meakem is an unapologetic believer in capitalism and in Pittsburgh, in that order. So the company he founded is called Free Markets Online and its headquarters are Downtown.
  Meakem, who went to school in Boston and had never lived in Pittsburgh, relocated last year after co-founding Free Markets Online in 1995 with Sam Kinney. The pair met while they were working at McKinsey and Co. in the early 1990s.
  Kinney was posted in Pittsburgh, and when the pair decided to start their own company two years ago they figured Pittsburgh was as good a place as any for its headquarters. Cincinnati, Cleveland and Chicago were other possible sites.
7. Hayes, Liz (2011-11-03). "Country will turn around, says radio host Meakem". Valley News Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Pittsburgh-area radio talk show host Glen Meakem is hopeful for the country's future -- as soon as a more conservative-leaning government comes to power.
  Meakem, 47, of Edgeworth, spoke Wednesday at Penn State New Kensington about his views on the Constitution, improving the economy, problems with education and his disagreement with President Obama's policies. He spoke separately to Plum High School students, college students and a group of about two dozen community members.
  ...
  For the past 3 1/2 years Meakem has hosted a weekend morning radio program on WPGB FM New Talk 104.7. He also is a technology entrepreneur and venture capitalist, having founded the business-to-business Internet company Freemarkets Inc. and Meakem Becker Venture Capital.
8. Yeomans, Michael (2005-09-18). "Second Act: FreeMarkets founder Glen Meakem contemplates future in politics". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The article notes:
  
  At age 42, fabulous wealth has not slaked his ambition as he plots his life's second act. He has staked out a dual path in Pennsylvania politics and venture capital investing in young Pittsburgh companies, while building an expansive new home in Sewickley in which to raise his five children.
  He believes he can make bigger money and yet a bigger difference by nurturing companies that will create jobs and by supporting candidates who will steer Pennsylvania away from what he believes are slothful tax and spend policies that stymie entrepreneurism and stunt economic growth. In July, former Lt. Gov. William Scranton introduced Meakem as the chairman of his campaign for the Republican nomination for next year's gubernatorial election bid to unseat Gov. Ed Rendell.
  While hurling full throttle into future, Meakem is a serious student of the past, who is winding down his service as chairman of the Sen. John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center.
9. Gannon, Joyce (1999-12-12). "A Perfect Match: Freemarkets Founders Meakem and Kinney Saw Opportunity". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The article notes:
  
  A native of Armonk, N.Y., Meakem holds a bachelor's degree in government from Harvard University and a master's in business administration from Harvard Business School. From 1987 to 1989 he worked for Kraft-General Foods Corp. in product marketing. As an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve, he served two tours of active duty including a stint as combat engineer platoon leader in Operation Desert Storm, a job he volunteered for, he told Business Week, because Saddam Hussein "kind of pissed me off."
  Acquaintances say Meakem came up with the fundamental idea for an Internet auction site when he was a manager in General Electric Corp.'s corporate business development group in 1994 and early 1995.
10. Reilly, Richard Byrne (2007-09-02). "Meakem eyes Sewickley, Harrisburg mansions". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Entrepreneur Glen Meakem is busy.
  The man who sold his Pittsburgh-based Freemarkets software company for $500 million is building a 30,000-square-foot home in Sewickley overlooking the Ohio River with a design, as he puts it, that "is a little bit Monticello, a little bit New England."
  But the home the 43-year-old Republican would really like to occupy overlooks the Susquehanna River in Harrisburg: the Governor's Mansion.
  Meakem says he probably will run someday, but not in 2010. In the meantime, the co-founder of Meakem Becker Venture Capital is raising money to invest in information technology start-ups. He's raised $70 million and pumped $8 million into three local companies. He also wants to spend time with his young family of three girls and two boys.
11. Shropshire, Corilyn (2004-11-18). "Meakem Makes Move. Former Freemarkets Chairman Invests in College Prowler". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Glen Meakem, the ex-Marine who founded and catapulted online services firm FreeMarkets Inc. to the top of Pittsburgh's dot.com heap during the late 1990s, has set his sights on another promising local venture, College Prowler Inc.
  Meakem has invested $500,000 in the publisher of college guides, which are designed to provide incoming students what they really want to know about campus life. He also will serve as chairman of the venture, co-founded by Carnegie Mellon University graduate student Luke Skurman.
  The former FreeMarkets chairman, whose firm was sold last summer to Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Ariba Inc. for about $300 million in cash and stock, agreed to make the investment and to sign on to the top executive post after a Duquesne Club lunch in July with Skurman.
12. Fitzpatrick, Dan (2002-10-22). "Meakem Starts V.C. Company". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-07-04.
  The article notes:
  
  FreeMarkets co-founder and chief executive officer Glen Meakem is launching a new venture capital firm from the basement of his Sewickley home, repeating a pattern that began with his Internet auction firm, which began seven years ago in his old Connecticut cellar.
  ...
  This time around, the 38-year-old Meakem is using his considerable wealth from FreeMarkets Inc. to fund young, promising companies that have good management, a good business opportunity and a chance to make money. His firm, Chamberlain Investments, made its first outlay last week in South Side-based Akustica, an acoustic technology firm that makes tiny speakers and microphones for use in devices such as cell phones and hearing aids. Akustica's total round was $2.25 million, and Meakem was the lead investor.
  He put in more than $1 million of his own money.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Glen Meakem to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it short. You always make an AfD unnecessary so big, just Copy paste of ridiculous press is not arguments, it is just misleading, nothing else, as if you are trying to make a point, I seriously doubt you even read yourself what you copy-paste? have you gone through these media? Pitts berg is not even a source of Global media notability. Local newspaper you copy paste as if its a God of news. This is blatant promotions and highly misleading. Do you even read that ? or that how you make an arguments here, Keep it Simple Silly !! KISS logic. make it short, no need for COPY-PASTE the whole newspaper here. Do not able to see others opinions because you make the mess of whole AfD. Nothing significant is written here. Light2021 (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (website) (2nd nomination) participants who have not commented here: SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), HighKing (talk · contribs), Anupmehra (talk · contribs), Glendoremus (talk · contribs), Dream Focus (talk · contribs), Eggishorn (talk · contribs), and Kudpung (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because considering the currently cited sources in this article are not only promotionalism, but republisher ones, and with ones above equally mirroring such as "Unable to bear missing the action, Meakem volunteered for service", "designed to provide incoming students what they really want to know about campus life", "fabulous wealth has not slaked his ambition as he plots his life's second act. He has staked out a dual path in Pennsylvania politics and venture capital investing in young Pittsburgh companies, while building an expansive new home", "He believes he can make bigger money and yet a bigger difference by nurturing companies", "He developed his belief", "Meakem is a serious student of the past", "He is hopeful for", "He is raising money....He also wants to spend time with his young family of three girls and two boys", all would violate our policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE, sourcing. When it's a matter of repeated self-profiling and promo, it's certainly not that every publisher compliments him, instead their his own given words thus not independent coverage not anything like it. We never compromise with these regardless of scaled nunber because the facts are Crystal clear that they're thin press releases in and out. WP:NOT exemplifies our need to remove this and without questions on how, but simply the accomplish deletion alone together with the fact we're not and never will be a for-hire advertiser for anything or anyone. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has received extensive coverage in a case study in the John Wiley & Sons–published book Executive Strategy: Strategic Management and Information Technology. He has also received extensive profiles in the national sources Fortune and Bloomberg Businessweek, as well as sustained coverage in local sources Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
The John Wiley & Sons case study said "Glen Meakem was a pioneer in altering the business marketplace of manufacturers purchasing parts and supplies from supplying vendors with his new company, FreeMarkets."
Fortune said, "Meakem himself is now one of America's new Internet megamillionaires (net worth: $750 million). ... More important, though, Meakem's breakthrough is beginning to have a seismic impact on industry in the 21st century."
From Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
He clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although that may sound significant at first, showing the full content shows: "Meakem knew he was so right that he had to pursue his vision" which is instantly promotional and seriously questions the independence of this, since that alone is indiscriminate, given there's no transparency whether this one promotional sentence or the entire piece was in fact influenced or supplied by him, it's therefore non-negotiably unacceptable by our policies. As with guidelines, WP:ANYBIO is only that, a suggestive notability guideline, whereas WP:Wikipedia is not a webhost or WP:Wikipedia is not for promotion, is policy used in these cases. Extensive, yes, but independent without his involvement? We can't say. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability IMO. This book mentioned by Cunard above and other books such as this one are good references for establishing notability. The article itself needs a lot of trimming as there are claims made that can only be verified by primary sources (interviews or stuff he said on his radio show). For example, sentences like "He gave up the program to spend more time with his family and on another business he started, a cloud-storage host, Forever.com" and "He reportedly considered involving himself in a primary challenge to incumbent Republican Senator Arlen Specter in 2010". Also, sentences like "He sold the company for $500 million" is misleading - a company has a board not a single person making a decision. I'm happy to edit the article but concerns have been raised about editing articles in this manner during the AfD process - is this allowed or frowned upon? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I often disagree with Cunard on articles like this, but his sources are to the point, and the present article is not particularly promotional. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 12 July 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. So Why 11:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basecamp (company)

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

No Improvement from previous AfD. All sources, i mean all the sources are covered in Media are Press coverage. Routine coverage. There is nothing Significant about this Product to being an Encyclopedia Notable. Not even a single In-depth coverage. people popularity does not define it Wiki notable. Only purpose is to promote it nothing else. This is ridiculously promotional. Adding participants: Joe, RasputinAXP , Ed , Mais oui! , Tijuana Brass, KillerChihuahua, SwisterTwister, DGG, K.e.coffman, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,Bejnar, Light2021 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability is marginal, with the only significant development being Ruby on rails, but it's quite tangential. Just a company going about its business. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) participants: David Gerard (talk · contribs), Dhartung (talk · contribs), SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The company's former name was 37signals. See find sources template below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep – Passes WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH per my WP:BEFORE source searches. See source examples below. Note that many of the book sources are paywalled, but I have included those that provide significant coverage in the preview pages. If some of the assessments herein regarding notability are based only upon the state of sourcing in the article, please refer to WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Newsweek
Beginning Ruby: From Novice to Professional
The Globe and Mail
Time magazine (subscription required)
Wired
Wired
Inbound Marketing
The Lawyer's Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies. Chapter 14. pp. 105–112.
PC Magazine
PC Magazine
Crains Chicago Business
PC World
Making the Most of the Cloud
The Whuffie Factor. pp. 192–194 ...(subscription required)
Dreaming in Code
Business Insider
The Register
Business Insider
Basecamp for Beginners. Cengage Learning. 320 pages.
Sams Teach Yourself Basecamp in 10 Minutes. Pearson Education. 256 pages.

Keep this can't reasonably be merged to Ruby on Rails, so keep. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy basis is this on? SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'll requote what we:3 always said: We never accept materials from firsthand press releases or republishers, and the first 7 of the above offered are clear in either entire indiscriminate promotional guides or books for interested consumers or the thinly hidden signs. None of this would convince keeping as by policies WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy. WP:ORGIND applies here since it in fact says such primary-sourced coverage is still unacceptable and this is still the case for "Crain's Chicago Business" a locally based business company and Newsweek is equally indiscriminate with again hosting company-like information; next Business insider is consisting of given quotes by the company employee himself, as is The Register. Any close signs that it's informative is actually dampened when actually examining the closeness of each sentence hinting at either the publisher enticingly influenced by the company words or actually rearranging the company words themselves. Any of all is of course is enough for removal as hopeful coverage. As by WP:NOT, we are not an extension of the company website nor should we contain hints of it, case closed like we always have with it. TIME is actually a life story about the employees and its history which is equally embarrassing to label as independent coverage since the sentences are quite the opposite, "Founder and president Jason Fried, 33, decided early on that he didn't need to be....". Globe and Mail is clearly labeled in their hosted "PR business" section with the same methodology for it. "Basecamp for Beginners" is equally indiscriminate as it's a guide for how-to's, also violating our policies, as "Inbound Marketing" (with marketing advice"), "Teaching Yourself Basecamp". SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. I added this source to the list above after the above !vote was posted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis - Examining the source above shows the similar indiscriminate signs, since the publication itself is of special interests to such consumers, therefore cannot be guaranteed to not entice or invite primary-supplied information, and any suspicions of this is instantly enough to consider as such. In fact, considering the PC MAG itself contains "How to use it" is enough for policy WP:Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, the same policy applied as before and today. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Light2021 and SwisterTwister. Cunard's proffered sources are sufficiently press-releasey to be evidence against independent notability - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am satisfied with the editorial element of the sources regardless of some similarities.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evidence of clear WP:GNG collected by North America, especially the Wired and PCMag articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage as examined above shows it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE (policy) therefore cannot outweigh GNG which is only a "possibilities" suggestive guideline; I can't think of a case where we absolutely tossed aside policy in favor of a simple articles guideline. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I view the sources as discriminate. They are specifically about this company and its service.ˌ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As shown above, the sources are actually peacock press releases-like content, not actually independent and this is especially obvious considering they suspiciously share similarities to the company website pages. How would this get past as acceptable for policies? SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Profiles of Basecamp (formerly known as 37Signals) in books like this extensive profile from a Crown Publishing Group-published book are not "peacock press releases-like content". Cunard (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book not only actually has the "Company" history life story which would violate WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Promo because we are not a company advertiser but it actually says "take a guided tour" in the book's summary thus guidebooks cannot be accepted. That it was published by a company means nothing if the 'contents themselves are promotional. Certainly an independent publisher would never casually happen to advertise the company as if it were the company website, only the company themselves would. From WP:ORGIND: "[Unacceptable]: Anything published by the company directly or indirectly or for the company". SwisterTwister talk 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "are specifically about this company and its service", exactly yes and that's why it so closely similar to what's said in their press releases therefore making it un-independent if it's still primary-founded. By discriminate, coverage is supposed to be objective and not simply automatically positive as like their press releases. Because the sources are in fact Indiscriminate and we have a basic policy for such cases, they're unacceptable for Notability given "Coverage must be reliable and independent". SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my view, the claim to notability isn't that Basecamp (the product) is notable, it's that the company is notable for its role in developing Ruby on Rails. They do talk about themselves a lot (and their posts tend to be on Hacker News), but there's very little coverage of their products. A merge to Ruby on Rails would require significant copy-editing of both articles. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is perhaps a little borderline--certainly some of the references are borderline--but it seems over the necessary bar. Cunard's refs andf some of NA's are acceptable for notability. I would have said Delete if it were significantly promotional. but it isn't. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 12 July 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 merge to National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. This need not be taken to AfD. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities

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

The proper name for this is the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which has a better article than this. Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - is this not obvious? It was founded with the name Center and became an Institute in 2010, which both articles make clear. We don't need two articles, of course, but the old name should redirect to the new one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 7 July 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) 20:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Isitt

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

Isitt is a city councillor in Victoria, British Columbia. With only 80,000 residents, it's not big enough for councillors to automatically merit their own articles (as per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES). Isitt is the only current councillor with his own article.

This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2015. At the time, it was decided to keep it despite it not meeting the notability standards for politicians, as Isitt met the notability standards for authors. I'm not sure this is the case; he's certainly not notable enough to meet WP:AUTHOR, and of his three books, two have stub articles created at the last AfD and one is redlinked. The books may be notable as per WP:TBK as they were published by academic presses, but I don't believe that inherently confers notability on the author.

The article also has a very long history of edits by IP users who only or mostly contributed to Isitt's biography. There may be WP:COIPOLITICAL considerations. Madg2011 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a city councilor in a city this size does not grant automatic notability, the sources are not sufficient to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the nominator in the first discussion, and even though it closed keep on the basis of his activities as a writer rather than as a politician, I'm still not satisfied that his notability as a writer has been properly demonstrated here. The sourcing in the BLP is still sitting entirely on his city council work, and while two of his three books do have separate articles (From Victoria to Vladivostok and Militant Minority), they're not adequately substanced or sourced as being notable books either — we have to be able to say something more about a book than "it exists, here's a review from an academic journal to verify the fact, the end" for the book to actually warrant a Wikipedia article. So no, I'm still not seeing what it actually takes. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPOL. DrStrauss talk 15:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 11 July 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) 20:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IA Collaborative

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

Corporate Spam. 1 Para to write about. Press coverage. Light2021 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the tag pretty much says it all: "article reads like a press release or a news article and/or is entirely based on routine coverage". This content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. No notability or significance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be composed of passing mentions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically promotion, and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 23:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources don't give WP:SIGCOV and the whole article reeks of WP:PROMO. DrStrauss talk 16:01, 11 July 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) 20:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudred

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

Only created for Promotional purpose. COI issues. Non-notable as per encyclopedic standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly excluded as WP:NOTSPAM: a client prospectus / sales brochure, with content such as:

Widener University Assistant Dean of Civic Engagement Elizabeth Housholder identified an unmet campus need: a better way to communicate volunteer opportunities to students. She approached Cloudred with her idea for an interactive website in 2012! Etc.

Not notable on top of that. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To piggy back clearly violates WP:NPOV . Also uses insufficent sources from personal accounts that do not meet WP:NCORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDavis2017 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly violates WP:SOAPBOX. DrStrauss talk 16:03, 11 July 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 withdrawn by nominator after unanimous consensus to keep this article. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The nominator raised concerns about the notability of the topic, but the consensus found it notable enough for the stand-alone article at this time. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team

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

The case for deletion is WP:UNDUE. This information is trivial. It is merely a list of press releases about people being hired for a committee. Both Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Dismissal_of_James_Comey are large and unwieldy as-is, and I don't believe either page would be improved by merging this content. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). The history, composition, and mission of the team has been widely reported on, including reporting separate from discussion of the matters they are investigating, since no less than the President of the United States has made false assertions about the prior political activities of its members. bd2412 T 18:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously surpasses WP:GNG and every other notability requirement, and the group will get increasingly important as time goes on, so I see no conceivable rationale for deletion. Softlavender (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the nomination statement, "The case for deletion is WP:UNDUE." The committee hasn't done anything yet, it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume they will. Any necessary discussion can be included on the two pages mentioned in the nomination. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahem. Vegas Golden Knights. There is nothing WP:CRYSTAL about reporting on an existing entity with personnel who have already been selected (with much press coverage), and the composition of which has already been the subject of public comment. bd2412 T 19:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    - It's still WP:UNDUE then. We don't include the staffing of United States Senate Special Committee on Aging or United States Secretary of Education. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you show me where those have been broadly reported in reliable sources? Where people up to the level of the President of the United States have criticized their composition? If it is undue, then the fault would be with the news media, of which numerous outlets have reported on numerous aspects of this team. Perhaps you can convince them to retract their coverage as undue. bd2412 T 19:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Power~enwiki, please familiarize yourself with AfD rationales, of which WP:UNDUE is definitely not one. Please also do WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. Your comments and rationales seem to indicate that you are acting out of POV/opinion/partisanship rather than out of encyclopedic intent or Wikipedia polices and guidelines. If you take issue with other articles, the place to discuss those issues is the talk pages of those articles. Softlavender (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I feel that deletion of the article is my intended goal of this discussion, therefore AfD is the proper forum for this discussion. A discussion on (for example) the Donald Trump page could not cause this article to be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I said "other articles" (i.e., the other articles you criticized on your nomination), not this article. Softlavender (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be a bad-faith nomination; the rationale statement "It is merely a list of press releases about people being hired for a committee." is blatantly false, as there is not a single press release in the article's 27 citations: [5]. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I do still feel that WP:UNDUE is sufficient on its own for deletion; WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV, and this article's existence is inherently a violation of that policy. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are evading the point (your blatant lie in your nomination), and you still do not understand AfD rationales. Your absurd claim now that the article violates NPOV is merely pointing up your own obvious highly biased POV and by extension, again, your bad-faith nomination. Softlavender (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely reported on team conducting a notable investigation. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not claiming that this article is not notable. I am listing it as an article that I believe should be deleted according to WP:DEL5 and WP:DEL14 . Power~enwiki (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I obviously disagree at least on your latter point, if not both. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read liberally enough, literally every article in the encyclopedia is a content fork of something. If so, to which article should the neutral, reliably sourced information found in this article be merged? bd2412 T 20:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Read liberally enough -- obvious liberal bias! E Eng 22:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim the material is not suitable for an encyclopedia, you need to make your case. How is it not? Softlavender (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, you can't edit or replace your rationale after it has been responded to and !voted on. Softlavender (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this discussion has stated "I know the consensus on this page will be opposed to this move" [6] I call for this to be SNOW closed. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I object, strongly. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree that this unwarranted and bad-faith POV nomination is an absurd waste of everybody's time, and agree that a WP:SNOW close would be appropriate here. Softlavender (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've accused me of acting in bad-faith TWICE, yet have refused to allow me to try to make improvements. 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power~enwiki (talk • contribs)
    - You can't "make improvements" to an AfD nomination. You can make whatever further comments you desire in the discussion itself, but you can't change your nomination. You can improve the article itself if you perceive it to be lacking. The only way to improve this AfD would be to withdraw it, which you can do since no one has !voted "delete". Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very well sourced article on a notable topic which absolutely belongs in wikipedia somewhere. I'm not certain the title and the framing of the article is the best possible, but don't delete. --Lockley (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An easily notable and relevant topic. I would be against merging this into the Russian interference article or the Comey dismissal since those are already long enough on their own and the Special Counsel subject works better with an article of its own. However, I support changing the title and rewriting parts of the article to make it clear that the investigation, not the team itself, is the main topic here. κατάστασ η 00:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Well sourced, notable article. Deserves to stay. Jdcomix (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and well-sourced. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump was closed as Delete earlier this month. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the policy-based WP:CONSENSUS was to delete. You do understand how this stuff works, right? Here there is a unanimous policy-based consensus to keep this article. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making insinuations about me like this on the AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an insinuation; it was two statements of fact and a question. Softlavender (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to turn the hose on you two? E Eng 09:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might. I'm not sure why Softlavender re-opened this if only to make comments this non-constructive. Power~enwiki (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I cannot see how this could be interpreted as trivial, when the subject matter concerns an investigation to determine if there is in fact a scandal that is the greatest in the history of the United States. Even if the investigation does not yield earth-shattering results, the fact that this exists makes it notable. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 10:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in two minds, so the clincher would be...do we have other articles on similar subjects (special investigations teams makeup), if not then I go with delete. As I fail to see this is more notable then any other tram, and would seem POV forky. If the answer is yes I go with keep as this is no less notable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would actually be interested in seeing an article explaining the composition of the teams that investigated Nixon, Clinton, and Bush. We have a Category:Watergate scandal investigators which "includes police, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, members of Congress, journalists, and others who investigated aspects of the Watergate break-in and cover-up", but does not distinguish those who were formally investigating on behalf of the DOJ from those who were "investigating" because they were on a Congressional committee or trying to break a story for a newspaper. Also, I don't recall that any President has ever made public comments calling into question the composition of the DOJ team conducting such an investigation. That is a point in favor of the historically unique situation of this particular team. bd2412 T 16:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'm no longer opposed to a snow-keep close by an uninvolved admin. Power~enwiki (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Power~enwiki, if you no longer wish to propose deletion you can withdraw the nomination. Since there have been no "delete" or "merge" votes, withdrawing the nomination would amount to a snow close in favor of "keep". To do that, you can simply say "I withdraw the nomination" here at the bottom of the discussion. If you wish you can also strike out (but not remove) your nomination statement. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the discussion has, on the talk page, expressly refused to withdraw this, but has conceded the result of this will likely be keep. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep. an article cannot be UNDUE, only parts of an article, and this would be UNDUE detail in an already very long main article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The stand alone article 2017 Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team is in fact the proper response to UNDUE - spin out a subsidiary/child article where there is plenty of coverage of specific aspect of a main article that would bog down the flow of the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly meets notability standards. Issues about POV, if any, should be dealt with by editing, not by deletion. TJRC (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep Per others. Clearly meets WP:NCasprings (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN This is clearly going nowhere. I still don't believe any page that meets WP:NPOV can exist under this title at this time, and thus cannot attempt to improve the article in good faith. I withdraw the nomination, but I encourage a different editor to re-nominate this page for deletion in the semi-near future if improvements are not made. The assumption by almost all the page editors that this committee will find something is a violation of multiple core Wikipedia policies, and the excessive coverage of trivial details regarding the committee published in the political press should not be relevant content for Wikipedia; perhaps it would be an appropriate topic for WikiTribune. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:59, 5 July 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) 20:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Georgian television

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

Only one page exists in this list, and it only has one not-really-notable entry. Given that neither the list nor the 2009 article itself (which is also being nominated) are likely to be expanded due to the relative obscurity of "television in Georgia" I recommend deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this just seems to be a list of calendar years which anybody could have worked out, and the majority are in red.Vorbee (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Threadbare content and it looks like even if we did have items it would be of a "one source" type since the state network is basically it. Nate • (chatter) 22:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Articles with no content just waste space. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a random collection of useless information. Reminds me of a mass AfD or ANI on "List of television premieres in Israel in 1951" etc or something similar. DrStrauss talk 16:06, 11 July 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. postdlf (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Jordanian television

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

Of the two years that actually exist on this list (which are also being nominated here) neither has anything more detailed than the winner of a reality competition for that year. With no usable info, these three pages should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No useful content, lacks notability. Ajf773 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom; we need more than that year's local Voice winner to make up a series of articles for a nation's television output. Nate • (chatter) 22:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'"'Delete" - for similar reasons to those which have been given above for a call to delete the list of the years in Georgian television. The majority of years are, again, red links. Vorbee (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 6 July 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sidharth

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

Non-notable indiviual. The available sources does not establish notability and appear to be a case of WP:BLP1E. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of major sources, notablitiy cannot be established.Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC) — Rafiqmarbaros (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a young person who has identified some security vulnerabilities. The best source is a passing mention among others in a Deccan Chronicle item about Google acknowledging and rewarding their notifications. Insufficient to establish encyclopaedic notability for the subject and my searches are not finding better. AllyD (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Weak Keep : Deccan Chronicle , Malayala Manorama , Mathrubhumi are all leading dailies in India and i see the articles are all featuring this person. Which shows there are reliable reference. But only one factor for notability so i go with a Weak keep. BetterSmile:D 17:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs) — Bettersmiley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 11 July 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Zakin

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

Nothing approaching in-depth coverage out there. Thin claim to notability. The only decent thing I can find is a short 1993 LA Times review of her book. Edwardx (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm am loath to support deletion, this has been here 7 years without any trouble, it is factual, she has a book and a mention in the LA times, sure she is low on the wp:gng but I feel the wiki would be poorer without it, so i'm saying wiki should Keep it. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet our notability standards, something I find to be fairly obvious. The "keep" comment just above, insofar as it makes reference to notability, leads to "delete" as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are 7,600 hits on her name in Google Books. Based on her publications and the coverage of her work she meets notability standards even if the article needs a lot of work.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom's rationale. I would respond to the above keep vote with a reminder that search engine hits don't confer notability. DrStrauss talk 16:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- Per nom.@SouthernNights:--Notability ∝ n(search engine hits).Probably SEO will be a good read.Winged Blades^Godric 04:09, 12 July 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. limityed participation, but clear enough DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanpower Group

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

Fails GNG, CORPDEPTH. Really short, so maybe there's something out there, but as it is now, I think it fails SPAM too. South Nashua (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more detail and some external sources, and taken out the quotation of themselves on charitable giving. Does this still fail policies? m.de.selincourt —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most of the sources are affiliated and fails WP:NCORP. DrStrauss talk 16:21, 11 July 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) 20:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IVISYS

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

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability (WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). There are some mentions of the company chosing the Stockholm exchange over Copenhagen but that is it. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Does not meet WP:NOTE criteria. Many sources cited belong to the subject of the article or make only passing mention of the subject. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 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) 20:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ICharts

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

Delete References fails the criteria for establishing notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only independent source is the one from CNET, and that's not sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:57, 4 July 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) 20:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priyo Mobile

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

Non notable mobile operator, Was launched in 2011 and went bust by the end of 2013 so very shortlived, Anyway fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I found pretty much nothing except this, which smells of promotion and hardly confers notability. Especially given the company's brief lifespan, I don't see this passing WP:CORP. GAB^gab 23:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found this passing mention but that's it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:06, 6 July 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) 20:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Entertainment

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

Delete Promotional article, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not independently notable from Tiger JK, even including a quote to Tiger JK. Name can be optionally redirected to the latter. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 9 July 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. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Pennsylvania

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

This is an extremely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list better covered by a category tree. There are likely other similar lists that I will nominate if this nomination is successful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination fails WP:CLN, where categories and lists go hand-in-hand to aid navigation for the reader. I don't think it's indiscriminate either, as it has a clear definintion - notable people from Pennsylvania. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lugnuts: Please explain how this passes WP:DOAL #6, part of the guideline you linked. Lists are explicitly discouraged when they cover groups so large that a list is impractical. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOAL #6 states "...e.g. a list of all people from a particular country..." Last time I checked Pennsylvania was not a country. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: That's one example of an overly-large list. Pennsylvania is larger and more populous than many countries, so the spirit certainly applies. Examples =/= the entire scope of the bullet point, obviously; that's not how guidelines work. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not an either-or decision. Otherwise we would be deleting thousands of lists that are also over-lapping with categories. And it lets you do things you cannot do with a category. Like indicate the city or county. And if you want to you can add photographs. And if someone is notable but does not yet have a wikipedia article you can add their name with footnotes showing that they belong on the list. You cannot do those with category. Maybe user:DGG can explain why we have both, because he seems expert on this. 2604:2000:E016:A700:C9B4:95C3:F2C4:D63A (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists and categories are complementary. The virtue of categories is they are automatically constructed, and aid maintenance of articles. . The virtue of lists is they can a little identifying information about each item to put it in context, which helps people looking for something specific whose exact name they may not know, and also help browsing. I think almos tall categories except the very broadest benefit from a corresponding list, and almost any list of more than a few items benefits from a corresponding category. If this nomination is successful, it would imply a major change in our policy for lists. An isolated nomination isn ot the way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: A test nomination is how I'd describe it, to determine whether a broader nomination is worthwhile. The reality is that this list, if expanded, would be absurdly large. This isn't a change to existing policy. WP:DOAL #6 states that lists generally shouldn't exist for "a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles". Pennsylvania (and other states) are certainly as big as some countries. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable list topic and invalid reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:People from Pennsylvania. This list is also a very valuable navigation aid for Wikipedia's readers, as per WP:LISTPURP. For example:

This list article has received 6,735 page views in the last thirty days, whereas
The category has only received 46 page views in the last thirty days.

– Oftentimes, people just don't use categories very much. Also, if the list becomes too unwieldy in size, it can always be WP:SPLIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰

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. CSD:G3 - obvious hoax Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shine Season Billionaires

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

Unable to find any sources for this - appears to be a hoax or a WP:YAMB at best. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom - likely hoax. No coverage found for any of the above subjects. gongshow talk 18:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Crosswiki self-promo account. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could probably be speedily deleted as a recording by an unnotable musical artist.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:01, 9 July 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) 20:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bardhec Bytyqi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the basis that he has played for AaB in the Danish cup. However, his only appearance was against a lower division club, meaning it does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not played in fully professional competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:59, 5 July 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) 15:35, 7 July 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. No further discussion despite relist. So Why 11:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dubble

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see two articles in XXL Magazine and one in Baltimore Magazine cited in the article. These are significant coverage in independent WP:RS, so I don't see how the claim of failing WP:GNG makes sense. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The http://www.baltimoremagazine.com/2014/1/13/evan-wallace-aka-e-dubble-shoots-for-breakout-success article is significant coverage, but http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2017/02/e-dubble-has-died/ is just an obituary piece and does not offer significant coverage at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The XXL articles are the same link... More source discussion, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 16:48, 4 July 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. cnsensus DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DSaaP

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

I can't find anything about this in my searches. Which is not surprising given that it's not even scheduled to be a thing for another three years. Created by a WP:SPA. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. So Why 12:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. So Why 12:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTALBALL – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, of course. — fortunavelut luna 09:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UK Data Service. I think the project merits one sentence in the creating entity's article. Regards So Why 10:15, 10 July 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 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore#Parishes. Promotional and probably copyvio: "Our rebuilding campaign..."

First delete, and then redirect. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Pompei Church

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

I find no evidence that this article conforms to WP:Notability guidelines. Not a single source is officially referenced, so its made up of lots if not all original research. Also the article is told primarily from a first-person point of view. Display name 99 (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete A rather folksy home-grown parish history but lacking in sources. Even searching the variant spellings all I found were a few passing local color references about businesses, etc. in the neighborhood. Seyasirt (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the article could/should be moved to correct spelling and for the title to cover the former school as well. I added a bit about the Our Lady of Pompei high school. There are at least 674 alumni of the school; it went through the 12th grade; its historic building has been renovated into apartments. High schools are notable; notability is not temporary. I note that the current informal content may overlap from this webpage "About us" (although it is not clear whether that webpage or the wikipedia article had the text first), which can easily be addressed by editing down that content. --do ncr am 17:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any issue of copyright, i stripped out the text which overlapped. It is a "historic" church, opened in 1924, which would probably be eligible for listing on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. While not old relative to European history, it seems to have been important in the ethnic history of Baltimore. There are numerous sources given as external links in the article, though at least a few of those links have gone bad since the article was set up. However Wayback machine can be searched to find those topics. I am reasonably sure that there will be coverage of this church in the Baltimore Sun and other newspapers. --do ncr am 18:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1924 isn't old at all, even by North American standards. My parish has been open since 1838, it's the oldest active Catholic parish between Baltimore and Pittsburgh, it served as a hospital for soldiers of both sides in the Civil War, and Babe Ruth was married there. It still doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and it's certainly not listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Display name 99 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see the Baltimore Sun reports that the Babe was married at St. Paul Catholic Church (Ellicott City, Maryland) (currently a redlink). That or alternate name St. Paul Roman Catholic Church (Ellicott City, Maryland) would be a fine topic for Wikipedia; it looks to me like there are sources enough about it; History page at the church is one source. NRHP listing is not required for a historic church to be Wikipedia-notable but NRHP-listing pretty much ensures it. Lots of historic churches choose not to be NRHP-listed, not seeing much advantage to it for themselves because they won't benefit from tax credits on historically compatible renovations, which is fine. --do ncr am 19:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that creating the page wouldn't be a bad idea. It does have a rich history that dates back further than most other still-active parishes in North America. I suggested it simply as a point of comparison.

When explaining why the article on Our Lady of Pompei[I] Church should be kept, you noted that "it seems to have been important in the ethnic history of Baltimore." However, you just deleted most of the information in the article about the history of its Hispanic ministry. Now all we have left is information in the lead stating that the church offers Masses in English and Spanish and the statement that it has served Italian immigrants, without getting into specifics. 674 alumni is not a lot. My grade school, which is still active and also doesn't have a Wikipedia article, has more than that. The rest of the information is just ordinary parish stuff still told from a first-person perspective, which in my opinion fails to distinguish Our Lady of Pompei, as it should be spelled, from the 144 out of the other 152 parishes in the Archdiocese of Baltimore that don't have Wikipedia articles. In truth, it's probably less notable than some of the others, like mine, which, for now at least, aren't covered. Display name 99 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is not need for an article about each of the separate parishes. These are listed at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore#Parishes, where i have just edited to make a wikilink (currently red) for St. Paul in Ellicott City. There are 5 or 6 bluelinks and the rest are not wikilinked. There's a column for date of founding with just one entry. Maybe adding a description or notes column and developing out some information would be helpful, and would head off creation of separate articles for some and would facilitate creation of articles for the more obviously notable ones. Display name 99, could you possibly be interested in helping develop there a bit? If you are then I could make some effort too.

It remains that we have an article about this one, the Our Lady of Pompei, which I feel is notable for at least the reason that it is now an article about both the parish church and its school, and the school is definitely notable by wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The "674 alumni" is just what pops up in some classmates.com website or something, and is perhaps the number of alumni supposedly signed up there, and is not the actual total number of alumni. --do ncr am 22:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I think we can agree to disagree on this article for now. Anybody else who comes by can make their own decision based on what we've both said. If the decision is to keep it, the next step will be to have it moved to "Our Lady of Pompei." As for helping with the other parishes, I have some stuff going on right now-both on and off Wikipedia. I can create the St. Paul's page-you can check for neutrality considering I am a member of the parish-and can help fill in some of the founding dates, maybe getting to other information later on. That is a good idea. Display name 99 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved the title of the page to reflect the proper naming of the church. Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The article does not currently establish notability. If it is as notable as suggested, the article needs to be amended to reflect that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new !votes sine last relistings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore#Parishes per Peyasirt, or as a second choice just delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 5 July 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) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonus Networks

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. All sources in the article are by the company itself. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 14:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All primary sources link to the company and violates WP:ADVERTISEMENT's many policies. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 6 July 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 merge to HealthLine. So Why 11:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Road (RTA Bus Rapid Transit stations)

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

Train stations (usually at least), metro stations, ... these require significant construction work, often with notable architects, a long history, .... But run-of-the-mill bus stations? These seem to lack the necessary notability for an article. Fram (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two things to note, the HealthLine is listed as part of the cleveland rapid transit lines. Information will eventually be expanded to list local surroundings, and who underwrites each station. Cards84664 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Cornell Road stop, because it's real stretch to call it a station. (Or else merge into List of HealthLine stations, because it's generally conceded that LRT stops are just within the threshold of notability.) Useddenim (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC) (revised 11:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
- Note I agree that all stations from Stokes east are literally bus stops, and for the platforms parameter, I labeled it as such. It's titled as "stations" because that is what the RTA says it is, as shown here: Cards84664 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, bus stations are not notable except in exceptional circumstances, and this does not meet that. Rrachet (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above, not notable. This is not a light rail transit station, it's just a bus stop. MB 05:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into HealthLine or delete. The same goes for all the other bus stops on this line, those in Category:HealthLine. The one reference doesn't mention Cornell Road at all. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A simple bus stop does not meet notability standards. Only light rail stations or heavier should have articles. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) 13:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into HealthLine. I !voted to keep in the other AFD about the island platform stops, but since this one is little more than a sign, shelter, and fare machine, I don't believe it warrants its own article. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into HealthLine or List of HealthLine stations. I don't see the point of deleting the article. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates and the opening date. This information can be kept in one article. I don't know how to make a table, otherwise I would have added it myself. Please do not delete this.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:23, 7 July 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. So Why 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Baba

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

cited sources are not reliable enough except one but still the bio fails to meet WP:GNG. . Saqib (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I highly suspect this article was created by a sockpuppet who is block evading. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StyLISHEDFaculty993. Nikki♥311 00:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 11 July 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) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar addi mehra

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

Non notable film personality. All the references provided are from non reliable sources or WP:UGC. Has only directed 1 non-notable feature film and therefore does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. Jupitus Smart 13:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per the nominator subject in question fails WP:GNG & WP:DIRECTOR. FITINDIA 16:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:12, 4 July 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 Melissa_McCarthy#On_The_Day_productions. There is consensus to redirect this page to its founder. Some content has already been merged. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the Day Productions

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

The current sourcing of the article contains virtually nothing on the company, only the first source goes in-depth about the company at all, if you can call two brief mentions "in-depth". The other sourcing, most of which doesn't even mention the company, is at best trivial mentions, many of which are actually press releases. Searches turned up virtually no in-depth coverage of this company in independent reliable sources, just press releases and trivial mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. This seems to be part of a promotional walled garden - with conflict of interest overtones. The redirect was acceptable but the constant recreations probably warrants an outright deletion.PRehse (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only coverage is passing mentions not offering sufficient depth or independent notability - it's really just a producing vehicle for husband-and-wife McCarthy and Falcone, rather than a proper independent company. I don't know what would be the best redirect target, but wouldn't oppose if people have a reason for preferring one. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to founder Melissa McCarthy since the available coverage is about her development of the company. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Melissa McCarthy per Michael's reasoning. Regards So Why 12:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I just merged the content. If the company becomes more clearly notable, we can always move the info back.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Melissa McCarthy per Michael's reasoning. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:45, 13 July 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 nomination withdrawn. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priority Records

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

~~Delete~~ Withdrawn: See comment below Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. It appears to me that this topic is not notable. The key question: Is the topic notable on it own and in its own right - or not. For me, the topic is attempting to acquire notability by association with other notable topics. References are all primary / fail WP:ORGIND. Nearly all claims are unverified. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as nominated was weak, with very poor sourcing and lots of promotional language. But the record label through various incarnations is significant in music history and received a vast amount of press.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]... --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Colapeninsula, there's more than enough references to establish notability in that lot. The article is weak and stuffed full of promotional language but that can be fixed. I would usually have edited the article myself, hopefully someone else can take some time to do it. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 4 July 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 10:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dawne Gee

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

Does not appear to meet ANYBIO. Also ridiculously unencyclopedic, but that's just a symptom of the lack of notability. John from Idegon (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: thoroughly non-notable in every way. Quis separabit? 03:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 11 July 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) 20:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Henson

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

WP:BLP1E. One lawsuit that got some coverage because of the subject + amount, but no lasting notability beyond that one event. Fram (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has published three books, been featured in many international publications and articles since. The initial news coverage you are referring to was substantial and only the beginning of his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaledel (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His three books are supposedly "Editorial on the rocks", "Editorial on the run", and "Paraphalia" (probably should be "Paraphilia"?). "Editorial on the run" is not published yet and is only discussed on his own website, so doesn't count. Paraphilia seems to have received no significant attention at all[15][16], probably because it also hasn't been published (yet?). Which leavs us with one book, not three. It also has barely received any significant attention[17] it gets mentioned in the margin of the Empire State Building lawsuit, which again indicates that he is notable for that event, not as a photographer (e.g. this NY Post article [18]). Fram (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient persistent, in-depth coverage in third-party, independent reliable sources to indicate notability per WP:ANYBIO; the only coverage concerning him personally is of a peripheral and transitory nature. — fortunavelut luna 13:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's pretty much all WP:1EVENT aside from a few mentions in blogs which don't seem to meet WP:RS. As PR stunts go, he certainly got a lot of press. But for him to be notable as a photographer, he needs more in-depth writing about his skills as a photographer, or other indications of notability like exhibitions in prestigious galleries, reviews, awards, etc; aside from a couple of brief mentions, I can't see anything. Article is not good, and urgently needs proper sourcing for some claims, but that's not necessarily grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' albeit the page needs some work, it is of a photographer that is indeed noteworthy. The photographer in question has creditentals that overshadow the single incident you are fixated on. He has worked with the elites of the industry, so A book publication in addition to the single event with international coverage is enough to keep this page. It seems as if there are multiple events lumped together with the nude Empire State photo shoot. ~~JackL 🍁 ^talk~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack. L (talk • contribs) (blocked as a sockpuppet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note this comprises JackL's only edits to date, which is presumably why they've copied Callmemirela's signature formatting. How curious that someone new turns up for the sole purpose of defending an awful page for a photographer with an eye on PR, and (while both conditions are regrettably too widespread to constitute a WP:DUCK) suffers from the same spelling errors and Caps Disease as the article's creator. (I've taken the liberty of closing the open tags). Pinkbeast (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete ~~Agree page is in awful condition, but definetly passes GNG.~~ L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Changing stance to delete as not enough notability to pass the GNG, so BLP1E is it. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't get there from here. If this chap is notable (which I'm not convinced of; perhaps the Empire State incident is notable) this mass of hagiography would be of no use in assembling a decent article. Additionally, what we have now is rather pushing the boundaries between paraphrase and copyvio (see eg this cite where he "has an innate ability to create a complex narrative filled with sensuality and surrealism, then capture those provocative moments on camera"), to say nothing of G11 unambiguous advertising or promotion.

If he is notable, someone who's not his PR flack can create the article, perhaps going via AFC. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author did list it at AfC, which is how I found this. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How curious, I don't see that in the logs; I must be missing something. Regardless, what I mean is that it would be good, if this chap does merit a page, that it were created 1) by a disinterested editor who 2) goes via AFC. They could perhaps sift the bona-fide sources from the incidental mentions and regurgitated press releases. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke, it's actually at requested articles. I thought about creating it, but this discussion is making me think that the best I will be able to create is a 7 sentence stub. I trimmed the article of bulky lists. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. His only claim to notability is his Empire State Building publicity stunt with a cell phone camera. He is not a notable photographer. Of his three claimed books, one may be self published by an obscure Georgia company and neither Google Books nor Amazon shows any trace of the other two. No museum exhibitions, no major gallery shows, no critical attention to his photography that I could find. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch re self-publishing - here's the Indiegogo campaign to get the money to publish the one of the books which seems to have been published at all. And I also found cutting and pasting from his own PR, down to the Caps Disease in "Henson is Agency approved". (You'll have to take my word for this because Diannaa has revdelled a lot of the history for copyvio.) Pinkbeast (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom with no hint of notability going on here. --Lockley (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing rises above not tabloid and one event notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a wikipedia page? does need work, significant work. - Allen_henson (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been published in Playboy, on the cover in Runway Magazine and America's Next Top Model. I also think that the one event of notability is really three events- the Photo Shoot, The nude shoot at the courthouse and the counter suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackslash (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC) (blocked as a sockpuppet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I have concerns regarding the past 2 !votes. One is by the subject (perhaps), and the other is by a brand new editor, who has only edited Allen Henson. While I AGF, I will point out that socking in AfDs is nothing new. If someone else agrees, I can file an SPI, but the CU may not take. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 23:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The JackSlash SPA also shares Caps Disease with the JackL SPA above and with the page's creator (and curiously whenever the page's creator gets blocked for disruptive editing, one of these SPAs pops up) - and also seems to share JackL's habit of copying and editing edit signatures; the edit signature appears manually constructed both because it's missing the User: field and because the timestamp for an edit at 20:21 UTC was 21:49 UTC, which was in the future and shared the same minute digits as the edit immediately above.

I wouldn't bother with an SPI, though - these ducks are becoming increasingly obvious and aren't going to fool the administrator who closes the AFD - unless we get a host of socks after a recreation of the page. I'm willing to AGF that the person claiming to be the subject is the subject, but obviously that hardly makes them disinterested. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as depending on what are obviously junk sources, with no suggestion that better alternatives exist. The junk sources? From an earlier, later deleted version of the article:

Henson has an innate ability to create a complex narrative filled with sensuality and surrealism, then capture those provocative moments on camera. Allen Henson is known for controversial layouts by incorporating social standards and politics into his Fashion shoots.

No source was given. But see these quotes from web pages that the article currently cites:

Allen Henson is known for controversial layouts by incorporating social standards and politics into his Fashion shoots. He has an innate ability to create a complex narrative filled with sensuality and surrealism, then capture those provocative moments on camera.

(That from here in volodaily.com.)

He is known for controversial layouts by incorporating social standard and politics into his fashion shoots. This has earned him recognition as a "younger Steven Meisel" by industry professionals. He has an innate ability to create a complex narrative filled with sensuality and surrealism, then capture those procavative moments on camera.

(That from here in juxtapoz.com.)

Allen Henson is known for controversial layouts by incorporating social standards and politics into his Fashion shoots. He has an innate ability to create a complex narrative filled with sensuality and surrealism, then capture those provocative moments on camera.

(That from here in deedspublishing.com.) Now, being known for controversial layouts by incorporating social standard/standards and politics into [one's] fashion/Fashion shoots ... I suppose that's supposed to mean something along the lines of: being known for fashion photos that are controversial because they allude to political issues or seemingly transgress social norms. (As far as it's supposed to mean anything at all. More likely it's just a word salad that's supposed to sound enticing, and the reader is not supposed to think about it.) I'd call it incompetent writing at best. That at least three of these "sources" say the same thing suggests to me that at least two of them are totally uncritical recyclers of the PR or other junk they receive. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 9 July 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 00:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Coward

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

Non-notable as either a bxer or as an actress. Seems to be part of an attempt to advertise her DVDs. PRehse (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious self promotion WP:COI, both this page and the Husband's is predominantly edited by 2 people. Husbands page also added AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Ricky_Coward Ryanharmany (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page follows Wikipedia guidelines and policies and there is no advertising at all. There are only facts being stated. 'Jessica Coward' has been on Wikipedia since 2013. Ggmatrix (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This person PRehse states "Seems to be part of an attempt to advertise her DVDs. PRehse (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)". There is absolutely no need to advertise anything and Wikipedia wouldn't be the place to do so as Mittology is known worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggmatrix (talk • contribs)

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and, as only a regional amateur competitor, WP:NBOX. No media coverage is cited and a cursory search does not turn up anything independent of her or her husband, let alone a reliable news-source. In reply to comments above, neither validity of facts nor length of time an article has been up establishes notability. This must come independently from both Wikipedia and the subject of an article. El Pharao (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and El Pharao - GretLomborg (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and some success in local amateur boxing events fails to meet the boxing notability criteria at WP:NBOX. No evidence of being notable as an actress. Papaursa (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and failing WP:NBOX. --Kbabej (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 11 July 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. Consensus to delete seems clear. Drmies (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cohen

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

I am bringing this article to AfD to hopefully resolve an issue raised by Deborahjay at Talk:Simon Cohen#PR activity is not activism. The subject of the article has worked in PR, and most of the sources cited appear to be a result of his efforts to promote himself and his businesses. Does this make him notable? I'm not sure. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his coverage appears to be either trivial (his own Facebook page) or related to Global Tolerance. A redirect, possibly to Global Tolerance (PR firm) would be ideal, but no target page exists and this page isn't suitable for a rename to that location. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were created, Global Tolerance wouldn't need disambiguation. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is in PR, and the article about him has been edited by at least one person who knows him personally, as has been disclosed by that person. But he is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, which for me suffices for notability. He may be good at making himself notable because of his professional skills, but the criterion is "notability", and he seems to meet that criterion. Whether you got to be notable partly or even entirely by self-promotion is beside the point. Paris Hilton was "famous for being famous", remember, and her notability no doubt involved the work of a lot of PR pros. As you see, there is a Wikipedia article about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Person54 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)‎[reply]

Strong delete recent IP^{21:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)} activity that restored previously removed promotional material changed my mind.04:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Keep per Curb Safe Charmer comment below - WP is not a platform for activists or the promotion of same. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try doing a search on ~activist just the way you see it here and take note how many activists show up in the results. — Myk Streja ^(who?) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I believe I'm the only IP to have edited the article, so I assume you're referring to me. What "promotional material" did I restore? I don't think I restored any removed material, promotional or otherwise, apart from references and {{citation needed}} tags. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme I think you may be mistaken. The IP editor actually added to the burden of proof of notability be adding back edit tags. You should double-check your source. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myk_Streja I checked again, and my conclusion is that I was not mistaken in this instance. It's promotional material that was added back. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That edit wasn't made by an IP editor as you originally stated though, Atsme, which I presume explains the confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what he said. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 21:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I struck IP but the crux of what happened remains - the promo material was added back. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's an easy mistake to make given the number of edits there's been in the past several days. Thanks for the correction. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't I know that; apology unneeded and accepted. We give active editors the usual warnings followed by bannings, and we cut off IP users at the ... knees. This page will settle down once it looks like a real article. Right now we have a lot of excited people running around and spraying in all kinds of directions like a garden hose in the grass. I've seen it before IRL. It will soon be plodding along again — Myk Streja ^(what?) 01:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Myk Streja: I don't know that the apology was directed as much toward you as toward the wrongly and inadvertently accused unregistered editor, but anyway, what is it that you mean by "cut off IP users at the ... knees"? Could you clarify that? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP users in general, you being an obvious exception, are difficult to pin down as a single individual who can be reprimanded and later banned for inappropriate behaviour. Banning comes quicker for unregistered users. Editors like yourself become known and your identity becomes, well, your IP address. (My name is 905...) It's an unfortunate bias, but the behaviour of more than a few IP users is disruptive and edits by IP users tend to get the fish eye.

That all being said, it was meant to be humorous. I'm glad to see you took it that way. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 03:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He acted in good faith as a promoter of social and ethical awareness in business practices. The fact that he had a company that handled the public relations for so many high level activists does not take away from his core beliefs: it simply gave him a larger platform. The article is slow going, but it is going. The AfD is premature. Discussion on how to de-emphasize Global Tolerance was just getting under way in the talk page. Perhaps an Under-Construction tag would have been a good idea. — Myk Streja ^(who?) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As some of you may know, I published the first draft of the article, which is also my first article contribution on Wikipedia. Before doing that, I read most of what I could find on instructions, a lot on manuals of styles, guidelines, best practices and I used my own judgment and concluded that the subject is notable enough for WP. I followed more experienced Wikipedians advice on how to best go about creating an article when you have a COI, which suggested I create a draft for approval and disclose my COI. I have gotten so much help from editors from the very start, removing wording that’s promoting of the subject, altering the undue weight and increasing a neutral point of view. If my first draft failed to explain the notability of the subject that is my fault entirely, but I think the article is still taking shape, and I’m learning with it. I’ve been hoping to create a really great article, trying to add what I was considering to be relevant information, but maybe I have focused on the wrong things and should instead have aimed to remove and rewrite info. It’s not so easy to know once a draft is ready, or when an article is good enough. As a learning editor, I can only compare to other pages and the notability of other subjects on Wikipedia. And I think the subject is relevant, having spoken on one of the most popular radios in the UK regularly for two years, facilitating interfaith conversation and lifting social change-makers in the media, giving away his company, and speaking at many global events, and I’m hoping to be able to edit and further improve the article. MatildeZ (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MatildeZ (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Note to closing admin, User MatildeZ has declared a connection to the subject of the article being discussed, as is easily noted on the article's talk page. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made this suggestion on the TP of MatildeZ which basically suggests moving the article to draft space. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have history with this article, as on 4 May, in my third week as an AfC reviewer I accepted the draft. That was followed by a range of comments from other AfC folk on that accept and a flurry of activity on the article by a range of New Page Patrollers who carried out quite extensive cleanup, and I felt it appropriate to apologise for being too hasty in accepting the article into the main namespace. I am not surprised to see it at AfD and I will be very interested in the outcome, given that history.

All respect to the editors helping with the COI editing. I can empathise with anyone with edit fatigue. Perhaps part of the issue here is the amount of edits being proposed via the talk page, and for that reason I think Atsme's suggestion of moving the article back to draft has merit. In terms of the AfD though, the reason I have said keep is that I believe the subject clearly meets WP:GNG and any discussion of the content of the article is irrelevant to the notability question (WP:CONTN). To say that the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia because the article is about someone skilled in the art of self-promotion is a flawed argument IMHO. The article seems well referenced and verifiable. That we don't like the article isn't a reason to delete (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Any justification to delete must be framed in terms of which Wikipedia policy the article isn't compatible with, and I am not seeing that here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having participated in the editing and cleanup, and noting the discussion here, I continue to conclude that the subject is not notable. Simon Cohen's reputed activity is mostly talk, beyond what any ordinary PR operation does as its work which necessarily includes a media presence. The so-called "sabbatical" and "giving away the company" smack of spin and buzz, and in the first instance, of questionable validity (see Talk:Simon Cohen#Sabbatical: it seemed not to guarantee resumed employment which is inherent to the very definition of sabbatical). I'm an inclusionist regarding information accessibility, but here I'd say that both Simon Cohen and his business are more ambitious than significant. Wikipedia's encyclopedic quality is derogated by including such individuals and entities bent on promotion, who talk much but achieve little. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to respond to your concerns on the talk page for Simon Cohen under your section ‘PR is not activism’, where I presented my research on Cohen's background, awards, as well as appearances in the media, and talks given as a keynote speaker. Although I realize that the page is nominated for deletion in its current state and not with the discussions on the talk page in mind. As I stated in my comment above, if the draft for the article was insufficient or inappropriate, I apologize. I wasn’t sure about what information would be most relevant and therefore I have turned to you as editors for guidance. I have made efforts to introduce more relevant content and information on what Simon Cohen has done. I’m not sure I agree with you that Cohen is ‘all talk’. He is a public speaker though. He was also a host last week for the TEDxTeen on Saturday June 24th in London. It was live streamed by MTV and Teen Vogue http://www.mtv.com/news/3021858/watch-the-2017-tedxteen-london-live-stream-right-here/.MatildeZ (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MatildeZ (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

As an analogy, imagine there had been a charlatan who presents themselves to the media as a snake oil salesman, and mainstream newspapers publish a range of gushing articles about them and a Wikipedia article is created. Later, they are exposed for what they are. Should there still be an article on such a person? The whole episode may be of lasting interest. I think what is being argued here, to continue the analogy, is that having been exposed, the fraudster's notability is eradicated so the article should be deleted. I would argue that the article should be updated to reflect a balanced point of view pointing out the reality of the situation, backed up with new sources for verification. If you follow that line of thinking then if from your editorial research you've established that the "sabbatical", "giving away the company" etc. in the Cohen article are not all they are presented to be, the correction action would be to ensure that the article states the facts of the and let the reader decide. Notablity is not temporary and a reassessment would surely show that substantial coverage exists. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've put considerable time and effort into collecting and citing Simon Cohen's business activities with one company that made a splash, likely because - as Curb Safe Charmer put it (above) - he is "skilled at self-promotion" - but what actually notable has he done? Hosting popular programs is rather devoid of content. Speaking at conferences: why was he included beyond professing humanistic values and picking "Global Tolerance" for his company's name? Organizing interfaith activities? On social media I see evidence of many, many unknown people at the grass-roots level, whether professional or volunteer, who are doing more. The business columns and talk-spots on media programs have given Simon Cohen a platform spotlighting his professional endeavors such as they are; Wikipedia needn't commemorate nor amplify this content by duly citing many or all those bits here on a biography page. Perhaps a page on the Global Tolerance (PR firm) could gather reportage of its rise and fall, if as a company it was notable as are others (a field in which I'm entirely ignorant). -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Curb Safe Charmer. Cohen was covered in Times, Huff, Harvard Review, The Guardian, The Independent, etc. Regardless of whether we agree with his philosophy, politics, or the way he goes about whatever it is he does, the guy is notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is he notable for? My objection has entirely to do with what seems a lack of substance for "whatever it is he does" - no matter how many major media outlets cover the same stuff he buzzed up in his promotional blender. That suits their editorial guidelines, but not necessarily Wikipedia's. You have to do more than "show up." -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the cited articles for starters:

He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts
His firm represented Dalai Lama and the Prince of Wales (I realize N isn't inherited), and
"Simon Cohen hit the headlines when he gave away his PR agency, Global Tolerance, to follow his heart and focus on what he valued the most – his family. [19]

He received notability via the required independent coverage which complies with WP:GNG, and now it is up to consensus to determine if the article warrants inclusion in WP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deborahjay: A big part of the problem was Global Tolerance was overemphasized. Discussion on the talk page was about cutting that back and including more information on his other activities. And that is where I reached the breaking point. However, though I believe Cohen is notable based on what I've researched, the article itself needs a lot of work to prove that. We were getting there. As I said on the article's talk page and was said here, the article needs to revert to draftspace. Let's not kill it before it grows. — Myk Streja ^(who?) 20:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on previous comments about whether we are judging the present version of the article, or what it could become with some work. An AfD discussion shouldn't just take into account of the current state of the article. We should be able to evaluate notability here regardless of how good a job the article does with the sources. I can see an argument for moving it back to draft space to address concerns with tone, neutrality, etc., but given that the sources for this subject are all likely to be available online, we can assess notability here, based on sources cited in the article and any others that can be found and presented. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to suggest a third option here: Move to draft There seem to be a few people here who don't want the article to vanish, but don't feel it's ready in it's current iteration. It should be used by those who would vote to delete because the article might become notable, but isn't now. — Myk Streja ^(who?) 20:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, I'm not sure why we can't judge notability here and now. The vast majority of sources are likely to be online and accessible via a Google search, so I don't see what will turn up while the article is in draft space that can't be found in seven days of AfD discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion has been muddied by the whole "move to draft" business. That is equivalent to deletion. and the "move to draft" theme here is a distraction. The criterion for inclusion/deletion in the Wikipedia is notability, as evidenced by the article content. Either the subject meets the threshold for notability, as established by other biographies, or it doesn't. If it does, it should stay, and if it isn't a good enough article yet, people should set about improving it, the same as every other article in Wikipedia which can be improved. If we create another form of deletion, namely moving articles back to draft status, for when the subjects are notable but the articles are sub-standard, there will be a lot of articles getting moved to draft space. Simon Cohen is not the most notable person with a biography in Wikipedia, but as a Fellow of the RSA, as the former publicist of the Dalai Lama and the Prince of Wales (among others), and as frequent guest and commentator on British TV and radio programmes, he is at least as notable as many other Wikipedia subjects. That is all that really matters in a deletion discussion. Person54 (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as promotional . He apparently is notable,as Fellow Royal Socviety of Arts. But the article is absurdly over-personal, and worded exactly as he would have worded a personal web page, or a listing in a college yearbook. "Raised Jewish, Cohen does not subscribe to any religion, but considers himself spiritual.[5] In a 2016 interview, Cohen spoke about having developed a gambling problem at age seventeen. This led him to Gamblers Anonymous" Neither is of the least interest except to his family and close associates. Even worse, the quote used above in defense of the article ""Simon Cohen hit the headlines when he gave away his PR agency, Global Tolerance, to follow his heart and focus on what he valued the most – his family." is unabashed promotionalism, and should neither be repeated here or used as a justification for there being an article here. If the article is keep, and it should not be, I shall do some rewriting, to minimize the response I would expect to see later that "you accepted the article on Simon Cohen. You should accept my promotional autobio also.". NOT PROMOTIONAL is basic policy, and supersedes all consideration of notability We can reasonably assume that anything written by a COI editor is promotional, for what else would they try to write? The suggestion above, keep in draft for expansion is moving in the wrong direction. The standard for considering keeping this should be if it is fixed before the end of the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - DGG, I deleted the promo material, so if you get a chance, please take another look at it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - DGG, I would normally agree with you that someone's religious beliefs and spirituality shouldn't normally feature in a biography. However in this case the article is about someone who has a degree in theology and promotes religious tolerance, so I think it would be entirely appropriate for it to state what their personal beliefs are. I don't see a problem with the lead section mentioning why he was motivated to give away his company, since that seems important to the article. It certainly needed rewriting though, and that's the approach I would advocate with this article. After much work, if there's anything considered promotional left, it should be excised, leaving the encyclopedic content, rather than see the whole article deleted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a close call. The subject may or may not be notable. It is too close to call. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Have the edits to the article changed contributors' opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is deeply ingrained with PR speak, but he appears notable through the press coverage, with the FRSA additional evidence of notability (not sufficient in itself though). It's true that the coverage in the mainstream media does relate to the event of giving his company away, but there is material from other times in business press and brief mentions in books. I'm not convinced that Global Tolerance as a company is any more notable than he is: after he left it quickly faded. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this content should be excluded per WP:NOTSPAM; a PR professional in a nn firm is hardly a claim to notability. Notability is not inherited from notable clients or causes, and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Have the edits to the article changed contributors' opinions? this has become a bit of a moving target. The edits have caused at least one participant in this AfD to flipflop between 'keep' and 'strong delete'. By reducing emphasis on some of Cohen's activities the article becomes more about others. Having a section that is a long(ish) list of Global Tolerance clients makes the article seem more of a promo piece. As the draft stands right now, the bit about Jedis and the UN Interstellar Day for Tolerance brings down the whole article. It was the novelty of giving away his company that brought him to the media's attention and that has got lost in translation. It should be in the lead section as like it or not, it is key to his notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth pinging participants in the discussion from before the relisting to see if they feel the same way: Cordless Larry, Power~enwiki, Person54, Myk Streja, Deborahjay, DGG, and QuackGuru. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - my main concern now is that even if the promo material is removed now to encourage more "keeps", there's no reason to believe that same deleted promo material won't be added back like was done during this AfD only worse. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is still Move to Draft. — Myk Streja ^(what?) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: While I'm still on the fence with respect to notability, that argument sounds like WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. You're right that the article may be susceptible to becoming promotional because it's about a PR professional who clearly has his own PR staff working on it for him. Similarly, "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" is susceptible to WP:NPOV violations because of the nature of the article's subject. But the solution isn't to delete the article – it's to work through the usual editing process to ensure that the article doesn't have those issues, whether we're dealing with political POV pushers or with hired PR staff. Why would this article be any different? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree with you under normal circumstances, I can't in this case. It is not a matter of WP:SUSCEPTIBLE because it happened while the AfD is ongoing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Why would the applicability of WP:SUSCEPTIBLE be limited on the basis that things happened during the AfD? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The agency might be notable, this person is not. This is pure promotion, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind – as someone said, "kill it before it grows".

For others looking at this: the sourcing is poor and needs to be reviewed – as an example, tedxteen.com carries a press-release-style bio presumably written by Cohen or his staff, but cited here as if it were a reliable source. As usual in empty puff-pieces, there is plenty of name-dropping, a good measure of unsupported material, and at least one trivial claim: "Cohen is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts". Well, maybe so, though the RSA doesn't list him as one; but why would it? There are 28000 "fellows"; they pay a joining fee of £75, and then £14.58 per month. Anyone can apply; the application form is here. It's like being a "friend" of the Royal Academy, though marginally more expensive. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not get why this is a hard one. The prose may be too promotional, but that's an argument for editing, not deletion. At least that's the case where there's this much significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. The Guardian, Entreprenuer, PR Week, BBC News, The Daily Telegraph, The Times. I've read through these and there's ample independent reporting.
The argument that the agency might be notable but the person isn't is lacking, as well. These articles are about Cohen, and not just his agency.
Easily meets the requirements of WP:GNG. David in DC (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment: no change to my Delete (above) - not notable. The multiple mainstream media citations repeat the same information: two splashy business schemes that generated a manufactured short-term buzz: shutting down the company and calling it a "sabbatical" (mainly for himself), and giving away the company after a reality-style competition. None of this activity evidently impacted his industry and the company folded not long after the transfer. This was apparently newsworthy, but WP is an encyclopedia, not a news feed. Neither is there evidence of impacting global tolerance, besides several talks - whether the popular Ted or other broadcast channel. Several citations are of interviews with Simon Cohen, so the content is directly by him rather than about> him. Likewise the "buy a membership" in the RSA makes it inadmissible for notability (Head's up, @David in DC:). -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC) / Redacted 19:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deborahjay. Just a reminder that you've already backed deletion, above. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, Cordless Larry, I'd [mis]understood that a restatement was required according to the Relisting by User:Sandstein on July 4 and the request for repeat commenting by IP user 142 on July 5. I've redacted to word my second Delete as a Comment to avoid a duplicate count. Is this proper now? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, Deborahjay. The comment is a useful one, so I'm glad that you left it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If notability for working towards "global tolerance" requires actually significantly impacting global tolerance directly oneself then I am afraid almost nobody's contribution to global tolerance is notable, Deborahjay. Global tolerance is one of those things which is achieved only by a lot of people working towards it together at the same time, and while some people are more or less prominent in that effort, and looked to as "thought leaders", I don't think global progress towards tolerance is much influenced by the presence (or absence) of any one person. It is a Zeitgeist kind of deal. I think you just don't like PR people much, and by your apparent criterion, no PR person can be notable. PR isn't my cup of tea, either, but I reckon notable PR people merit Wikipedia articles as much as notable chess champions, or Philosophy professors, or bank robbers, or whatever lines of work you happen to think worthwhile. It would be good to hear from someone in the world of PR about what makes for notability in that world, but speaking as a PR outsider and non-fan, I found Cohen's client list at Global Tolerance pretty impressive. I don't think every guy in PR founds his own agency and has the Dalai Lama or the Prince of Wales as clients. Person54 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Person54:, see remarks above by User:DGG and User:Justlettersandnumbers on the (weak) significance of your particular points in favor of notability. Now let's take up your suggestion, not from "someone in the world of PR" but other WP pages right here: 16 others in the Category:English public relations people and 61 (!) in the Category:British public relations people. Here we can appreciate the nature and extent of activity by notable PR people. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, did you look at those lists? I spot-checked the English list, and most of the people in it were apparently notable for something else. In addition to working in PR, they were famous authors, politicians, journalists, or sex offenders. The couple I noticed who were notable for their work on PR, were so because of their work for clients, just like Cohen. For example Tony Barrow is supposedly notable because he was a publicist who "worked with" the Beatles, as an employee of Brian Epstein. Walter Hayes is alleged to be notable because he worked as a PR exec for Ford Motor Company especially in the field of racing. The Matthew Freud article doesn't even mention why he is notable. Derek Taylor is another PR guy who worked with the Beatles, and eventually other bands. It seems like the key to PR notability on Wikipedia is to be the child of, or married to, someone famous, to have worked with the Beatles, or to be a sex offender or something else. I guess Simon Cohen fails these tests, but are those really the tests? Person54 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Deborahjay. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 13 July 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 00:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floh de Cologne

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

There's no AfD page on Floh de Cologne; let's see if this fixes the issue. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Geman wikipedia article has 3 offline sources that seem to be reliable here Atlantic306 (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added to the article a link to a substantial discussion of the subject in a Cambridge University Press book, which I think substantiates their claim to notability here, as do others accessible through Google Books and, as mentioned above, in the equivalent de.wikipedia article. (Ah memories: many years ago, a German teacher at school played us their records and tried to explain their satire, though it wasn't really conveying across language/culture.) AllyD (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination "There's no AfD page on Floh de Cologne; let's see if this fixes the issue" is completely non-sensical. Apparently the nominator wants the page to be deleted, but does not even state the reasons. The nomination should be withdrawn on formal grounds. Having said this, Floh de Cologne was an influental German polit-rock / krautrock / cabarett group in the 1960s and 1970s. They were covered in the contemporary media for their rather strong positions, and are still covered in music historical media, even sometimes mentioned in radio features now. So, they are clearly notable and the nominator didn't do his homework before this nomination. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted the nomination as following through an IP suggestion on the Talk page: in which case the rationale is "fails wp:n (not enough reliable sources)" (with which I have disagreed above). AllyD (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to that page. It makes a bit more sense now. However, it doesn't change my vote for "Keep".

Also there might have been some sockpuppeteering going on given that both the nominator and that IP editor are now blocked. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:00, 10 July 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 merge to Administration in Bihar. Sandstein 10:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks in Bihar

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

Just a table. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd almost be tempted to suggest a no-context speedy delete, but I think the "blocks" of the title are apartment buildings, so there's the faintest inkling of context. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No context, just a table. --Hirsutism (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify: Block here refers to an administrative subdivision not apartment building. The article is not in a very good shape but the subject is certainly encyclopaedia worthy. Pratyush (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN RAJU:, I am not able to find this discussion in Deletion Sorting/India. Pratyush (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PratyushSinha101: I've already tagging Blocks in Bihar page in Deletion sorting/India.See here.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay Thanks. Pratyush (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-As said by Pratyush , Blocks do refer to administrative divisions in India per Administrative divisions of India#Rural level#Blocks and also per Block (district subdivision) and also per this website [Census of India] . FORCE RADICAL (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple table with no context. Ajf773 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ blocks with tables and no interlinks. Capitals00 (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Administration in Bihar. "Just a table" is not an argument for deletion (there are plenty of standalone lists), but I don't see any evidence that the blocks in Bihar have been discussed as a group (per WP:LISTN). Administration in Bihar is a natural redirect as it already mentions blocks as part of the administrative structure. Appable (talk | contributions) 04:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Administration in Bihar per Appable. Capitals00 (talk) 02:33, 11 July 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. So Why 12:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ASP Playground

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

Non-notable software, cannot locate reliable references on Google. Cahk (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this is actually a {{db-web}}. Sidenote: I can't find any WP:RS either. --Hirsutism (talk) 12:00, 7 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuji Food

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

Non-notable food company, tagged for notability, non-RS and other multiple issues since 2012, created by SPA, content entirely promotional Lockley (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lowenstein, Kate (2012-09-22). "Is That Sushi Safe?". Health. Archived from the original on 2017-06-26. Retrieved 2017-06-26.
  The article notes:
  
  If there's no sushi chef out front, an outside facility is likely sending it in. The largest such supplier is Fuji Food Products, which ships sushi to some Target, Walgreens, and Trader Joe's stores, among other chains. At six factories countrywide, machines turn out rolls that are then sent to their destinations several times a week. Like any food purveyor, Fuji is held to safety standards set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
2. Bennett, Sam (2011-05-23). "In the Raw". Los Angeles Business Journal. Vol. 33, no. 21. p. 5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-06-26. Retrieved 2017-06-26.
  The article notes:
  
  ... Alex Meruelo, whose Downey-based Meruelo Group holding company has owned Fuji Foods since 2009.
  ...
  Fuji, founded in 2009, sells a broad variety of ready-to-eat Asian food under the Gourmet Kitchen and Chef Select brands. Among its products are a variety of California rolls, more traditional sushi with raw fish, and other items such as Kung Pao chicken, pot stickers and Mongolian beef. The typical sales price is about $6 and the products are distributed in 4,000 stores nationwide, including Trader Joe’s and Vons markets.
  ...
  Fuji operates plants in Santa Fe Springs, Seattle, Boston and Denver, while Okami has plants in Denver and Sun Valley.
3. Frost, Peter (2014-11-19). "Nation's largest packaged sushi distributor to open plant in South Elgin". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2017-06-26. Retrieved 2017-06-26.
  The article notes:
  
  The nation's largest provider and distributor of prepacked sushi is opening a manufacturing center in South Elgin that's set to start shipping products next month.
  Santa Fe Springs, Calif.-based Fuji Food Products Inc. said today that it is nearing completion on the 40,000- square-foot plant on Schneider Drive that will produce refrigerated, ready-to-eat meals such as sushi, salads, rice bowls, sandwiches and wraps. It will employ about 100 workers, a spokeswoman said.
  ...
  Fuji Food's products are carried in about 6,000 U.S. stores, including airport vendors, convenience stores, grocery and large-format club stores in 45 states. Its customers include Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Costco, Walgreen, Target, Sam's Club and 7-Eleven.
  ...
  Fuji Food is a division of privately held Meruelo Group, a Downey, Calif.-based holding company that has interests in construction, banking, real estate, media and a Nevada casino. Meruelo was in the news briefly in 2011 after a bid to buy the Atlanta Hawks NBA team failed.
4. Tarkan, Laurie (2015-07-23). "Here's what you need to know about the sushi salmonella outbreak". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2017-06-26. Retrieved 2017-06-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Capitalizing on our desire for convenient, yet more ethnic dishes, food producers have begun distributing sushi more widely. Fuji Food Products, one of the largest providers of pre-packaged deli sushi, distributes sushi to more than 6,000 stores across the U.S.
5. Milbourn, Mary Ann (2007-02-15). "Anaheim sushi company gets $5.8 million in venture capital". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2017-06-26. Retrieved 2017-06-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Prepackaged sushi distributor Fuji Food Products Inc. announced today that it received $5.8 million in venture capital to double its presence and distribution infrastructure nationwide by the end of the year.
  Santa Monica-based Funk Ventures Capital Partners provided the funding for expansion of the Anaheim sushi maker, known as Fujisan.
  Kenny Sung, Fujisan’s chief executive, said the capital infusion will give it the ability to service every key metropolitan market in the United States by 2008. The company currently serves 2,500 retail outlets and club stores in 37 stores.
6. James, Meg (2014-01-21). "Meruelo Media, buyer of KDAY, prizes L.A.'s diversity". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2017-06-26. Retrieved 2017-06-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Last week, TV producers, advertisers, business associates and local politicians gathered on Meruelo's soundstages to toast the arrival of Meruelo Media. Attendees snacked on products made by Meruelo Group companies, including sushi from its Fuji Food Products and thick-crust slices from La Pizza Loca.
7. James, Ben (2014-07-17). "NLRB Judge Says Becker's Board Appointment Appears Valid". Law360. Archived from the original on 2017-06-26. Retrieved 2017-06-26.
  The article notes:
  
  A sushi manufacturer violated federal labor law by seeking to compel individual arbitration of an ex-employee's proposed class action, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled Tuesday, saying ex-NLRB member Craig Becker's recess appointment was apparently valid under the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Noel Canning.
  Fuji Food Products Inc. ran afoul of the National Labor Relations Act when it sought to force individual arbitration of a wage-and-hour class action brought by former worker Nancy Sandra Gonzalez, Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey Wedekind said.
  Fuji, which bills itself as one of the nation's biggest fresh sushi makers and distributors, argued that the labor board's controversial D.R. Horton decision was incorrect, but Judge Wedekind noted that he had to follow NLRB precedent unless and until its gets reversed by the Supreme Court.
8. Mueller, Mark (2007-09-03). "Walgreen Plans to Open Store in Closed Tower Recordsd. Sushi Maker Fuji Foods Moving to L.A.; Investor Radius Investments Makes First Local Buy". Orange County Business Journal. Vol. 30, no. 36. p. 23. ISSN 1051-7480.
  The article notes:
  
  Fuji Food Inc., an Anaheim maker of ready-to-eat sushi, just signed a 10-year lease for a 91,189-square-foot warehouse and office building across the Los Angeles County line in Santa Fe Springs. The lease is valued at $10.3 million.
  The family business, formed in 1990, plans to move its headquarters from its North Armando Street site to Santa Fe Springs, according to officials with the Irvine office of Voit Commercial Brokerage LP.
  ...
  Fuji Food sells its products under the Fujisan name. It started out making sushi for local markets and now delivers to grocery stores, clubs and warehouses, primarily in Southern California. The new warehouse already includes a food-processing facility.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fuji Food to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Fuji Food notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. It is one of the largest suppliers of prepackaged sushi according to Health and Fortune. It is a supplier for Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Costco, Walgreens, Target Corporation, Sam's Club, and 7-Eleven.
Fuji Food is owned by Alex Meruelo's Meruelo Group holding company. If the company is found to be non-notable, it should be merged to Meruelo's article instead of deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Sources mentioned by Cunard
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs improvement, but Cunard's sources show this meets GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is best applicable here though? Because since my analysis below, policy is given a heavier aspect especially given the WP:INDISCRIMINATE coverage, which outweighs GNG. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and that Fortune article d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, The Fortuneand "Health" articles each contain a one sentence mention within a long general article. That is not substantial coverage. The various business journals exists for reprinting press releases. That's not independent coverage. The LATimes articles is a cross between a press release and trivial society coverage. The NLRB case is an isolated incident,, and does not justify an article. Not a single one of the sources is both independent and substantial. I greatly respect Cunard's ability to find sources of even the most trivial sort, and when the sources he can find are no better than this, there's clearly nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles from Crain's Chicago Business and Los Angeles Business Journal are independent and substantial. There is no policy or guideline stating that business journals are not independent sources for businesses.
Crain's Chicago Business notes that Fuji Food is "[t]he nation's largest provider and distributor of prepacked sushi" and that "Fuji Food's products are carried in about 6,000 U.S. stores, including airport vendors, convenience stores, grocery and large-format club stores in 45 states. Its customers include Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Costco, Walgreen, Target, Sam's Club and 7-Eleven."
A major supplier that has received significant coverage in multiple reputable publications is clearly notable.
Cunard (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to closing admin. It appears that many editors do not understand the policies and guidelines on sources that meet the criteria to establish notability and many make the mistake of stating a source is "notable" (which it might well be) which is a completely different criteria for establishing notability for the "topic" in question. For example, Cunard above has stated that the article in the Los Angeles Business Journal is an "independent source" (correct, the "publisher" is independent) and substantial (OK, lets go along with that). What he fails to point out is that the article fails the criteria for establishing notability because the article almost completely relies on direct quotations from the president of Fuji Food or their owners or "anonymous" company employees and therefore fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Similarly, the Chicago Business article (sure, reliable, independent source) is a regurgitated Press Release from Fuji Foods and also contains quotes the company CEO - in fact the entire article relies exclusively on the company for facts and info and therefore that reference also fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. In fact, *all* of the references provided fall foul of either one or the other policy or guideline for establishing notability. Not one is "intellectually independent" and meets the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regurgitated press releases from a reliable publisher are WP:RS reliable sources. Publishers do not need to source information to Mars to practice independence in their journalistic ethics. Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:CORPDEPTH says any primary-involved sources can and will still be discountered as they're not genuinely independent. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH; not every large company is notable. Sure, companies do PR and get press but this does not help with notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources the Cunard provided speak for themselves: they are not the coverage that we would expect under WP:CORPDEPTH as half of them are passing mentions and the other half are run of the mill coverage of corporate funding that simply don't meet the standards we hold companies to. GNG is not met here as we don't have sustained and substantial independent coverage of the topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails to have the reliably sourced in-depth coverage needed, see WP:CORP. I believe TonyBallioni said it quite well above, no need to repeat. --Bejnar (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is another source I found about the subject:
1. Lee, Jessica (2007-03-19). "Sushi Maker Targets $60M in Sales at Stores This Year". Orange County Business Journal. Vol. 30, no. 12. ISSN 1051-7480.
2. The article provides an extensive discussion of Fuji Food's operations and adds analysis like noting "Rancho Dominguez-based AFC Corp.'s Southern Tsunami brand" is a Fuji Foods competitor:
  Franklin Lee and his wife, Cindy, are the founders of Fuji Food Product Inc., an Anaheim company that makes packaged sushi under the Fujisan brand. Products include traditional sashimi and rice sushi, cut rolls such as California rolls and hand rolled sushi.
  Fuji Food sells in 37 states at more than 2,500 stores, including Albertsons, Costco Wholesale, BJ's Wholesale Club, Ralphs and Vons. The company has 400 workers and competes with Rancho Dominguez-based AFC Corp.'s Southern Tsunami brand.
  Products are made at four U.S. plants and distributed from 15 centers with a fleet of 120 refrigerated trucks. The company buys seafood from Asian and American fishing companies, as well as other ingredients such as rice, dried seaweed and vegetables from local vendors.
  The article also provides an extensive discussion of the company's origins, founding, and history:
  The Lees came from Taiwan in 1976 and first opened a furniture store in San Diego. In 1985, they took a stab at restaurants by opening three sushi buffets. In 1991, the Lees sought to expand into catering and contacted their local Price Club store, now part of Costco Wholesale Corp.
  The Lees oversaw their restaurants, prepared sushi at their plant and delivered orders in the morning. They worked late into the night and slept in their cars before delivering sushi to Price Club. Cindy Lee and her daughter. Christine, staged sushi demonstrations to push sales.
  When the company started selling sushi at other Price Clubs around San Diego County, the Lees closed their restaurants and focused on Fuji Food. By 1996, they were selling sushi at Vons and Albertsons.
  Christine Lee and her husband, high school sweetheart Kenny Sung, joined the company full time in 1998 and expanded to Orange and Los Angeles counties. They moved Fuji Food to Anaheim once they started selling in Central and Northern California and Nevada.
Combined with the Crain's Chicago Business and Los Angeles Business Journal articles, this Orange County Business Journal article is establishes that Fuji Food passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about merging to Alex Meruelo: Fuji Food is owned by Alex Meruelo's Meruelo Group holding company. If the company is found to be non-notable, it should be merged to Meruelo's article instead of deleted per WP:PRESERVE and per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging subsection of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
Cunard (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this changes my analysis above. Fluff pieces in business journals designed to promote local businesses do not amount to meeting our notability standards. This also counts as simply one source from the same organization under the GNG since you've already provided another piece from this publisher. I also see no convincing argument why this non-notable company has anything worth merging in the article at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:CORP and WP:GNG, sources seem independent in my opinion. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are actual fundamental policies which in fact outweigh notability guidelines, what comments have you about that in considerations to how policies apply? SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a keep !voter. I generally support keeping any companies with a physical nexus of presence in most of a large country or multiple small countries, as long as they meet a minimum revenue level. The need for at least two sources is for verifiability, not for notability. The references appear to be either (a) from the business press; or (b) trivial references in the mainstream press; but that is more than sufficient IMO. If the holding company has its own page I would support a consensus merge; I don't support a merge or redirect to Alex Meruelo. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete arguments such as "I get to tell reliable publishers which articles they publish that are reliable sources" make me wonder what is going on here; but meanwhile, the standard for GNG lies somewhere in the range of two good sources to lots of sources with minimal amounts of significant coverage. Unscintillating (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the one fundamental policy used here above all suggestive notability guidelines is WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy because they all contain the question: "Is promotionalism beneficial for an encyclopedia?" and the answer is "No, and it's unacceptable here" and the WikimediaFoundation has noticeably agreed that we are not a vehicle of promotional and there's no exceptions. The coverage has been examined and found to be promotional, even when claimed to extensively informative, because such publications as Orange Business Journal (and another local business journal alongside it, and in fact another about a local promotion stunt), Register or Crain's are, as noted by WP:ORGIND, indiscriminate publishers for companies, and are only extended the company's involvement in it, but that's certainly not what we are here nor should we suggest to anyone that we are. The Law360 cannot be considered as significant coverage since it's about a law case entirely, not about how the company is notable in its own skin. The Fortune is a classic example of a corporate blurb, simply meaning to say who they are, which is in turn, sometimes easily lifted from a press release (where it's located, numbers, products, etc.) and that's immediate to see because the Crain's offered above actually mentions this word by word. When the bulk of this is from indiscriminate local business webhosts, it only shows the company is skilled in emphasizing its PR agents, not the fact there's meaningful and profound coverage, which is (although quoted above), what the GNG needs. "two good sources to lots of sources with minimal amounts of significant coverage" is what is suggested for the possibility in notability, but not the undeniably instant-seal. Indiscriminate and promotions are exactly what is supported in deletion, not reconsidered twice to rearrange. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again I wonder, "what is going on here". We are here to build an encycledia. We shamelessly report and if neutral reporting promotes we are indifferent that it does so. If instead we are biased about promotion, the moneyed interests may eventually conclude that they being unfairly targeted and should intervene. Unscintillating (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"if [reporting] promotes, we are indifferent" is actually why we would delete given Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a soapbox, therefore we"re not a servicing host, that's what makes us an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per Cunard's sources, which meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I would also add this article from The Daily Meal, which focuses entirely on this company. Unlike a lot of articles, which should be deleted, the sources make clear that the company is not run of the mill (e.g. a lot of startups), but at the top of its field.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that publication is exactly unacceptable as by policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE since it's a trade publication focusing on consumer-targeted information, which is exactly what WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG maintain are unacceptable, see quote: "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization, other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people". Based on "focuses entirely on the company" and yet this is suppose to be an independent coverage piece? That wouldn't be countered as genuinely independent. In fact, I visited the link above and all other parts except one (company profile information) were simply words about what the company business is, how is that in-depth coverage? SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Meal article is a very nice find that demonstrates Fuji Food's significant impact:
While pre-packaged sushi might seem like a sketchy enterprise, it’s actually a well-organized (and lucrative) business. Fuji Food, for example, pioneered supermarket sushi back in the 1990s, and today they supply fresh sushi to more than 4,000 major supermarkets in 44 states (including Albertson’s, Costco, A&P, BJ’s, Trader Joe’s, and Safeway), producing more than one million packages of sushi and other fresh Asian food per month from four central kitchens.
Thank you, Patar knight (talk · contribs)!
Cunard (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the nom, I haven't voted, and I won't. This seems like a toss-up to me and an interesting discussion. There's something distinctive about promotional written copy, though, just as a prose style. The sound of PR. It's unfailingly positive. It's straightforward, logical, mostly impersonal, a certain flow with no hard technical language, a sense of being approved by lawyers, and PR always explicitly comes back to what it's selling. That's what I'm hearing in these quotes. In truly independent-minded coverage I'd look for language that departs from PR language. Unflattering detail, a quote from an opposing view, depth, any hint of criticism. You know? Does anybody see any criticism of Fuji Food in these sources? --Lockley (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll also comment this time in saying the history itself shows repeated occasions of removed and restored advertising (that's considering the last 10 years of article existence) which alone would be a surefire concern in WP:NPOV, therefore we would absolutely, unquestionably and confirmingly need assurance it would not happen again, which by the Keeps, hasn't been the case. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources existing, as well as the those provided in this discussion, do not provide the type of in-depth coverage to show WP:GNG, not to mention WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard has proven the general notability guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 14:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However several leading policies have been shown to support deletion and the need for it versus suggestive "article possibilities" guidelines. Have you any explanations about why we shouldn't account for the policies? The policies, as a reminder, are WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Indiscriminate. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are still arguing total nonsense in deletion discussions. No matter how many times people have explained to you in the past how WP:NOTABILITY works, you just ignore them and keep on arguing nonstop to delete valid articles simply because you don't like them. Dream Focus 19:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article can be improved, references sources are enough for notability. This should not be deleted. Bhavz90 (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Striking CU confirmed sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pshibe TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By which policies? Because the sources analyzed above were found to be clear company-rehashed information. By WP:What Wikipedia is not, "Objectionable content can be deleted if [against our Wikipedia goals]". To add, the history shows clear attempts to improve yet still promotional therefore the objectionable still exists. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the sources above would produce nothing more than a directory listing. There's no transformational analysis as would be expected of secondary sources. The coverage listed only confirms that the company exists, how many employees it has, how many locations it serves, etc. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site, and an encyclopedia entry is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 9 July 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. So Why 12:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musa sherif

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines due to the lack of substantial independent coverage. Largely promotional and largely about the job of navigation rather than third-party coverage of the subject as a navigator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-ify if User:Meharoofar requests it. Delete otherwise. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:RS coverage lacks significant coverage - there is little more than confirmation that he exists and is a co-driver in rally series. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:12, 4 July 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 merge to Engineer's_degree#Vietnam. At first gance, admittedly non-notable by its referencing, as the 'delete' !votes emphasised. But there were cogent arguments made in favour of avoiding deletion- merging, redirection, draftifying (even if in the midst of the AfD). per WP:ATD the consensus, although ill defined on specifics is clearly not in favour of deleting the article outright. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Degree of Engineer

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

We don't have unreferenced pages for every variation of academic degree in the world. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are no references. If somebody were to add references, it could possibly be kept if renamed (to "Engineering in Vietnam", probably). As it stands, it should probably be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Power's comment, and I might use that argument somewhere else. If the article had references and was renamed (and presumably rewritten as it is a mess without context) it might be worth keeping. Awesome! (No offense intended, I just found the point novel). Legacypac (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to be the equivalent of a graduate diploma or honours degree in some other countries, an extra year beyond a bachelor's degree. This could be notable with references. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere we have article on various academic degrees, even those specific to ap articular coutnry. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss DGG's suggestion (please also suggest potential targets)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Academic degree has similar content, it could be merged there. The section "Degree systems by regions" should probably be spun out into a separate article, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like that as a merge target. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Education in Vietnam is probably the best merge target, I'm not sure how I didn't see that page before. However, I find no references in English or Vietnamese to any degree licensed by the government; at least one university [20] offers a degree accredited by Australia and doesn't mention Vietnamese certification. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find any references for the content, it should be deleted. No links so no need for a redirect; Engineer's degree would be the best target. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:36, 12 July 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 List of defunct amusement parks. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standing but not operating

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

The phrase "standing but not operating" (abbreviated SBNO) is a status used solely by RCDB.com, which is a reliable source that is quoted often throughout roller coaster articles on Wikipedia. As noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles, SBNO is fan jargon that doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia. This was never really considered heavily before in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and now that it has, the project appears to support its deletion (as do I). Submitting an AfD here with plans to notify the WikiProject as well. Any ride with this status on RCDB.com can simply mark the ride as "closed" in either the ride's infobox or in prose within the body of the article. GoneIn60 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, maybe Contrary to the above statement I was able to find numerous books which use the phrase; if it is a relatively recent coinage, it has clearly escaped into the wild. That said, once the list is eliminated, there's really nothing left but a definition, which one can pretty much work out on one's own anyway. The list is one of those exercises in ephemeral data which I would tend to have us forego, though I suspect that, as usual, people will argue for its retention. Perhaps this should be concerted to a list article if it is kept. Seyasirt (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seyasirt: Would you mind posting some of the books you came across? In addition, I'm not sure how useful any remaining article will be, whether or not it remains in its current form or if it's converted to a list. The data within becomes quickly WP:DATED, and since the project has discouraged its use, it likely won't have as many frequent updates now. We also shouldn't lose sight of the concern that content more suitable for a travel guide violates WP:NOTGUIDE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a basic GBooks search which shows a reasonable number of books using it as a term. I see that as sufficient to get past the "this is just one website's term" assertion. I share the rest of your concerns about the value of the article. Seyasirt (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that same list, and the books that use it as an official status or term are the self-published google books by Nick Weisenberger. The others (of which there are very few solid examples) are just using the phrase in common, everyday language, since it can be easily used in a sentence. I'm not sure that exemplifies the use of a specific term in this context. No need to discuss further, but I wanted to hang this out as a disclaimer that appearing in a book may not be what it seems. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure one can tell the difference between the two; as I said above, the phrase is reasonably obvious. Seyasirt (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always obvious, except for when the term is being defined, as is the case in both of Nick's books. In fact, he even goes as far as using the acronym SBNO, another obvious way to tell when the phrase is being used as an adjective and in the same way the article uses the phrase. This is less obvious and less clear in the reliably-published books from that list, in which it occurs naturally in a sentence without being defined or treated as an adjective phrase. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if it's a useful term that's used on a lot of Wikipedia articles, a page should be kept. The arbitrary list of rides in this state at some time in the past should probably be deleted and I am starting a discussion on the talk page; the remaining stub could be merged onto a roller-coaster terminology page. Or left here, if there is none. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The term was removed from project's infobox's per consensus here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles and per my earlier comments on that discussion when a ride is SBNO it's simply closed. A standalone article for a fan jargon term doesn't seem necessary and using terminology that's simple and easy to understand such as 'Closed' would work better. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 13:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move The page is essentially a dictionary definition plus a list. Since a definition alone falls afoul of WP:NOTDICTIONARY, we should move this page to List of amusement attractions that are standing but not operating. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as jargon/cruft. If you can handle the difference between "closed" and "demolished", this term is completely unnecessary. --Lockley (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of defunct amusement parks - The list is arbitrary, definitions alone do not warrant inclusion on an encyclopedia, but the term seems to have enough usage to warrant a redirect in case people look up the term. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of defunct amusement parks - per BRAINULATOR9. Also, this term could refer to mills, factories, power plants, nuclear reactors, etc. - no need for a narrowly defined set of dictionary words doubling as an urban definition on Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list, possibly with a rename. The suggestion to redirect to List of defunct amusement parks will lose information. That page includes installations that have been demolished. It could possibly also be merged if the target page was to list in a separate section installations that were still standing. SpinningSpark 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark: The problem with keeping track of inoperable rides in lists is that items tend to get stuck. Months or years may go by after they're demolished before they're eventually delisted. The pinnacle of when a ride appears in reliable sources is during its introduction and not so much during its demise, especially if there was a long delay from the time it was closed to the time it was demolished. For roller coasters, luckily there's the RCDB, but outside of that, good luck finding anything reliable. Then there's the duplicate areas on Wikipedia containing similar incomplete lists, such as List of closed rides and attractions. The amusement attraction infoboxes designed by the WikiProject have already added auto-categorization based on the attraction's status. They appear in category lists already, as shown at Category:Amusement attractions by status. Those categories, by the way, expose how incomplete and outdated this article really is. Another list isn't what we need.

Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, of course, and keeping track of such things would be more appropriate at the amusement park and/or amusement ride articles assuming it has the significant coverage to justify doing so. As for losing information, a quick check shows that practically all of the items listed have the same information repeated in their respective articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested, to List of defunct amusement parks . This is not suitable for a stand alone article--the topic is simply non-encyclopedic DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 14 July 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Show on Turf

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

It should be merged to the History of the St. Louis Rams article because I feel it is not notable enough for its own article. Grand Armor (talk) 05:55, 4 July 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 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable enough to still be discussed 16 years later (Baskin, Ben (May 23, 2017). "How Mike Martz and The Greatest Show on Turf kicked off an NFL revolution". Sports Illustrated. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)). If it referred to one season than a redirect would warrant, but since it is three specific seasons, that won't work. Of the group nicknames from Category:Nicknamed groups of sportspeople, I feel this one is definitely one that should stay. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article discusses three-years of football. There are plenty of sources available on the internet that offer in-depth commentary, including Encyclopedia Britannica, FiveThirtyEight, ESPN to name a few. The article already discusses Faulk, Bruce, Warner, and Holt along with Mike Martz's ideology and impact on the game. The article needs work for sure, but I feel there a plenty of RS to establish notability of and offer substainlal commentary on the Rams during this era. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 03:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep permit me to echo the above editors who note that the needed sources exist. Lepricavark (talk) 03:10, 12 July 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 18:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Chinese throne

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

~~Delete:~~ Rename: The first reference of the article, The Manchoukuo Year Book 1941, only indicates that Puyi made the succession law when he was the Manchukuo emperor, while the title "Line of succession to the former Chinese throne" is quite misleading, since Manchukuo wasn't recognized by Chinese government and the last recognized dynasty of China was the Qing dynasty and it never used the succession law mentioned above ([21][22]). The report used as the second reference ([23]) also never mentioned Pujie as "the successor/heir to the Chinese throne", and so did the other royal members. Also, I made another article Head of the former Chinese imperial clan, in which most the contents of this article is included, so "Line of succession to the former Chinese throne" is now a duplicated article. As mentioned below, Head of House of Aisin Gioro can be an alternative title other than the original title. - George6VI (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was written and formatted to be China's entry at Template:Former monarchic orders of succession, a series of about fifty articles on different countries. The proposed replacement, head of the former Chinese imperial clan, is a translation of an unrelated Chinese Wiki article. Unlike the former monarchy articles, its focus is ancient and medieval history. Not only that, but it has various translation issues that make it difficult to follow. WP:Consistency suggests that China should have a former monarchy article in the same format as those of other countries with former monarchies.
Here are various sources to support the idea that being heir to China'a abolished throne is a notable status:
"Emperor-in-waiting recalls bygone age", Chicago Tribune, 1992. This title implies that Pujie is notable because he would have a claim to the Chinese throne, if we were living in the alternative universe in which China still had a throne.
"Pu Jie, 87, Dies, Ending Dynasty Of the Manchus", New York Times, 1994. The only way Pujie can be viewed as part of a dynasty is if he is considered the heir of his brother, Emperor Puyi.
"Life of Last Chinese Emperor's Nephew", People's Daily, 2000. Despite this being a communist source, it also has a wistful he-could-have-been-emperor tone: "If the dynasty had not been ousted,... [Jin Yuzhang] may have ascended the throne and become an emperor."
"Heir to China's throne celebrates a modest life," The Age, 2004. This title is self-explanatory, I think. Yet another major paper views being heir to the throne as a notable status.
Biographical Dictionary of the People’s Republic of China has a lengthy entry on Pujie. It says, "Pu Jie was technically head of the Imperial Qing Dynasty from the death of his brother in 1967 until his own death in 1994." The phrasing may be awkward, but I think the meaning is clear.

All of these sources refer to the throne in question as "of China." I am not aware of any source that calls it a Manchukuo throne. If it was a Manchukuo throne, that would be a reason to rename the article, not a reason to delete it. Whiff of greatness (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Out of these articles given here so far, they only said Pujie and Jin may have been the successor, but technically the throne of Qing dynasty, the last dynasty of China, didn't follow primogeniture (as seen in List of emperors of the Qing dynasty#Succession, the Qing monarchs did not choose their successors according to primogeniture. [sources given in the original article]) As such, the line of succession is questionable and it is inappropriate to be in one of the 50 line of succession series because the case of China is different from other countries (China, eventually, didn't set up a fixed line of succession to the throne by law); the end of Chinese monarchy was in 1912, while the article constructs a speculative line based on a law in 1937. So, I moved that familytree to the new article, in the section of House of Aisin-Gioro, which can decrease the confusion, because other than website sources, I added more book-based sources to make the history more clear. - George6VI (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There was obviously no "Imperial Qing Dynasty" after 1912. I quoted BDPRC anyway because it confirms that Pujie is the heir of Puyi, including whatever imperial status Puyi still had at the end of his life. Whiff of greatness (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The book itself didn't give the reference of either how the author got the conclusion. Even if Pujie and his close relatives were recognized as the head of his family, it doesn't equal that he could be the pretender to the Chinese throne. When the succession method is critical since it indicates which throne the family is going to pass. - George6VI (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced, seems notable per WP:GNG, I think that the title is justified because Manchukuo was the official state of the Chinese Qing monarchy from 1934-1945. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- With exception of claiming to be independent itself, Manchukuo was never recognized by Chinese government, therefore it's far-fetched to be "Chinese throne", especially that Qing was once ruled all China while Manchukuo didn't (and Manchukuo itself is often referred as "Pseudo-Manchukuo" in Chinese, indicating that the state and law is never accpted by majority. - George6VI (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, because the KMT (Who you are probably refering to) who were the largest force in china at this time claimed the area Manchukuo held, and the KMT were strongly anti monarchy, many people see the KMT as the sucessers of Tongmenghui who fought the Qing Dynasty, why would the kmt recognise the monarchy which controlled an area it claimed, and the same monarchy and even monarch they fought against. 2. There was no "Chinese Government" at this era, there was the KMT and the PRC, but most of the country was controlled by individual cliques. A lot of people only recognized the emperor as the leader of China at this time. This isn't really a argument for keeping, but your reasoning doesn't make alot of sense to be honest. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Manchukuo itself didn't claim the whole China, even Puyi itself was the last emperor of Qing dynasty; in fact, Manchukuo co-existed with another "Republic of China" government controlled by Japan in WWII. Here I need to explain what I meant to "Chinese government". The Chinese government I referred, can be "ROC" and "PRC", and none of them recognized Manchukuo as a legitimate Chinese dynasty. A you said "a lot of people supported" is doubtful, since if Puyi or Qing were so popular, then how would you explain the Xinhai revolution turned out to be a total success, plus, during the process, many provinces declared to be independent from Qing empire instead of being loyal to the dynasty? The reason I called for the deletion is that the article gives excessive interpretation from the reference, while it is against the original law of Qing China. It's more like a logical problem. - George6VI (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The Reorganized National Government controlled all of China with the exception of Manchukuo, which it recognized as an independent state." AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
China did not recognize Manchukuo but the two sides established official ties for trade, communications and transportation. In 1933, the League of Nations adopted the Lytton Report, declaring that Manchuria remained rightfully part of China, leading Japan to resign its membership. The Manchukuo case persuaded the United States to articulate the so-called Stimson Doctrine, under which international recognition was withheld from changes in the international system created by force of arms.[24] (statement from Manchukuo article) Here, I don't see any official recognition of Manchukuo from China as a state, with trade relationshop established; it's like how China treats the government of Taiwan in present time. I don't know where you found your materials, yet your conclusion is quite contradictory with the major opinions. (Just found out that you copied that statement of that Puppet government of China; not only that government wasn't widely recognized both globally and locally, but you seemed to forget that in original statement there's a In theory, ...) - George6VI (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, well referenced article. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename - Yes, Puyi was Emperor of China, and yes, there are descendants of his family, but since the imperial throne of China (as opposed to Manchukuo) had no rules of succession, there cannot possibly be a "Line of Succession" and claiming there is is a violation of WP:NOR. Not only must the genealogy be documented, which I don't doubt can be done reliably, but the suggestion embedded in the name itself is that the individuals in the genealogy are imbued with a ranked order of claims, a line of succession. It would be less of a problem were the page to tone back its claims - to state that the succession was by incumbent nomination among the male-line descendants, and then line out the descendants without calling it a "Line of Succession", but even this doesn't get tot he heart - as suggested by the claim of Yuyan mentioned on the page, there is no reason those eligible are restricted only to the descendants of Min-ning rather than the broader male kindred. The real problem is that it is trying to force the concept of a Line of Succession onto a dynasty that did not follow the concept, just so it looks like equivalent European pages. We are already presenting an alternative reality to suggest that lines of succession to extinct crowns are in any sense 'real', but to then try to shoehorn a realm that never had definitive rules of succession into this model is doubly dubious. Agricolae (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Every major claim in the article can be justified without reference to Manchukou, as I did above. Yet the footnotes about Manchukuo law are what get all the attention. Do I have to point out that Manchukou law has no legal validity at this point? The former imperial clan can use whatever rules they like to pick a leader, including defunct law. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every major claim except that it represents a line of succession to the former Chinese Imperial throne, and since that is what the page is named, it is rather the most important. Yes, a clan can determine its own leadership, but it has no force of legitimacy for a title they no longer control. Were this page called 'Head of the House of Aisin Gioro', then this issue would largely evaporate. (and do I have to point out that the Empire of China has no legal validity at this point?) Agricolae (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The convention of pretendership is that the head of the former royal house is the pretender. I gave a list of sources above in which the media treats the people in this line as would be emperors, which makes sense only if you accept this convention. The Age says that the clan is following "the Manchu system of succession by a male relative of the next generation."[25] Whether this is in fact the succession rule is not the point. I'm just saying that the clan has the authority to make one. Whiff of greatness (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whose convention? Certainly not that of the PRC, nor the ROC, nor the so-called pretender himself (he wouldn't dare). It is one thing to say 'this was the rule when they were ruling, so if we extrapolate it forward, what do we get?' It is another entirely to say that a clan that has been turfed out gets to redefine at some later date the rules of succession to the non-existent title they no longer hold. In the case of the rule being incumbent nomination, we can't assume whom the emperor would have nominated had he been permitted to do so. Perhaps the best analog is Saudi Arabia, where there is a huge royal family, but the line of succession at any given time is one name long - the person nominated by the incumbent as heir. To recapitulate the whole tree and claim it is a Line of Succession, ignoring the fact that nobody in it was nominated, is forcing a square peg into a round hole. Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason I'd like to challenge about this title is that the conclusion, namely "line of succession" to the Chinese throne, is mostly based on reports from foreign media (Jin/Aisin Gioro is Chinese family anyway). Although the media is main-stream, this former Chinese throne topic can be unfimiliar to them, and by no references I can check how they got the conclusion that Jin Yuzhang is the sole and indisputable successor to the Chinese throne, especially of Qing dynasty. Pujie, or his other close relatives, can be the head of the former royal family (as referred by Chinese media), but referring them to the Chinese throne pretenders is, as mentioned above, an original research or even misinterpretation (if you don't even agree that 1937 law, which is the basis of that line of succession and bas ed on primogeniture, then the logic of whole line of succession can't be valid). - George6VI (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yes a rename may be appropriate, btw it would be nice if someone could move back its talkpage words from Talk:Head of the former Chinese imperial clan that go back to September 2008, at the mo it is strange to have to go to another article to read the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the former monarchy articles are titled in this style. But, yes, they should all be moved to something less bombastic. May I suggest Head of the House of Aisin Gioro? Whiff of greatness (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a positive move. Lines of succession exist only when there is actual succession. That being said, it is not necessary that they all be forced into a common naming. The names should be appropriate for the individual situations, and sometimes what is best for one page is a bit off the mark for another. Agricolae (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reference articles suggested, the title "Head of the House of Aisin Gioro" may be really better. As to the talk page, now the two talk pages are mixed up because of renaming and article creation, and I don't have the right to switch it. Now, only admins can do that. - George6VI (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the admins: if there's a consensus in this talk, then there would be some talk pages that need to be moved: 1. "Talk: Head of the former Chinese imperial clan" to "Talk: Head of the House of Aisin Gioro" or its history will be lost; 2. "Talk: Line of succession to the former Chinese throne" to replace the content of "Talk: Head of the former Chinese imperial clan". I don't know what it will be like when the talk ends, but as of now it seems like it ma y be like in this way. - George6VI (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae: Almanach de Gotha is the authority on who gets to use royal and noble titles, both legal and pretend. Update Gotha covers only Europe and South America, so it is unlikely they have anything to say on China. They follow the most recent agreed upon succession rule of the house, and this approach can obviously be extended. Gotha famously rebuked Napolean by retaining dethroned German princes in the 1807 edition.[26] Whiff of greatness (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement -- In principle, an article of this kind should exist. What it should say is a different matter. I would prefer to see this referring back to pre-1912 imperial law and custom as to the succession. A 1937 law could hardly be legitimate, as China was then a republic and would not have made any law on the subject. In creating a puppet empire in Manchuko, the Japanese were probably trying to provide a legitimacy for their state, claiming it to be a continuation of the empire. If it did change succession, that article should be discussing the succession according to both pre-1913 law and that of Manchuko. A European work could only record (as a RS) who was entitled not prescribe who was entitled. The answer to that arises from the national law of each state. I believe that Cina generally practised male-only succession. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The law/rule for imperial succession of China, though was often based on primogeniture, it was also often broken since the monarch/queen dowager chose their favorite successor (it was Qing dynasty's case) while usurpers were also quite common; as such, I am afraid that there is no valid claim to the throne since te succession is like a mess, and that's why I prefer to limit the line of succession within the family instead of the throne. Yet, Whiff of greatness may not agree to add them since it seems like he thinks such articles should focus on present time. Some succession laws are too familiar to Chinese, yet I failed to find some direct edicts online or affiliated English articles, though they are the common sence in Chinese history. - George6VI (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps readers will wonder, "Why only a Qing pretender? What about Tang, Song, and Ming? There are many members of the Liu, Zhao, and Zhu clans who can claim imperial blood." I just added a couple of sentences to the article to address this issue. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we may get some sort of consensus, there's a little problem left. About Template:Former monarchic orders of succession. We may all agree that "Chinese" pretender is a quite awkward title now, but what about the template? I suggest that the template can exclude "China" this time, or replace it with "Aisin Gioro" (just like Oldenburg and Parma). - George6VI (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources for this article, every single one emphasizes China rather than Aisin Gioro. Head of the former Chinese imperial clan is a long list of, what exactly? If there is no claim that the individuals listed had a pretender-like status, what do they have in common? Whiff of greatness (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point now? What's your idea about renaming anyway? I'm confused, I thought we are on the same page. In some statement of the sources, "heir of Puyi" and "head of the family" is more mentioned, not the Chinese throne; they are indeed descendants of former yoyal family, but you can't say they are pretenders just because of these. There's no pretenders for the Chinese throne now, at least undisputed one, and why I suggest that we should use "Aisin Gioro" instead of "China" is that it's the same logic: if head of Aisin Gioro doesn't equal to Chinese pretender, then, similarly, we shouldn't use "China" as "Head of Aisin Gioro" as the whole topic. Seeing that there are so many family heads that are close to the definition of "pretender", then it's rightful to put the template at the most recent one, namely Aisin Gioro (if the template is to put in the renaming article here) or Yuan (if the template is to be put in the imperial article because there are/were multiple royal family clans in China). - George6VI (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have temporarily moved Talk:Head of the former Chinese imperial clan back to Talk:Line of succession to the former Chinese throne to address the concern raised by User:Coolabahapple. For the newly created article Head of the former Chinese imperial clan, there are many issues that needs to be addressed (I propose to move that article to draft namespace), although unrelated to this discussion for now. The current rough consensus for this discussion appears to favor keep for now while discussing possible rename. I will close the discussion in a couple days if it remain the way it is now. Alex Shih ^Talk 17:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Alex Shih for moving the talkpage:) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 9 July 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. So Why 07:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese students in the United States

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

Delete This is nothing but an original research essay. The cited sources do not encompass the topic, but are merely deal with disparate aspects of minority students, and sometimes Chinese students. The Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is basically an essay coupled with an indiscriminate collection of citations some of which focus on very specific aspects of Chinese foreign students. Others are general such as the “Handbook of intercultural training “ and “Stereotypes: Contenstructures processes and context”. The article created in 2015 is an orphan, attempted links from articles about pre-WWI Chinese scholarships to the U.S. were inapposite as was the one from a school in Canada. The article has been tagged as an "essay" since March 2015. I do not believe that the current page is capable of being "fixed". I should add that the article was created on 27 February 2015 by a single purpose account which has not edited since.

Also delete the two redirects:

Draft:Chinese Students in the United States Chinese students in the United States

--Bejnar (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bejnar (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom. This reads like part of an assignment for a class somewhere, which doesn't remotely make it an encyclopedic article. The concept is covered in multiple other articles, and better. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a repository of school essays. - Rrachet (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the serious problems in the article, but I do believe it is capable of being fixed. I think the topic is relevant considering the number of chinese students that study across the world, although the actual content and focus of the article should be changed. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Markus1423: In other words WP:TNT. --Bejnar (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: Basically, I apologize that I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know many of the technical terms. But yeah, I think it is a relevant subject given that it will have effects extending long into the future. I think that if the revised article included primary and secondary international students as well, it would encompass enough material to actually be of some value. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also revised a bit of the article and added some more information while rewriting some of the worst sections (I think most of the sterotypes, etc. will be completely removed). I'm not sure if this is a "no-no" on Wikipedia, but I followed the header's instructions so I hope this is acceptable. I tried to shift the focus of the article from post-1970 students to Chinese students in general in the United States, so I believe the links I placed earlier would now be valid (they refer to pre-1970 scholarships as @Bejnar: noted). I think that if certain elements of the article are retained and rewritten, it would meet the requirements. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Opinion essay. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notable topic, but the article as written is an opinion essay. WP:TNT. -Zanhe (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into International student article. STSC (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the International_student article could be improved, I do not see any of the material here being useful in that process. I would recommend that the International_student article be independently improved. --Bejnar (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. STSC (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. STSC (talk) 17:59, 7 July 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) 20:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GUIdebook

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

Non-notable fails WP:NWEB. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - web site article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up incidental mentions, but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:24, 5 July 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. Per the discussion herein, adding the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Dongre

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

This article is ridiculously Promotional and nothing else. Go to Talk page, People are asking for work, as if this is facebook message board.Anita jI app k design Maine dekhe (Ms. Anita I have seen your design) and now he is looking for a chance. All articles are covered as typical by news. Encyclopedia notability is highly questionable where it is used in such a manner. Light2021 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but strip back content. The topic appears notable as there are quite a few independent publications to reference. Unfortunately there are no footnotes to easily tell what is real and what is autobiography. We should get rid of the Philanthropy and Cultural influence sections. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional should not be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by filtering out the promotional stuff. It can be easily improved and structured up from a living person's biography perspective. References & sources can be appended as there is enough I could dig out at a glance. Johnsonwatts (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. Deletion is not the way to deal with a badly written article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient independent coverage in the article's current sources to at least pass WP:GNG. Agree that cleanup of the article is needed though. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 11 July 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. So Why 07:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Central Kentucky

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

No proof that these are clearly defined regions; no reliable sources supporting the use of such terms. "Central Kentucky" has been an unsourced microstub since 2009, and "Northern Kentucky" has been tagged for sources since 2007. "Southeast Kentucky" has no inbound links at all. Compare Eastern Kentucky Coalfield, which does have sources proving the use of the term, and to which Eastern Kentucky is a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete South Central and Southeast, Keep Northern and Western The former two are more vague regions with less sourcing, but Northern has plenty of sources to be found as a part of the Cincinnati metro, and Western Kentucky is just as easily definable. Nate • (chatter) 08:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: I see no sources using "northern" or "Western" reliably. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Western and Northern, delete the others- Western Kentucky and Northern Kentucky are well-established regions. The others are not. Smartyllama (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Where is the proof that they are "well established"? I found no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Western Kentucky" and "Northern Kentucky" each have over 5 million Google results. The terms are well used, on universities, airports, highways, and more. Smartyllama (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Northern Kentucky University and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport are plausible targets for a redirect, so at least a disambiguation page should remain. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Northern Kentucky. Western Kentucky can either remain as a disambiguation page or redirect to Western Kentucky University. Delete the other three. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck Northern and Western from this list because they seem to be plausible. I am continuing support of the rest. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draftify on request and remove the extra AfDs, where the bundling is reducing the specific attention that is appropriate. This article needs sourcing, but AfD is not cleanup, and in its current state the article should not be on Wikipedia. For deletion policy, this would be WP:DEL7 with WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 16:25, 8 July 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 A9 (article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where no articles exist for the artists, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metronomicon

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

Procedural nomination as 68.151.25.115 can not create AfDs, being an IP, and refuses to create an account. His/Her reasoning is "not enough wp:rs beyond progarchives.com, discogs.com, and official website" [27]. I don't care one way or the other on this AfD. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:16, 27 June 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 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 4 July 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 in one form or another. No one supplied a policy-based reason for deletion and how to fix the article or where to merge/redirect to can be discussed on the talk page. So Why 07:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assault pioneer

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

Essentially recaps Pioneer (military), focusing on a relatively small commonwealth usage. Merge, delete, or cut back to its core, a stub on army naming conventions. Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It isn't really a redo of Pioneer. It is on the current British use of assault pioneer to describe a fully fledged infantry soldier who is also a pioneer. The article does need to be improved.Icewhiz (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well established term relating to an infantry soldier specialisation which has several decades history in the Australian Army at least. Pioneer battalions (per WWI) were a very different kettle of fish. No doubt the article needs improvement, but its deletion isn't justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the exact same duty was often described historically as a pioneer, and the article consists mostly of shared history and making narrow distinctions. Better in one piece; merged perhaps, rather than just deleted, but there is really only one subject here, aside from the very narrow point that the Commonwealth usage is for soldiers organic to a larger infantry unit. Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The World War I pioneer battalions were organised as infantry battalions, but were allocated a higher percentage of men who had been tradesmen in civilian life. As the infantry battalions evolved, the pioneer battalions remained the same, so by 1918 they were larger but had less automatic weapons and therefore less firepower than an infantry battalion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the British Army context, the assault pioneers are infantry, an organic part of the infantry battalion, whereas the pioneers are part of the Logistics Corps, but formerly the Royal Pioneer Corps, which has its own article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer a few points raised above: British usage isn't universal, and was not standard over time. A "pioneer sergeant" might be anything from (an often artificial) "historical" ceremonial usage, with an Ozzanian dressed up to fit a British image of a napoleonic sappeur, with a little Beau Geste thrown in, to a supervisor of light construction specialists. The formal naming, and formal organization, of infantrymen with special combat engineering skills as "assault pioneers' might date to the 1940s, but the concept prolly dates to Caesar, and has cognates in most armies. Anmccaff (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly that doesn't go to the issue. Assault pioneer has a separate meaning to pioneer. There is no need to conflate the two. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a significantly separate one. A few sentences noting that several armies in the British military tradition now use "assault pioneer" to refer to pioneers organic to larger pure infantry units would cover that completely; a paragraph could give national and historical examples...some of which might long predate the use of the term. Anmccaff (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pioneer (military); unsourced original research. Anything that pertains to Assault pioneer can be just effectively be covered in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 4 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Film Awards UK

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't determine notability. All links seem to dead. Affiliate sites, list, but no central website. Possible WP:HOAX. scope_creep (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still looking into this one. It does have some press coverage[28][29][30][31] although there's not much. However its website is down (maybe it's only up during voting, but still odd). And it's certainly not a major award on the level of the BAFTAs or British Independent Film Awards, with little attention from the more serious film press. It seems to be a thing where members of the public vote via a website and then there's a ceremony and some minor celebrities go along and wear nice dresses.[32] They are given by National Film Academy although that doesn't seem very notable either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It probably just about meets WP:GNG having received a certain amount of press in each of its 3 years (not all of which is currently listed in the article). A lot of this is low-quality tabloid celebrity news, "area film up for award", or press agency copy, but it has received some coverage in USA (Hollywood Reporter) and Ireland[33]. Probably more notable than National Film Academy which might be merged here.

Notes: firstly, India has a separate National Film Awards and probably other places do as well, and the phrase National Film Academy is also very generic (not to be confused with a separate Academy under the auspices of the British Film Institute). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promotional article on an award by what appears to be a nn org, the National Film Academy, and article on which is just three lines. Article has the appearance of having been created to list mostly nn titles. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Colapeninsula that it meets WP:GNG. Even if somewhat promotional (hardly unusual), there is much more from reliable sources that could be added. Another case of WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 14:03, 5 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Down

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

Massive WP:PROMO article. Would need complete rewrite. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. Complete abuse of WP Terms of Use. scope_creep (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems notable, he has a WP:RS that profiles him: 1, 2. He seems to have gotten sustained coverage on account of his sandwich shop and other activities 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Perhaps we could just edit out the self promotion tone? - GretLomborg (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per WP:NOT -- overly promotional article with all indications of having been created by someone with a close connection to the subject. Basically, spam. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service for the subject's CV / tribute page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of third-party coverage coverage per GretLomborg above, and the article as is isn't bad enough to warrant WP:TNT. While the tone may be promotional, deletion is not cleanup. Article can easily be salvaged with removal of the overly promotional bits.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:03, 4 July 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. So Why 07:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Underdown

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

Although entertaining and quite interesting in its own way, it's hard to see how this meets the notability threshold. Although there are some media appearances and comments, many of them seem incidental. A fair portion of citations also appear to be self-published. Shritwod (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've previously edited this article in minor ways. I would argue that it passes the threshold for notability, though perhaps not greatly exceeding that threshold. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in support of my belief that this page should be kept, I've started an effort to improve it at User:jmcgnh/sandbox/Jim Underdown. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The lack of WP:RS beyond incidental mentions fails the WP:GNG - GretLomborg (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 4 July 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balraj Arunasalam

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The individual is an unremarkable executive of a non-notable engineering company and the article is essentially just a PR/spam piece promoting the individual. Being the Vice President of Toastmasters is hardly notable. None of the other executive of Toastmasters International are deemed to be notable and to quote the Toastmasters article: "More than 20,000 of Toastmasters' 4 million past and present members have achieved the elite DTM status." So his awards are hardly notable either. Dan arndt (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Full fills WP:BASIC since there are multiple reliable sources ([34] [35][36]) provided to prove this individuals notability. It is Dan's PoV that serving as Internationale President of Toastmasters International is not notable. NaminiGunasena (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first reference cited above by NaminiGunasena is essentially a mention in passing, states Arunasalem is the Past District Governor of Toastmasters District 82 (a non-notable position). The second reference is more substantial but still relates to a non-notable role in Toastmasters. The third reference cited, simply states that he was elected as President elect of the organization - nothing more. Being the 'president-elect' of Toastmaters International does not confer automatic notability. As indicated previously none of the previous presidents of Toastmasters International have been identified as notable, so what makes this individual any different? Also WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Dan arndt (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Multiple independent sources have been provided here to demonstrate notability. As I said before, Dan its your PoV that said posts are non-notable. Leaders of international social groups have wiki pages such as Kalyan Banerjee (Rotary International), M. J. C. Amarasuriya. NaminiGunasena (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - almost all the references cited are merely mentions in passing. Essentially what is Arunasalam really notable for? If it is as the president of Toastmasters International (which in my view is not notable anyway - for the reasons stated above) than as 'president-elect' it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The others you've cited such as Amarasuriya is potentially notable as the chairman of the Commercial Bank of Ceylon rather than being the presidents of Lions. In summary the question that needs to be asked is has "the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.?" (as per WP:ANYBIO). Dan arndt (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional refs have been added which are more than "mentions in passing". Furthermore, it is my view that the two bios given here highlight the presidency than other achievements. Therefore, I believe this article should be retained. NaminiGunasena (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that more sources were added to the article after the nomination for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that more sources were added to the article after the nomination for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 July 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 keep. Articles too dissimilar to be bundled. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderlands (band)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. Andyeshegovich (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason of not meeting WP:BAND criteria:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Subjects are much too varied to be mass bundled together. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I came here from seeing Heck in the Bands and musicians list, and they easily have sufficient coverage. Bundling these unrealted bands up is nonsensical and I'm not convinced sufficient effort has been put in to ensuring the nominations are realistic. --Michig (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Let me elaborate. All of these articles were written by the same user, are very vague, and follow a nearly identical scheme. All of the bands are small bands just starting out - local, independent or unsigned, haven't had any radio play, no awards received, no chart performance, very little or no media coverage, and their fanbase consists only of a couple thousand "likes" on Facebook. Surely, the articles have references, but have you taken a look at them? Those are either very small, local news portals or self-published articles. In a word, unreliable. My bedroom djent project got fairly the same attention from websites like those back in 2013 - doesn't mean I can have a Wikipedia article about it. They are very much related and I believe my nominations are realistic, given the bands don't fulfil any of the WP:BAND criteria and are thus not notable (with a possible but still unlikely exception for HECK). Andyeshegovich (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Heck, that simply isn't true. They have received coverage from The Independent, Up Set, Rock Sound, and DIY among others. This is the only one I've looked at in detail and doesn't inspire confidence that the others have been properly evaluated. They need to be discussed individually. --Michig (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"All of these articles were written by the same user, are very vague, and follow a nearly identical scheme." Yes they are very poor articles, consider them a start. Some at a quick look should be deleted. Michig shows that at least one should not. The important thing here is not so much the original creator, it's the subjects themselves. Bands from multiple countries in multiple genres, signed (Sony Music Entertainment) and unsigned. they are more than different enough that they should be considered separately. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baptists have two albums thru Southern Lord Records satisfying WP:MUSIC#5. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck the duplicate !vote from the nominator above; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the argument that these bands are too dissimilar to be bundled. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Improper bundled nomination of unrelated topics, should have been speedy kept/closed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:57, 4 July 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 bus stations in Singapore. It looks like a merge has already happened, so all that's left to do is redirect to where things were already merged into. The merge target is also being considered for deletion, but that's not really germane to this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buona Vista Bus Terminal

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to settlement article. Nothing notable for astand alone article.Charles (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "This terminal does not allow boarding or alighting on site, but passengers can board at the nearest bus stop at Commonwealth Avenue or North Buona Vista Road." - So I fail to see the point of including it in the article.... –Davey2010^Talk 15:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a public transit guide, and it appears this has nothing to make this more notable than the typicall non notable bus terminal. - Rrachet (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above, not notable. MB 05:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one larger article. I am not sure why are so many transport stop articles are being deleted. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates, opening date. This information is historically significant and Wikipedia should try to preserve this. If separate small articles are not possible, I will myself take out time and create one larger article which has all the information. But I am quite disappointed that so much information is being deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already merged the content into List of bus stations in Singapore so that we can at least have one article which contains the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're being deleted because they're all not notable and all fail GNG, I've now nominated List of bus stations in Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore) for the exact same reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 13:02, 7 July 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 consensus seems to be to delete. I take note that the original version of the article was a negative BLP. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Neupert

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

Swiss lawyer of some renown, however coverage is slim to non-existent. One newspaper article (already in the article) covers him but other than that, I cannot find any substantial coverage in reliable sources (some passing mentions exist).

There is this article in Al Bawaba detailing his alleged business practices in connection with the Panama Papers but I found no sources corroborating any of that, so I removed the negative text from the article which was sourced to this article. Check the history for details. Since I cannot find any more sources, I think he fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG (but the claims in the previous version make him ineligible for A7). Regards So Why 12:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as stand alone stub, much less an article. Kierzek (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. Lacks significant coverage. Not fluent in German, had to run source article through Google translate and then think about the sense of the translation. (It's probably that it is Swiss German which is not always the same as other German dialects.) It's a puff piece about a rich concierge attorney for the rich. Squeeze it dry, and shake it out, you see a sort of society page, run of the mill, coverage for a rich guy. Not familiar with Der Tages-Anzeiger (The Daily Scoreboard). Apparently a regional broadsheet. Not sufficient coverage to meet the GNG, even if the article per se were not a puff piece.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Der Tages-Anzeiger is actually a national Swiss newspaper, one of the largest and usually reliable. Regards So Why 20:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tHANKS, SoWhy. But I still don't think the article is enough for subject to meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are some sources - [37], [38] covering his work as a lawyer for oligarchs - but I don't think this is enough. With more sources, maybe.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Tages-Anzeiger is a major national newspaper; it is the most widely read paper in the Zürich area. A long biographical article in it is indicative of notability just as much as, say, a Los Angeles Times or USA Today article would be in the US. Together with the other coverage of his business affairs I think this makes Mr. Neupert pass GNG. (COI notice: I am a Swiss lawyer, but have never heard of Mr. Neupert. Probably because I'm not rich enough, or don't know enough rich people.) Sandstein 07:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've just added four citations to the article (three behind a paywall, but that can't be helped). The Tages-Anzeiger citation is a bit gushy and tabloid-y. (I endorse User:Sandstein's comments on T-A - I live in UK, but know of it and agree that it's a major newspaper.) The new citations are less flattering, as their titles make clear. Three independent sources specifically about him? that passes WP:NBIO AFAIC. Narky Blert (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that additional sources were added to the article on 30 June 2017 (diff).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - easy one - not even on German Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:22, 13 July 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. So Why 07:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Meyer

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

No evidence of works in the permanent collection of major museums, and exhibition catalogs & local newspapers are inadequate sources for critical discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CV on artist’s website lists extensive exhibition history including several museums and University galleries, as well as recognition for several major awards. Boston Globe and San Francisco Chronicle are major papers with important art critics. The painting in the entry is listed as part of a public collection. This all seems at least on a par with many artists included.Mze2421 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. There are some issues with tone in the article, but those can be fixed with further editing. I'm seeing enough sources that the subject appears to pass WP:GNG—or at least enough that the nominator has failed to make the case that the subject fails GNG. Article is best served at this point by further work, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 4 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 23:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heretaunga Street

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOROAD, article does not have non-trivial coverage. Additionally, its content is limited to trivial information (such as parking shoulders) and an 'importance' section that contains things seem standard and non-notable for a road in a town of Hastings' size. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 22:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - per below. I was under the impression that there would be no sources to add non-trivial coverage and justify notability. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 23:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it may be one of the main roads in Hastings but there is absolutely no evidence of notability on a wider scale. Does not pass WP:GEOROAD. Ajf773 (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom, no evidence of notability, no sources at all . MB 04:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, AfD is not clean up. Whether something is unreferenced or an article is poorly written is rather secondary to the issue of notability. Yes, an article should show notability, but if it doesn't, it does not necessarily mean that it's not notable. I hold Grutness's essay "One street per 50,000 people" in high regards. Going by that, Hastings should have articles for one or two of its streets. Which one or ones should it be? I very much suggest that it'll be Heretaunga Street. It's got the pedestrian mall (they aren't really that common in New Zealand). The centre of the town is the point where Heretaunga Street crosses the railway. It's got a number of heritage buildings on it that are registered by Heritage New Zealand (still working on that table). To me, this is a keep, and we should collectively work on it to turn it into something better than the poor article that got nominated for deletion. I'm doing my bit. Maybe the nominator, Ajf773, and MB should have another look when I've done more work on it. And join in! Schwede 66 05:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main street of one of New Zealand's main provincial urban areas, containing a goodly number of heritage buildings. Did the article nead cleanup? Yes - though Schwede66 has done good work to improve it. Does it need deletion? No. (PS - thanks for the kind words on my essay, Schwede66). Grutness...wha? 02:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As now notability has been established. It does have some POV/OR issues however that need to be addresses in cleanup. Ajf773 (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is clear notability has now been established. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 12:31, 6 July 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) 20:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amita Birla

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable executive; significant RS coverage not found. Article deleted at AfD in May 2015 and then recreated in July 2015. The subject is still non notable and I recommend salting due to persistent recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable. Promotional tone. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not gained from the subject's parent or involvement in a firm with her husband. Searches are finding passing in-role quotations in the context of company announcement, and a brief piece about earrings in a disputed will, but I am not seeing the substantial about the subject which would be needed to conclude that the 2015 AfD consensus should be overturned. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable businessperson. I'm finding the same as AllyD, no real coverage mostly short quotes in articles on other matters, which is not sufficient for notability. - Rrachet (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 11 July 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 merge to List of Transformers comics characters. How much to merge can be discussed elsewhere So Why 07:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stockade (Transformers)

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some third-party sources can be identified. If a merge is proposed, I suppose I'm not opposed. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_Transformers_comics_characters -- or whichever the most appropriate of the several Transformers character lists is. A Train^talk 19:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect name only to List_of_Transformers_comics_characters. Not notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 9 July 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. There is no consensus for deletion, which defaults to the article remaining. Issues about promotional tone are to be dealt with by cleanup, not deletion (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Womanity Foundation

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

Article fails WP:NOTPROMOTION/WP:SPIP: it is written like an advertisement and was created by a WP:SPA, which also created an article for this organization's founder (which is also in AfD). Article also fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG: there is no WP:RS evidence of notability cited in the article at all: all cites are connected to this organization or to general social science statistics. I tried looking for more WP:RS, but I could find none. All either consisted of superficial mentions of this organization or were in some way connected to it (such as by being written by employees or by donors).

It should be noted that at least one major news organization is a donor to this organization, so content from them is not a WP:RS. GretLomborg (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yann Borgstedt, the AfD discussion for this organization's founder, created by the same WP:SPA. - GretLomborg (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant 'good faith' spam, but another example why we do a poor job of informing people what they can and can not put in an encyclopedia. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant references, does not pass WP:RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional. Light2021 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some additional references that indicate WP:GNG clearly met. Article could use cleanup, not deletion per WP:ATD. I suggest also using Fondation Womanity when searching for additional references. Hmlarson (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very weak coverage in independent RSs. Rentier (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is promotional in tone and needs a cleanup for sure, but that is not a valid argument to delete. Sources found by Hmlarson satisfy the depth of coverage in reliable sources that WP:CORP demands. A Train^talk 16:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Reuters, Mashable, the Gaurdian. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guardian - not much more than a passing mention. Mashable - sort of, but it says very little about the foundation itself - which is probably why the article relies on primary sources. I don't see any Reuters ref. Rentier (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was Thomas Reuters News, and is a passing mention. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The idea to delete this article is incomprehensible. A quick google shows a huge number of reliable sources. [39] Aren't they supposed to check that before they nominate it for deletion? All it needs now is a few good edits. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is shallow and/or not independent. Thomson Reuters articles don't count since TR is a "partner" of the foundation. Guardian - two sentences and a quote. Huffington Post - written by Womanity's director. Mashable - nothing in it about the foundation itself. sociable.co and techcrunch - very shallow. Not much remains if these are discounted. In any case, the article is so promotional in tone and badly sourced that I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted per WP:TNT. The encyclopedia won't be any worse without it. Rentier (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Rentier's analysis. I'm finding the same thing. It should be noted that the Thomson Reuters article does not appear to be from their news service at all, it appears to be a promotional post on their foundation's blog about an organization they've donated to written by that organization's employees. It's an interesting example of a source that looks reliable on the surface, but completely fails WP:RS as non-independent when actually examined. Ditto for the Forbes article, which was written by a "contributor" from "Ashoka" which listed as a partner of this organization. This is a WP:PROMOTION violation that depends on unreliable sources for its content, if that content was removed there would be nothing left of the article. - Rrachet (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the Reuters point is valid (as it's a placed opinion piece rather than an earned media reporting piece), the Guardian piece is more than a mention - and it's noteworthy because news about women in Afghanistan, particular girls' education, rarely makes it to English-language media. To dismiss the article because it's not deep enough is dismissive of the context; it's indeed quite noteworthy to enroll 40 teen girls in a coding program in two of Kabul's largest schools and for that news to make it to the Guardian. I agree with others that this needs a clean-up; as a woman who learned to code because of resources like Wikipedia, I would like to volunteer over the next week to help clean up this article to save it from deletion. This is a well-intentioned article that can be saved with more neutral editing and more citations. Bluestategirl (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bluestategirl, you have noble intentions, but this article clearly conflicts with our policies and guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: are you going to attempt to rebut Bluestategirl's policy-based argument or are you just going to mansplain? Please don't be so casually dismissive of other editors' considered opinions. A Train^talk 21:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

do not see the need to get personal here. wikipedia is for everyone. and apart from WP:GNG logic, which is being misused in such cases. what sources are we talking about to follow in depth coverage?Light2021 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Train: please assume good faith and do not resort to put downs or disparagement. That's not helpful or productive. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GretLomborg:, assuming good faith goes both ways. While A Train should avoid loaded/triggering words such as "mansplaining," the fact is that Kudpung should avoid accidental condescension "you have noble intentions" (Kudpung does not know Bluestategirl's intentions unless they talked about this) and address the content of the argument, rather than assert they know the article conflicts with guidelines. If it was that clear that the article should be deleted, it would be a Snow Delete. The fact we are discussing this belies the claim that this is "obviously" a non notable topic. I've been on the fence with this one myself. (I tagged the talk page and have been watching.) Let's move forward together. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY and likely self-promotion, with a massive amount of external links in body. This content can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can see heaps of independent references for this organisation online - including Non-English - including from reputable sources. Doesn't sound like you looked very hard before judging.[40] [41][42][43][44][45][46][47] as few examples of coverage that mention some of their activities: charity fundraisers, a $300,000 technology award to create something that combats violence against women, involvement in conferences, female education and entrepreneurship programs, advocacy, etc. Also consider it used to be called Smiling Child Foundation, so will have to search under that name too. I'll put some time into improving the article to address the issues raised, but it is clearly a notable organisation. I also disagree with your claim of SPA - the original author previously also contributed to a page by an Egyptian actress and a page by a Lebanese singer.... unless you are complaining that someone is contributing pages related to diverse aspects of Arab countries? And a quick search of the founder of the organisation shows that he is notable too, so no wonder someone writing about one would also write about the other (as I have done in the past - start writing about one thing, and then end up writing on other linked pages because you find info missing from wikipedia ... that is natural). It annoys me that rather than helping someone fairly new to editing wikipedia to make their articles better it is instead marked for deletion despite being a notable organisation. Powertothepeople (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Doesn't sound like you looked very hard before judging:" on the WP:SPA issue, actually look at the WP:SPA's edits, every single one has to do with this organization, even the ones to the articles about the Lebanese singer and Egyptian actress. Did you read the sources you dropped that closely? I don't have time to thoroughly summarize, but they seem shallow like the other sources previously discussed: a short quote by an employee in one article, a profile of a person with a half-sentence mention that they were a finalist for one of this org's awards, etc. Also when we start dealing with foreign language sources, it's much harder to tell if they're actually WP:RS or just some blog or something. Just listing search hits isn't enough. That's not even getting into the issues of employee-authored articles and other kinds of non-independent coverage that have also been an issue here. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the numerous sources you have written off because you don't deem to be reliable enough, there are also citations of the UK Telegraph, Forbes, a book written by a cambridge academic, etc. And yes I have looked at these and more, because I took the time. Ignoring all non-english sources simply because you don't personally know whether they are reliable is bad faith. No one is disagreeing that this article was poor quality with numerous issues, however numerous people having now made edits to improve it and added more reliable citations AND the wikipedia guide to deletion states: "please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." And "A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality"[48] You didn't follow this process prior to listing this article for deletion. Even if the creator has a COI it is possible they have overstepped in good faith - they clearly don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia editing and we all make mistakes while we get to know all the rules. In fact, listing it straight for deletion without attempt to discuss it with the creator or on the talk page or trying to improve it could be considered WP:BITE Multiple people have pointed out there are enough reliable sources to confirm notability of the organisation, yet you seem more intent on sticking with your first impression rather than considering new evidence. Why don't you take a look at the article with fresh eyes? By all means tag it for cleanup, but it doesn't qualify for deletion. Powertothepeople (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like your main issue here is that I'm not automatically agreeing with you. You started off your comment with a pretty judgmental "doesn't sound like you looked very hard before judging," and then proceeded judge without looking very hard yourself. I think it's important to look beyond mere search hits; and look at the depth of coverage, independence, and source organization. You apparently disagree. I've seen non-notable teenagers use very tricky self-sourcing to try to build justification for their self-promotional autobiographies, so I've learned to be skeptical, and the best quality coverage of this org seems to be non-independent. I have considered withdrawing this AfD, as it seems to be slouching towards no consensus, but your hectoring and stalking hasn't made me very enthusiastic about that idea. Anyway, this isn't shaping to very productive discussion, and I've said my piece, so I'm bowing out. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep World-wide sources in multiple languages are sufficient to establish GNG. In addition to those already cited by Powertothepeople: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] Promotional writing style is an editing issue, which has nothing to do with whether sufficient coverage over time in reliable sources has been established. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Again, an example of bad writing but notable topic. Plenty of sources to meet GNG, so keep, but someone needs to go in there with a shovel and clear out all the cruft. Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if i had read this afd earlier i may have suggested everyone have some tea, has anyone noticed that the nominator is relatively new to wp (earliest edit is 30 May 2017), they appear to be concentrating on afds, although unusual for new editors, is not unheard of, oh, btw this article is a keep as it meets WP:GNG, and the article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Powertothepeople and SusunW. The Womanity Foundation clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Hmlarson, Powertothepeople, and SusunW have significantly improved this article during the AfD.
Cunard (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what I find different in this and how we're weighing it is actually how WP:What Wikipedia is not applies and its specific sections, WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:Not webhost, WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Promo, all of allow deletion in the relevant cases, and this is no different, regardless anything else; and GNG is particularly inapplicable against WP:NOT policies and this would actually include superseding sources, when and if they would still be unconvincing in the best interests for Wikipedia. The information and sources closely suggest a business profile, of which we of course wouldn't accept, regardless of significant claims. As 3 different comments voting Keep noted above, "bad writing" and "promotional writing" which is why it's best to use caution and fully consider its effects and likewise with a fourth, "Promotional writing style is an editing issue", and it's why WP:NOT exists, to effectively remove it. At best, there's always the considerations to Draft an article for independent improvements, but allowing past promotionalism to stay is fundamentally unacceptable, and the WMF has echoed these serious sentiments; . I happened to examine the sources above and, regardless of language fluency, I was able to see they're simply announcements and the suggestive foundation is in them to emulate it. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Could you clarify your position? I found it a little hard to follow, but I think I get what you're saying. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. borderline notability--and clear promotionalism . Of the two, the promotionalism is the more important reason, Keeping promotionalism so it can be rewritten is a direct violation of the basic principle , nOT ADVOCACY, --the only time the articles should be kept is if it in fact is rewritten during the AfD, or if it is so highly notable that its clear good people will work on it. Otherwise we end up with it here indefinitely. The only sure way of removing promotionalism is at AfD.--otherwise it's just a pious hope. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep a bit. I was thinking of closing this per DGG, then of closing this per SusunW, and then I did this, which I believe should increase its chances of survival. It's surprising to me that after so many edits such content was still in the article. Drmies (talk) 12:10, 14 July 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. So Why 07:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project ACES

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

Promotional and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borders on an A7. Definitely fails GNG. No refs. The only ones I found were self-promotional. South Nashua (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added a couple of newspaper references. They are brief notices, as would be expected of an event in elementary schools, but do seem to indicate high participation numbers over quite a long period. Also note the first 5 items from the Google Books search, though they are again brief notes. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- now with references, but still WP:ADVOCACY on a nn initiative. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and blatant WP:ADVOCACY Rrachet (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 11 July 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. So Why 07:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Sprimont Comblain Sport

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 15:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know if this meets ORGDEPTH or not but I got many results Googling the name of this team. Most are probably scores and stuff but I think that a club founded in 1921 may have some sort of significance and I suggest that this be given time before it is deleted. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:06, 11 July 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) 05:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snake (musician)

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

Fails GNG and BAND. Lack of depth of individual coverage. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my article has been put up for review and nominated for deletion. I worked hard trying to put this article. Is there a reason why you have nominated it to be deleted? Is there a way to keep the article so it won't be deleted. I provided three sources and plan to edit this article more in depth in the future. Thank youSmj27 (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smj27: His reasons have been provided. I know you're new here, so the technical speak might not be noticeable right away, but what Jake Brockman is saying is that the subject of this article does not deserve to have an article here on Wikipedia because he has not been proven to be notable, nor is there really much to say about him with the available resources which tell us little about him. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smj27: Hi Smj27, I do apologise for the rather cryptic, technical speak of my nomination. Thanks to @Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: for explaining. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that articles should be about notable subjects. Notability is usually established through reputable, verifiable and independent sources. This is especially true when dealing with biographies of living people. I really appreciate they work you have done and you have collected a lot of information about Snake. I hope this does not discourage you from participating with future edits or maybe a new creation of the article (should the discussion result in delete) when the subject has gained more notability. In the meantime, let me provide some links to relevant guidelines for your reference: General notability, Specific notability of bands/musicians, Verifiability of sources, Guideline for Biographies of living people. Any questions, please feel free to reach out. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance to keep the article, there are many people interested in this musician who will know more about him in Wikipedia. I think this musician deserves to have an article written about him on wikipedia. I am planing on editing the article more in depth and much more information. Does someone have to be really famous to get into wikipedia? I think wikipedia should allow many more independent musicians to have an article about them in wikipedia because there are other people interested in this article. Sorry if I bother I just really wanted this article written and published in Wikipedia. Thank you, so much for your time. Smj27 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you're not bothering anyone. This discussion will remain open for at least a week after it has been started. There is still plenty of time to get the article up to snuff. If the issues are addressed and the nominator's rationale proven wrong in that time, it will be saved. There is also a slim chance that the discussion will continue past the seven-day deadline if it is determined that there is still too much disagreement on what to do with the article... which is even more likely to happen if attempts are made to improve the article. ;) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero indications of importance or significance. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find coverage of this musician in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 11 July 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. postdlf (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix pole position by Lewis Hamilton

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

Irrelevant, trivial and incomplete list where no one cares about. The thing that matter are the wins, which already has its own article. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information is already included on pages like 2007 Formula One season but there's no plausible redirect target for this excessively-specific term. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the reasons that Power~enwiki outlined. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:23, 4 July 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) 20:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Gold

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources seem credible for determining notability. None are inline either, so I'm not certain what they are supposed to demonstrate. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 10 July 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) 05:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thurman Publishing

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

The firm seems to have published books by Hargreaves (the author of the original series of Mr. Men books) and nothing else. That's not enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete -- A7 material. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 11 July 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) 20:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Potemkin (diplomat)

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

I do not see evidence for notability. "cultural attache" does not usually indicate notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete none of the roles confer inherent notability . Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even ambassadors require sources to show notability, cultural attache's are no where near default notable and nothing else suggests he is notable at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SS Fortress Regiment 1

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

Non-notable regiment; significant RS coverage not found. Article lists one, WP:QS source. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:MILUNIT says a regiment gets a page. I think we need to swallow this one.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Battalion- and regiment-sized units and larger usually get their own articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regiments (even ad-hoc and short lived-ones like this) are generally notable. The name of the unit alone tells a story about the wasteful and futile attempt to use the city as a 'fortress'. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- so far, none of the Keep voters have offered any sources. This looks to be an insignificant unit, created in the last months of the war. It's unlikely that it saw significant combat, and if it did, it was most likely quickly destroyed, resulting in an subject that isn't notable.

WP:MILUNIT does not say that "a regiment gets a page". It says:

"Presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

No significant coverage has yet been offered. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 12 July 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) 05:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Reports on Adult Learning and Education

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom. WP is not an advocacy/promotion medium, even for big names like UNESCO!Winged Blades^Godric 15:05, 6 July 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) 05:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Moroney

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

His name comes up a lot in Google searches in relation to selling his books, but I am not seeing any critical reviews that would indicate notability. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:. As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 9 July 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) 05:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William O'Dea (Irish republican)

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

Delete: non-notable Irish rebel. Google search turned up few if any independent references, almost all Google search results pertain to either Willie O'Dea, TD or William O'Dea (New Jersey politician) Quis separabit? 00:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication that subject meets WP:SOLDIER (military award/high rank/major role/etc), WP:ANYBIO (recognised contribution/DNB/etc) or WP:GNG. I would note that between 1000 and 2000 volunteers fought or otherwise took part in the 1916 Easter Rising - not all of them meet the project's notability criteria. Guliolopez (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable republican - seems the only claim for notable is his participation in the Easter Rising (and Guliolopez correctly points out that he is one of 1000-2000 people). I tried searching for sources to find some notability but I found nothing to add. st 170e 13:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He was one of 90 Irishmen sentenced to death as part of the Easter Rising. Don't have an opinion on notability yet.Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz -- you don't really have any point since only 15 men were executed. Quis separabit? 17:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15 executed, 90 sentenced of which 75 inluding him were not.Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz -- I got it, dude. I did the complicated arithmetic. Point is that the other 75 have no inherent claim to notability, and O'Dea is one of those 75. Quis separabit? 01:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above; not notable; only one of many as to the event in question. Kierzek (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious -- The British state considered him sufficiently NN to commute his death sentence. How many others of the 75 do we have bios for? Some wnet on to have notable political careers and are notable for that. This man did not. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has had a notable enough life.Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 9 July 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 18:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Chinese throne

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

~~Delete:~~ Rename: The first reference of the article, The Manchoukuo Year Book 1941, only indicates that Puyi made the succession law when he was the Manchukuo emperor, while the title "Line of succession to the former Chinese throne" is quite misleading, since Manchukuo wasn't recognized by Chinese government and the last recognized dynasty of China was the Qing dynasty and it never used the succession law mentioned above ([57][58]). The report used as the second reference ([59]) also never mentioned Pujie as "the successor/heir to the Chinese throne", and so did the other royal members. Also, I made another article Head of the former Chinese imperial clan, in which most the contents of this article is included, so "Line of succession to the former Chinese throne" is now a duplicated article. As mentioned below, Head of House of Aisin Gioro can be an alternative title other than the original title. - George6VI (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was written and formatted to be China's entry at Template:Former monarchic orders of succession, a series of about fifty articles on different countries. The proposed replacement, head of the former Chinese imperial clan, is a translation of an unrelated Chinese Wiki article. Unlike the former monarchy articles, its focus is ancient and medieval history. Not only that, but it has various translation issues that make it difficult to follow. WP:Consistency suggests that China should have a former monarchy article in the same format as those of other countries with former monarchies.
Here are various sources to support the idea that being heir to China'a abolished throne is a notable status:
"Emperor-in-waiting recalls bygone age", Chicago Tribune, 1992. This title implies that Pujie is notable because he would have a claim to the Chinese throne, if we were living in the alternative universe in which China still had a throne.
"Pu Jie, 87, Dies, Ending Dynasty Of the Manchus", New York Times, 1994. The only way Pujie can be viewed as part of a dynasty is if he is considered the heir of his brother, Emperor Puyi.
"Life of Last Chinese Emperor's Nephew", People's Daily, 2000. Despite this being a communist source, it also has a wistful he-could-have-been-emperor tone: "If the dynasty had not been ousted,... [Jin Yuzhang] may have ascended the throne and become an emperor."
"Heir to China's throne celebrates a modest life," The Age, 2004. This title is self-explanatory, I think. Yet another major paper views being heir to the throne as a notable status.
Biographical Dictionary of the People’s Republic of China has a lengthy entry on Pujie. It says, "Pu Jie was technically head of the Imperial Qing Dynasty from the death of his brother in 1967 until his own death in 1994." The phrasing may be awkward, but I think the meaning is clear.

All of these sources refer to the throne in question as "of China." I am not aware of any source that calls it a Manchukuo throne. If it was a Manchukuo throne, that would be a reason to rename the article, not a reason to delete it. Whiff of greatness (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Out of these articles given here so far, they only said Pujie and Jin may have been the successor, but technically the throne of Qing dynasty, the last dynasty of China, didn't follow primogeniture (as seen in List of emperors of the Qing dynasty#Succession, the Qing monarchs did not choose their successors according to primogeniture. [sources given in the original article]) As such, the line of succession is questionable and it is inappropriate to be in one of the 50 line of succession series because the case of China is different from other countries (China, eventually, didn't set up a fixed line of succession to the throne by law); the end of Chinese monarchy was in 1912, while the article constructs a speculative line based on a law in 1937. So, I moved that familytree to the new article, in the section of House of Aisin-Gioro, which can decrease the confusion, because other than website sources, I added more book-based sources to make the history more clear. - George6VI (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There was obviously no "Imperial Qing Dynasty" after 1912. I quoted BDPRC anyway because it confirms that Pujie is the heir of Puyi, including whatever imperial status Puyi still had at the end of his life. Whiff of greatness (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The book itself didn't give the reference of either how the author got the conclusion. Even if Pujie and his close relatives were recognized as the head of his family, it doesn't equal that he could be the pretender to the Chinese throne. When the succession method is critical since it indicates which throne the family is going to pass. - George6VI (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced, seems notable per WP:GNG, I think that the title is justified because Manchukuo was the official state of the Chinese Qing monarchy from 1934-1945. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- With exception of claiming to be independent itself, Manchukuo was never recognized by Chinese government, therefore it's far-fetched to be "Chinese throne", especially that Qing was once ruled all China while Manchukuo didn't (and Manchukuo itself is often referred as "Pseudo-Manchukuo" in Chinese, indicating that the state and law is never accpted by majority. - George6VI (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, because the KMT (Who you are probably refering to) who were the largest force in china at this time claimed the area Manchukuo held, and the KMT were strongly anti monarchy, many people see the KMT as the sucessers of Tongmenghui who fought the Qing Dynasty, why would the kmt recognise the monarchy which controlled an area it claimed, and the same monarchy and even monarch they fought against. 2. There was no "Chinese Government" at this era, there was the KMT and the PRC, but most of the country was controlled by individual cliques. A lot of people only recognized the emperor as the leader of China at this time. This isn't really a argument for keeping, but your reasoning doesn't make alot of sense to be honest. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Manchukuo itself didn't claim the whole China, even Puyi itself was the last emperor of Qing dynasty; in fact, Manchukuo co-existed with another "Republic of China" government controlled by Japan in WWII. Here I need to explain what I meant to "Chinese government". The Chinese government I referred, can be "ROC" and "PRC", and none of them recognized Manchukuo as a legitimate Chinese dynasty. A you said "a lot of people supported" is doubtful, since if Puyi or Qing were so popular, then how would you explain the Xinhai revolution turned out to be a total success, plus, during the process, many provinces declared to be independent from Qing empire instead of being loyal to the dynasty? The reason I called for the deletion is that the article gives excessive interpretation from the reference, while it is against the original law of Qing China. It's more like a logical problem. - George6VI (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The Reorganized National Government controlled all of China with the exception of Manchukuo, which it recognized as an independent state." AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
China did not recognize Manchukuo but the two sides established official ties for trade, communications and transportation. In 1933, the League of Nations adopted the Lytton Report, declaring that Manchuria remained rightfully part of China, leading Japan to resign its membership. The Manchukuo case persuaded the United States to articulate the so-called Stimson Doctrine, under which international recognition was withheld from changes in the international system created by force of arms.[60] (statement from Manchukuo article) Here, I don't see any official recognition of Manchukuo from China as a state, with trade relationshop established; it's like how China treats the government of Taiwan in present time. I don't know where you found your materials, yet your conclusion is quite contradictory with the major opinions. (Just found out that you copied that statement of that Puppet government of China; not only that government wasn't widely recognized both globally and locally, but you seemed to forget that in original statement there's a In theory, ...) - George6VI (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, well referenced article. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename - Yes, Puyi was Emperor of China, and yes, there are descendants of his family, but since the imperial throne of China (as opposed to Manchukuo) had no rules of succession, there cannot possibly be a "Line of Succession" and claiming there is is a violation of WP:NOR. Not only must the genealogy be documented, which I don't doubt can be done reliably, but the suggestion embedded in the name itself is that the individuals in the genealogy are imbued with a ranked order of claims, a line of succession. It would be less of a problem were the page to tone back its claims - to state that the succession was by incumbent nomination among the male-line descendants, and then line out the descendants without calling it a "Line of Succession", but even this doesn't get tot he heart - as suggested by the claim of Yuyan mentioned on the page, there is no reason those eligible are restricted only to the descendants of Min-ning rather than the broader male kindred. The real problem is that it is trying to force the concept of a Line of Succession onto a dynasty that did not follow the concept, just so it looks like equivalent European pages. We are already presenting an alternative reality to suggest that lines of succession to extinct crowns are in any sense 'real', but to then try to shoehorn a realm that never had definitive rules of succession into this model is doubly dubious. Agricolae (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Every major claim in the article can be justified without reference to Manchukou, as I did above. Yet the footnotes about Manchukuo law are what get all the attention. Do I have to point out that Manchukou law has no legal validity at this point? The former imperial clan can use whatever rules they like to pick a leader, including defunct law. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every major claim except that it represents a line of succession to the former Chinese Imperial throne, and since that is what the page is named, it is rather the most important. Yes, a clan can determine its own leadership, but it has no force of legitimacy for a title they no longer control. Were this page called 'Head of the House of Aisin Gioro', then this issue would largely evaporate. (and do I have to point out that the Empire of China has no legal validity at this point?) Agricolae (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The convention of pretendership is that the head of the former royal house is the pretender. I gave a list of sources above in which the media treats the people in this line as would be emperors, which makes sense only if you accept this convention. The Age says that the clan is following "the Manchu system of succession by a male relative of the next generation."[61] Whether this is in fact the succession rule is not the point. I'm just saying that the clan has the authority to make one. Whiff of greatness (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whose convention? Certainly not that of the PRC, nor the ROC, nor the so-called pretender himself (he wouldn't dare). It is one thing to say 'this was the rule when they were ruling, so if we extrapolate it forward, what do we get?' It is another entirely to say that a clan that has been turfed out gets to redefine at some later date the rules of succession to the non-existent title they no longer hold. In the case of the rule being incumbent nomination, we can't assume whom the emperor would have nominated had he been permitted to do so. Perhaps the best analog is Saudi Arabia, where there is a huge royal family, but the line of succession at any given time is one name long - the person nominated by the incumbent as heir. To recapitulate the whole tree and claim it is a Line of Succession, ignoring the fact that nobody in it was nominated, is forcing a square peg into a round hole. Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason I'd like to challenge about this title is that the conclusion, namely "line of succession" to the Chinese throne, is mostly based on reports from foreign media (Jin/Aisin Gioro is Chinese family anyway). Although the media is main-stream, this former Chinese throne topic can be unfimiliar to them, and by no references I can check how they got the conclusion that Jin Yuzhang is the sole and indisputable successor to the Chinese throne, especially of Qing dynasty. Pujie, or his other close relatives, can be the head of the former royal family (as referred by Chinese media), but referring them to the Chinese throne pretenders is, as mentioned above, an original research or even misinterpretation (if you don't even agree that 1937 law, which is the basis of that line of succession and bas ed on primogeniture, then the logic of whole line of succession can't be valid). - George6VI (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yes a rename may be appropriate, btw it would be nice if someone could move back its talkpage words from Talk:Head of the former Chinese imperial clan that go back to September 2008, at the mo it is strange to have to go to another article to read the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the former monarchy articles are titled in this style. But, yes, they should all be moved to something less bombastic. May I suggest Head of the House of Aisin Gioro? Whiff of greatness (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a positive move. Lines of succession exist only when there is actual succession. That being said, it is not necessary that they all be forced into a common naming. The names should be appropriate for the individual situations, and sometimes what is best for one page is a bit off the mark for another. Agricolae (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reference articles suggested, the title "Head of the House of Aisin Gioro" may be really better. As to the talk page, now the two talk pages are mixed up because of renaming and article creation, and I don't have the right to switch it. Now, only admins can do that. - George6VI (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the admins: if there's a consensus in this talk, then there would be some talk pages that need to be moved: 1. "Talk: Head of the former Chinese imperial clan" to "Talk: Head of the House of Aisin Gioro" or its history will be lost; 2. "Talk: Line of succession to the former Chinese throne" to replace the content of "Talk: Head of the former Chinese imperial clan". I don't know what it will be like when the talk ends, but as of now it seems like it ma y be like in this way. - George6VI (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae: Almanach de Gotha is the authority on who gets to use royal and noble titles, both legal and pretend. Update Gotha covers only Europe and South America, so it is unlikely they have anything to say on China. They follow the most recent agreed upon succession rule of the house, and this approach can obviously be extended. Gotha famously rebuked Napolean by retaining dethroned German princes in the 1807 edition.[62] Whiff of greatness (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement -- In principle, an article of this kind should exist. What it should say is a different matter. I would prefer to see this referring back to pre-1912 imperial law and custom as to the succession. A 1937 law could hardly be legitimate, as China was then a republic and would not have made any law on the subject. In creating a puppet empire in Manchuko, the Japanese were probably trying to provide a legitimacy for their state, claiming it to be a continuation of the empire. If it did change succession, that article should be discussing the succession according to both pre-1913 law and that of Manchuko. A European work could only record (as a RS) who was entitled not prescribe who was entitled. The answer to that arises from the national law of each state. I believe that Cina generally practised male-only succession. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The law/rule for imperial succession of China, though was often based on primogeniture, it was also often broken since the monarch/queen dowager chose their favorite successor (it was Qing dynasty's case) while usurpers were also quite common; as such, I am afraid that there is no valid claim to the throne since te succession is like a mess, and that's why I prefer to limit the line of succession within the family instead of the throne. Yet, Whiff of greatness may not agree to add them since it seems like he thinks such articles should focus on present time. Some succession laws are too familiar to Chinese, yet I failed to find some direct edicts online or affiliated English articles, though they are the common sence in Chinese history. - George6VI (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps readers will wonder, "Why only a Qing pretender? What about Tang, Song, and Ming? There are many members of the Liu, Zhao, and Zhu clans who can claim imperial blood." I just added a couple of sentences to the article to address this issue. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we may get some sort of consensus, there's a little problem left. About Template:Former monarchic orders of succession. We may all agree that "Chinese" pretender is a quite awkward title now, but what about the template? I suggest that the template can exclude "China" this time, or replace it with "Aisin Gioro" (just like Oldenburg and Parma). - George6VI (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources for this article, every single one emphasizes China rather than Aisin Gioro. Head of the former Chinese imperial clan is a long list of, what exactly? If there is no claim that the individuals listed had a pretender-like status, what do they have in common? Whiff of greatness (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point now? What's your idea about renaming anyway? I'm confused, I thought we are on the same page. In some statement of the sources, "heir of Puyi" and "head of the family" is more mentioned, not the Chinese throne; they are indeed descendants of former yoyal family, but you can't say they are pretenders just because of these. There's no pretenders for the Chinese throne now, at least undisputed one, and why I suggest that we should use "Aisin Gioro" instead of "China" is that it's the same logic: if head of Aisin Gioro doesn't equal to Chinese pretender, then, similarly, we shouldn't use "China" as "Head of Aisin Gioro" as the whole topic. Seeing that there are so many family heads that are close to the definition of "pretender", then it's rightful to put the template at the most recent one, namely Aisin Gioro (if the template is to put in the renaming article here) or Yuan (if the template is to be put in the imperial article because there are/were multiple royal family clans in China). - George6VI (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have temporarily moved Talk:Head of the former Chinese imperial clan back to Talk:Line of succession to the former Chinese throne to address the concern raised by User:Coolabahapple. For the newly created article Head of the former Chinese imperial clan, there are many issues that needs to be addressed (I propose to move that article to draft namespace), although unrelated to this discussion for now. The current rough consensus for this discussion appears to favor keep for now while discussing possible rename. I will close the discussion in a couple days if it remain the way it is now. Alex Shih ^Talk 17:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Alex Shih for moving the talkpage:) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 9 July 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.

^ Editorial On The Rocks. ISBN 1941165788.

[1] ttps://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2003LEEJ01?tab=results-by-event

[2] Editorial On The Rocks. ISBN 1941165788.

[1]

[1]