Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 November	19 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dingkun Dan

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

Pure promotion, not a single reference on that page mentions "Dingkun Dan". Before he was blocked, the creator and his sockpuppet/meatpuppet have been adding this "Dingkun Dan" garbage to over 20 historical/medical articles with references that don't mention at all what they were adding. Timmyshin (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as is, the worrying edits mentioned above also make me wonder if this can be salvaged. South Nashua (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are mentions of this item or substance in a few texts and books, I haven't found anything that denotes it's notability as a technique, medicine, or other form of TCM. There's no significant references or descriptions of the substance, specifically it's composition or history. I find fails WP:GNG. Operator873^CONNECT 05:50, 26 November 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) 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr FijiWiji

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

No evidence of any notability. All the many refs are listings, blogs, interviews etc. Nothing of any notability. No reliable independent sources. The article appears to treat Monstercat as a reputable label conveying notability. It is probably reputable but in reality anybody can use it. The founder of Monstercat said himself "That’s where the community concept came for Monstercat. We created a brand that fans can use to discover music and [that] artists can use as a platform for getting their music out there". There is no notability that can be inferred from an artist on this label. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and, in my book fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes criteria 5. You have essentially said that because he mostly releases on a specific record label, he doesn't show notability, which I do don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroPowerpoint (talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Galdo is one of the most prolific artists on Monstercat. The argument that an artist may not be notable just because they have released on Monstercat would only apply to artists who have only released few times on the label - and Mr FijiWiji is one of the artists with the most releases on the label. He has appeared on two albums notable enough for wikipedia articles, Monstercat 003 – Momentum and Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 1, and he has also released on the notable record label Enhanced Music. Also, he meets criteria 5 of WP:MUSIC: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Monstercat is an independent label with a history of over six years, and a roster of many independently notable performers, such as Krewella, Marshmello, Slushii, Kill the Noise, NERVO, and Seven Lions. Embryo Yall (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has produced several EPs and there are valid sources present in the article, he certainly meet many points of WP:MUSIC — Ammarpad (talk) 19:11, 19 November 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 regarding the question by the last poster, yes, if there was substantial discussion of the topic by independent reliable sources it'd be OK to have an article on them. See WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Weinstein (business executive)

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

There is a lack of independent in-depth coverage of Weinstein himself to establish notability. Weinstein is mentioned in routine coverage and has been interviewed as a company exec about the company he works for. The article was paid for by Studio71. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason as with Reza Izad's article. I personally think this article meets NBIO's basic requirements, with multiple journalistic articles offering coverage of Dan Weinstein's role within Studio71 (formerly known as CDS) bringing "a revolution of MCN networks".

Original extended rationale

In addition to what is already in the article:

Going Direct to the Consumer: Helping Digital Talent Build Businesses –- Dan Weinstein (Co-Founder & President, Studio71)

How to Manage Your Agent: A Writer’s Guide to Hollywood Representation -- Book coverage

In response to JJJMC89's argument that "Weinstein has received coverage related to his notable company but not in-depth about himself outside of the many detailed interviews", I think NBIO's basic requirements clearly address the concern: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."; lengthy interviews and articles discussing the industry-changing impacts of Weinstein's business decisions & talent management cannot possibly be considered "trivial". (Disclosure, I was asked by a Studio71 contractor to try to cleanup the article, but I would not compromise my integrity and defend any article which I do not believe honestly meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies.) Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 23:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After further researching the topic, I think that while there is definitely some level of notability, coverage in a standalone article might not warranted for the moment. I think a redirect to Studio71#History is the best solution for now. Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete executive producers are just not inherently notable, and nothing else shows notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2¢, but I don't think anyone claimed "executive producers are inherently notable" -- you're absolutely right that they aren't. I think in this case the sources support notability not on the "executive producer" role you mention, but discuss more his successes as (1) talent manager & content officer, personally growing several successful brands and artists and (2) founding & developing The Collective > CDS > Studio71, a series of organizations which have been discussed as near-revolutionary leaders in the MCN industry (sources' words, not mine). Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 04:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note above about being paid to clean up the article and this one. To fully clarify, are you are being paid, or do you expect to be paid, for these edits, in this AfD? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically for this AfD, but the original request was "what can you do to get these maintenance tags off the article?" and such maintenance clean up is desirable overall for the project -- my solution was (1) get the original UPE creator to disclose correctly and (2) send the articles back to AfC to be reviewed, and if found acceptable, approved to mainspace without tags. I suppose my participation in this AfD can be considered part of the "article maintenance tag cleanup" effort, since they will either be kept at AfD (thus tags off) or not (in which case I suppose the titles will make acceptable redirects to Studio71#History). Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 19:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so that is a "yes". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because - and only because - you have mentioned here that you put the article through AfC, I will note here the following. You have disclosed that this company is a client of Mister Wiki, who is in turn paying you (disclosure). The editor who accepted this, specifically citing the AfC process, also does paid editing through Mister Wiki, per their disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing enough support for notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM, written in contemporary marketing speak. The author is actually quite good at writing a marketing bio that slips through our G11 criteria because it isn't written in 1960s adspeak (which is what we all but require for that.) This is the perfect example of why deletion based on NOTSPAM at AfDs is necessary: anyone with any background in current marketing practices could spot the techniques used here. This is clearly spam being used to promote the subject for pay. The question of notability is not even relevant, nor is the disclosure in compliance with the terms of use: the TOU is not a license to ignore local policies. It is the bare minimum to be able to click the save button, just as not uploading copyright violations is. After they have been met, we can begin assess based on local policy. Unfortunately, this fails our local policy on promotion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to sentences like these: Weinstein helped grow the Annoying Orange as a brand and alongside Reza Izad and Michael Green, grew numerous other client's channels including Fred, iJustine and Shane Dawson. and Weinstein’s talent instincts have resulted in Studio71 joining forces with massively successful entertainment icons like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Shay Mitchell, and Mayim Bialik. as contemporary marketing speak? Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 16:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Current marketing professionals know that language like that is much more effective at promoting someone than He's the best ever. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two sources that have anything on him are obviously not useful for notability. Some of the sources in the article don't even mention him. Searching doesn't reveal anything. Non-notable. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 17:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weinstein himself is not given enough in-depth coverage by the article's sources. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, Weinstein is not notable solely for the sake of being connected to notable figures.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In all the sources, I can't find one where he is dedicated full paragraph to discuss his life and what he's up to. Lacks significant coverage fails WP:GNG and the sources are questionable, none of them is established reputable media house or website. — Ammarpad (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and and lacks significant coverage clearly fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hello all, Jacob here from Mister Wiki. Studio71 is a paid client of mine. I understand the justification of deleting this article. Do you think if Dan had more substantial coverage in 2+ notable independent sources, this page would have a better chance at passing? Thank you! JacobMW (talk) 17:23, 23 November 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. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Izad

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

There is a lack of independent in-depth coverage of Izad himself to establish notability. Izad is mentioned in routine coverage and has been interviewed as a company exec about the company he works for. The article was paid for by Studio71. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks JJMC89 for giving this article a chance to be discussed! I personally think the article meets NBIO's basic requirements, with multiple journalistic articles offering coverage of Reza Izad's CEO role within Studio71 (formerly known as CDS) bringing "a revolution of MCN networks".

In addition to what is already in the article:In addition to what is already in the article:

YouTube creators looking elsewhere for money

Cannes 2015: Navigating YouTube and beyond: Reza Izad, CEO and co-founder of Collective Digital Studios, on the future of collaboration between brands and content creators.

These 4 Multichannel Networks Plan to Capitalize on the Cord-Cutting Generation

CDS CEO Reza Izad on Going Long-Form on the Web

ProSiebenSat.1 Group-backed multichannel network Studio71 has named a new management team to take over from founders Sebastian Weil and Ronald Horstman, with US chief Reza Izad to become global CEO.

YouTube wants to be TV, but it’s not the same - Studio71 CEO Reza Izad explains the differences between YouTube and traditional TV on Recode Media. + Full transcript: YouTube star manager Reza Izad of Studio 71 on Recode Media

From the Big Chair: Reza Izad + Cornering CDS’s Reza Izad at CES

In response to JJJMC89's argument that "Izad has received coverage related to his notable company but not in-depth about himself outside of the many detailed interviews", I think NBIO's basic requirements clearly address the concern: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."; lengthy interviews and articles discussing the industry-changing impacts of Izad's business decisions cannot possibly be considered "trivial". (Disclosure, I was asked by a Studio71 contractor to try to cleanup the article, but I would not compromise my integrity and defend any article which I do not believe honestly meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies.) Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 23:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After further researching the topic, I think that while there is definitely some level of notability, coverage in a standalone article might not warranted for the moment. I think a redirect to Studio71#History is the best solution for now. Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concern - I have grave concerns about a properly declared paid editor defending an article at AfD. This is a very strong COI and I would strongly urge the closing admin to disregard the keep argument above. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out -- two details I'd like to mention: (1) since the situation is fully disclosed I think the closer and any future commenter is able to make up their own mind about the strength of my arguments regardless of who is presenting them, and (2) I hope I can reassure anyone involved in this AfD that I would not accept payment to say things or present arguments I do not truly believe in. Everything I've said here, I would have said just the same if I was commenting from my volunteer admin account. I hold Wikipedia's policies in the highest possible regard and would never dream of bullshitting the community for money. Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 23:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note above about being paid to clean up the article and this one. To fully clarify, are you are being paid, or do you expect to be paid, for these edits, in this AfD? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically for this AfD, but the original request was "what can you do to get these maintenance tags off the article?" -- my solution was (1) get the original UPE creator to disclose correctly and (2) send the articles back to AfC to be reviewed, and if found acceptable, approved to mainspace without tags. I suppose my participation in this AfD can be considered part of the "article maintenance tag cleanup" effort, since they will either be kept at AfD (thus tags off) or not (in which case I suppose the titles will make acceptable redirects to Studio71#History). Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 19:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so that is a "yes". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because - and only because - you have mentioned here that you put the article through AfC, I will note here the following. You have disclosed that this company is a client of Mister Wiki, who is in turn paying you (dislosure). The editor who accepted this, specifically citing the AfC process, also does paid editing through Mister Wiki, per their disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. Notability doesn't matter, its a promotional fluff piece that serves no purpose other than to promote the subject. No need to keep the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 20 November 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.

Milton keynes wolves rlfc

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

Page not needed UmneyIan (talk) 22:21, 18 November 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 Monsanto. OK, consensus appears to be clear on the fact that this article is not suitable as a standalone, mainly owing to redundancy and NPOV concerns. There is apparently some content that could be merged but I also see some questions about NPOV and BLP compliance. I'll thus redirect (so that the article goes) and leave the history so that discussion can be had on what if anything to merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monsanto public relations activities

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

Blatant WP:POVFORK from recent WP:SNOW keep AfD by same editor at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GMO_conspiracy_theories. The "but Monsanto" argument often comes up in WP:FRINGE topics related to GMOs, and is covered by some degree by the conspiracy theories article already in parallel to "but government conspiracy" claims with climate change denial. We already have the Monsanto article where other non-fringe details about PR should be fleshed out first before saying it's a standalone topic. Otherwise, this is a mixture of WP:OR stringing together POV forks from content already covered with appropriate weight at other articles such as Kevin Folta. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some parts of the page into Monsanto. First of all, the Kevin Folta section is unbalanced to the point of having WP:BLP issues, and should be entirely deleted, whatever else may be decided here. However, the other sections are encyclopedic and deal with issues that have attracted sufficient notice that they are worth covering, and doing so is not inherently POV. I'm actually rather surprised that the Monsanto page does not already have a section about PR, and so some of the material here would be very appropriate to merge into a dedicated PR section there. But I agree with the nom that, as a standalone page, this is a POV fork. The only rationale for splitting out a standalone page about Monsanto PR would be to attribute to the company's PR activities a greater notability than exists for the PR activities of so many other large corporations, and objectively that does not exist. Basically, the argument that Monsanto should be treated by Wikipedia as a special case comes down to "Monsanto is bad" POV-pushing. I've looked through Category:Public relations, and the nominated page stands out as the only page in the category that is about a single company (other than PR firms, of course). The closest thing is Public relations of high fructose corn syrup, but that is about a business sector, not an individual company. Nothing about PR activities of tobacco or fossil fuel companies, for which there would be far better rationales. So what we have here is a POV fork that contains some material that can usefully be merged into the parent page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am willing to write a shorter version for the main page on Monsanto, but there is so much information out there—this is only a start—I'm concerned that it won't all fit at the main article. Hence the need for a sub-article.
Can you be specific about what you think is wrong with the section on Kevin Folta? I put what I read in the New York Times article.
I also noticed that there aren't many articles overviewing corporate PR operations. I see this as part of the general deficiency in coverage of public relations on Wikipedia and I hope to correct the situation over time, having recently put a lot of work in to improve the article on Edward Bernays. However, there are of articles about public relations campaigns, such as Torches of Freedom and Nayirah testimony. Public relations of a whole company comes in at a higher level of generality, but I think it makes a lot of sense in this case especially, given the extent of coverage on the subject, and the fact that the sources in this case discuss ongoing campaigns which are bigger than any one person or group. groupuscule (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto, I initially considered a partial merge like you mentioned at first, but I don't think there's anything worth preserving after more perusing (which is why I'm leaning more delete, but don't have a huge problem with this eventually redirecting otherwise). The 2010 section can pretty much go as undue weight violations (singling out Monsanto on GMO Answers is stretching it) and BLP violations. The 2000s section is also sourced to the World According to Monsanto, a blatant fringe source that we wouldn't expect anyone to reasonably even consider (and Monbiot with some pretty fringey claims making those sources unreliable).

That leaves the 1980s and 90s section that don't immediately fail the sniff test.

The 1980s stuff is on agent orange. The topic is always a mess to present content on in terms of weight because the U.S. government ordered Monsanto and eight other companies under the War Powers act to make the formulation under a specific manufacturing process that had the dioxin contaminants that primarily led to the health issues. Monsanto and others actually warned the government back then, but they were ordered to anyways.[1] Assigning due weight to Doll's involvement pretty much means it needs to be treated within the Agent Orange article (i.e., was the formulation itself a problem or the contaminant factors into weight on what Doll specifically was commenting on) and then considering how it fits into the Monsanto article. As it stands right now though, this section is also a BLP violation to some degree as the Folta section because the sources also go out of their way to say there was no evidence his work was biased either (could be addressed at the AE case, but I'm leaving that for now). Better to start from scratch on that one. This is also a bit of a coatrack in that consulting scientists aren't necessarily PR.

The 90s stuff is more fringe Monsanto controls the seed market stuff parsed to The World According to Monsanto again. The only thing I see that would be worth mentioning at a Monsanto page PR section is this source talking about how the public initially didn't react well to GMOs and Monsanto didn't really handle it the best. That's another that can be written without attribution to this page though since the current section is more coatrack than talking about actual PR.

That's enough from me though. Tl;dr, there's nothing really to use here in developing content in other articles, especially with WP:GEVAL policy in mind that the author seems to still to not understand. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Groupuscule and @Kingofaces43: There is a lot that you each bring up there, and to some extent your comments each serve as the replies that I might give to the other editor. I rather doubt that anything that I can add would really alter where this AfD discussion is clearly going. But I'll be happy to discuss these details at article talk pages, where the questions of what content to write after this AfD can best be addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite simply this article meets all criteria for inclusion. It uses high-quality sources and presents them neutrally. Critically, unlike a contrasting article mentioned by the nominator above, there is nothing pejorative in the title "Monsanto public relations activities". Public relations is a major part of corporate activity, and Monsanto's public relations operations have been widely reported on. To respond to some of the nominator's concerns:
- The article is not a POV fork, defined on the linked page as "a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." If someone wanted to do this, they would create a fork of this article called "Monsanto dirty tricks" or something like that. The fact is, nothing stops the addition of positive material about Monsanto's public relations efforts, some of which they've been very open about, and I've encouraged people to add to the article or supply me with sources to use. I did simple web searches on the topic and brought out what I found. "GMO conspiracy theories" is a POV fork of "Genetically engineered food controversies"; "Monsanto public relations activities" is not a POV fork of anything, much less, as nominator suggests, of "GMO conspiracy theories", with which it barely overlaps.
- The article is not original research, defined on the linked page as "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." I don't see how Kingofaces43 can even suggest this. Please, what part of the article is original research?
- Kingofaces43 writes: "The 'but Monsanto' argument often comes up in WP:FRINGE topics related to GMOs" and connects this with "climate change denial". Frankly I don't see the relevance to a deletion discussion, except to somehow suggest that people might misuse the information contained within. In my opinion this is not a good reason to delete an article. Perhaps I misunderstand and if Kingofaces43 would care to clarify the point, I will be happy to reply again.
- Although the article overlaps with some others, there is information that's not found elsewhere. And, it makes sense to connect these related facts under this umbrella, since its a topic of interest to many people. Someone looking for information about on this topic might want to read about Monsanto's connection with Richard Doll, but we might not expect them to read all the way to the bottom of Doll's biography to find it.

Once again, if people feel this article is written in a way that's unfair to Monsanto, they can highlight how it's unfair, and ideally bring forth other sources that will add balance. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A disruptive advocacy article if ever I saw one. You can't just cherry pick all the negative press for one company and put it into an article and claim neutrality. The best sources should be merged back into the Monsanto one, maybe in its own section where it can be balanced. Then if it grows to a size that justifies a split it can then be pulled out. Outside of what is presented here there are many notable donations that Monsanto makes,[2] which due to the companies public image get their own protests (see this blog complete with scare quotes around donates and the poisoning the world conspiracy theory). AIRcorn (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A proper WP:CFORK should be done by adding to the Monsanto page and, if it is found that the public relations activities of the company are over-burdening the parent article, the right way to spin-out a new article can be handled with the appropriate summary style and links back. Right now, this is a distraction made by an editor with a chip on their shoulder. jps (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CFORK per jps above. Theoretically, if the content on Monsanto were developed into a few dozen articles, there might be grounds for a full article describing all the advertising and public relations the company has ever engaged in. But this isn't that article and the topic isn't that developed yet. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really doesn't seem to be anything of value in this article, and there's definitely nothing that wouldn't be better in the main Monsanto article. On top of this, the article currently focuses entirely on controversies or negative coverage, instead of giving a broad overview of the company's public relations activities, which is implied by the title. There's no organizing principle over what should be included, and the topic in general does not warrant an article of its own. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. Just dropping a note in case there is any additional conversation relevant towards the author of the article; they have recently been topic-banned and will not be able to reply.[3] Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Monsanto and make this page a redirect. My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 25 November 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. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ogbonna Timothy Arinze

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is certainly non notable, unremarkable person. This may have been CSD'ed as there is no evidence that can suggest this can Wikipedia inclusion criterion in near future. — Ammarpad (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 19:05, 20 November 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) 16:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Mills

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

No credible indication or evidence of notability. First nomination/debate was in 2005, ended with 'keep' but with some arguments that this should be reviewed and/or debated in future. Since then, I can't find anything to say Mr. Mills meets current notability guidelines. He appears to have taken up a different profession, according to his website. PK T(alk) 20:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 20:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In 2005, we didn't have very well-defined criteria for the notability of musicians, and pretty much allowed the creation of an article about nearly any musician who could be verified as merely existing. The criteria have been considerably tightened up over the years, however, and this guy didn't develop any stronger claim of notability that would bolster the case for inclusion under WP:NMUSIC as it stands now. There's just no basis here for hanging onto this anymore. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since 2005 we have come to realize that free for all inclusion criteria do not add up to an encyclopedia, but an advertising platform. Mills does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Three indie albums made, but no independent coverage or other avenues to WP:GNG. Difficult to find any reference to this musician become graphic designer. Operator873^CONNECT 00:50, 25 November 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) 16:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Baudin

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

Biography with notability issues and backed by just a couple of references, concentrating on one incident. There's no reliable source that goes into the details about his crime, apart from a couple of autobiographies that the individual wrote. MT Train^Discuss 17:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides his own 2 books (which might be grounds for AUTHOR, did not assess), he has received SIGCOV for his flying and counterfeiting - both in major newspapers and in books. He is also covered by the Sydney Crime Musuem [4], which would seem to indicate lasting signifcance.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous mentions of him in books other than his own, and sufficient coverage on him in newspapers and other sites (not just for the airplane stunt). These in addition to the Sydney Crime Museum would seem to merit encyclopedic inclusion. Since the person has been dead nearly 35 years it's not like this is a self-promotional article. SunChaser (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A serial crook who wrote a book about his misdeeds and performed a stunt reported in national papers. Surely that is not enough to make him WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wp:GNG per WP:CRIME. Per numerous mentions in books. And overall coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CRIME and WP:GNG as BabbaQ mentioned. WAPO and NYT specific coverage of incident in New York. Also I think it may meet the specific requirement in WP:CRIME for a crime being executed in an unusual manner. Operator873^CONNECT 01:04, 25 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Buettner

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

Subject appears to fail GNG. I found no evidence of sources demonstrating notability. Lepricavark (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an appellate court judge can be a notability criterion, if he can be properly sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles the judge to keep an unsourced article just because his profile on the court's own self-published website nominally verifies that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. judge of the Highest level of state appellate courts is notable, but not necessarily below that. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN as a judge who holds a statewide office. An official website is clearly not "self-published" and is a perfectly reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source cannot support notability if it has any form of direct affiliation with the subject. I didn't say the court's website was "self-published" by him — but it is self-published by the organization that employs him, which is still a direct affiliation. People do not get a notability freebie just by having a staff profile on the website of their own employer — they get in the door by having enough media coverage to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can however confirm that he holds the post and his biographical details, which was my point. I notice you haven't addressed WP:POLITICIAN, an established notability guideline! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's comment above you is entirely correct about the relationship of WP:POLITICIAN to judges on intermediate-level courts — there's no automatic presumption of notability for all judges below the highest level of an appellate court. Going by this court's article, there's only one other judge with an article besides Buettner, and even that article has quite a bit more substance (although not brilliant sourcing) beyond just stating that she exists, which is all that's present here. A good article about an appellate court judge, sure, by all means — but there's exactly zero value in a boilerplate article which just says the subject exists, the end.

And even for the levels of political office where we do extend an automatic presumption of notability to all holders, we don't do so because they're somehow exempted from having to pass WP:GNG — we do that because we know for a fact that they always pass GNG. Even if an article about a state or federal legislator is technically inadequate in its existing form, we know that they do get enough coverage to pass GNG and their articles are always improvable accordingly — but the article gets the pass because it's improvable, not because it's in any way exempted from having to be improved. It has yet to be shown, however, that Buettner (or any other judge at his level) has the necessary degree of sourceability to be improvable from where this is right now. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're interpreting WP:POLITICIAN as saying what you want it to say. But it doesn't. It says all judges who hold statewide office (which he clearly does, as a judge of a central appellate court which deals with the whole state as opposed to a part of the state) are notable. It's quite clear. It's not open to interpretation. It says nothing about only the top-level appellate judges being notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not "interpreting" anything in terms of what I want it to say. AFD has an established consensus that (a) lower-level courts don't enjoy the same presumption of notability that higher ones do, and (b) the articles still have to be sourced, and are not exempted from having to have reliable source coverage just because a notability claim has been asserted. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we had several sources showing this judges actions were impactful, we could keep the article. However, at this level judges are not treated as statewide office holders, but as local ones. In the same way we do not create articles on all trustees of universities that are elected statewide and similar positions. Statewide office holders in the judicial sense means members of the state supreme court, or equivalently named similar court.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 24 November 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. Given that EmblemSaga has a very limited editing history, and their first edit in nine months was to this AfD, I'm wondering if there's a WP:COI issue there. But, regardless of that, there's strong consensus here this is WP:TOOSOON. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WK Studios

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

Article is entirely premature. None of the company's games are published and the WP:VG/S RS search finds nothing on the studio. Izno (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Delete - There seems to be no reason to keep this at the moment, there are zero games out for the company, and can't be considered notible. It's also a stretch to have an article based on the idea that 4 games may be released at some time in the future. The fact there is one of the games on Wikipedia should be enough to talk about upcoming games. Lee Vilenski(talk) 08:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, WP:CRYSTALBALL is relevant. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect - We can change the article from the game studio to their first game. It will make then more sense. Rrp13121989 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The game also does not display notability. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The studio and their first game is referenced on GiantBomb, Kickstarter and RPGFan, and of course on their own homepage. Further we can wait until January 2018 before deleting this article, because as mentioned on their homepage they will present their project on Kickstarter in January 2018. Then we have definitely enough references to keep this article on Wikipedia.EmblemSaga (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In any case, this shouldn't be regarding the company; but the game itself, if it meets WP:GNG. The studio itself is not notable. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources are reliable, and two are clearly not independent. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I probably should have referenced WP:CORPDEPTH, which this article lacks. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable third-party independent sources to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by an appropriate variant of WP:TOOSOON. No evidence of notability for the company or the game. Zero independent sources. —Kusma (t·c) 10:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources; does not meet WP:NCORP and entirely promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, WP:NEXTBIGTHING, WP:RUMOUR This article seems to meet all of them. Just too soon. The "company" could very well implode and the games never make it to the market. There's too many assumptions. And that's not even addressing the lack of sources. Operator873^CONNECT 05:59, 26 November 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 Iqbal Academy Pakistan. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Cyber Library

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

No sources found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on Iqbal Academy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marge to where it rightly should have been Iqbal Academy — Ammarpad (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but it should be to Iqbal Academy Pakistan beacause Iqbal Academy is a disambiguation page. --Gpc62 (talk) 05:37, 23 November 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 07:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Ahmad Nasir

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

No coverage after his death. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates he passes the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual who has written a non-notable book. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:37, 25 November 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) 16:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Cleaver

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

WP:BLP of a physiotherapist, whose primary claim of notability seems to be winning internal awards from his own professional associations. Every award that a person could possibly win is not an automatic WP:ANYBIO pass, however -- the extent to which an award constitutes a notability claim is entirely coterminous with the extent to which the media report the granting of that award as news. But this isn't sourced to any significant reliable source coverage about him -- it's referenced to two deadlinked primary sources, and two pieces of media coverage that namecheck his existence in the process of being about something other than him. And all I can find on a Google search is one more glancing namecheck of his existence in a newspaper article, and a bunch of press releases. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while he has some accomplishments under his belt, I don't believe they satisfy notability guidelines. PK T(alk) 20:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable philanthropist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 25 November 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) 16:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Mai

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

A bunch of promotional fluff relying on PR sources. not notable yet. TheLongTone (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - pure PR by operators who are not as "stunningly talented" as the artist is supposed to be. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is not written from a neutral point of view, as is evident from the first paragraph. It might be worth salvaging if the promotional tone were toned down a little. Vorbee (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google doesn't show anything that could be described as independent and verifiable: the whole page reads like a marketing exercise ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every person who gets paid to sing is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert. Celestina007 (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Adolescents' Science and Technology Innovation Contest

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Eflyjason (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eflyjason (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eflyjason (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete China Adolescents' Science and Technology Innovation Contests seem to be a pretty notable thing, but I see nothing independent about the Shanghai one to make it newsworthy, and so does the press.L3X1 (distænt write) 21:29, 18 November 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 Moved to draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo (Eden album)

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

Searches for this album turn up zero news results. Fails WP:NMUSIC. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The album was only very recently revealed. Here is a Pigeons & Planes article on the album. -Nevermeltsounds 03:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Redirect - the current 3 sources - a database retail listing, a social media post, and an obscure music blog I've never heard of, is not enough to meet the WP:GNG. Advocating a redirect because it may just be a WP:TOOSOON issue. Sergecross73 msg me 05:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this album also has been officially released by the artist on his twitter handle ^[1] would this article still be in constitute of deletion. Astralwerks has also announce of the album release^[2]. Hope this is enough news for removing it from the deletion article category.sufyanxtreme (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - the album is not out, only a single "Gold", is. And no, a musician announcing a single on social media does not help notability - sourcing needs to be third party, and about the album itself. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - the page has mentioned its an upcoming album and provided below are the link from record label company astralwerks (under universal music group) and also a billboards article. Doesn't it constitute for the article to be kept up. The astralwerks link specifies the date of its release and the billboards article describe about the first single start//end. sufyanxtreme (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Billboards put up an article announcing the release of the single "Gold" and the upcoming release of the album "Vertigo"^[3] and also there is this link connected to Livenation SE^[4]. Billboards, Livenation and Pigeon&planes^[5] are third parties and have confirmed the news individually (2 in english and one in swedish) This gives more reason for the article to stay and come on, Billboards is the pinnacle of the music industry news source. sufyanxtreme (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard is indeed one of the highest levels sources for American music - but neither provide significant coverage for the album. One is only a paragraph long, with about two sentences about the album - it's name and release date for the album. The other one is very long, but doesn't discuss the album itself, but just a particular song. I'm not sure the word "Vertigo" or "album" even appears in it. Additionally, record labels and press releases (MyNewsDesk/Live Nation) do not help meet the GNG because they are first party accounts. Press releases are promotional works that come from artists/management/marketing teams - not third parties. And again, social media also are first party. All that leaves is "Pigeons and Planes" - I'm not familiar with this website, so I'll have to look into it... Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more links @User:Sergecross73 to support the artist upcoming release^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] but why draftify this article, i see no point as other artist have articles up for their upcoming album and i see no difference in this one. the AXS article is still small but the stubwire article is informative about the song, tour and the upcoming album. There was a big promotion event of it across 13 cities also thats why i thought it would constitute for the page to be up on wikipedia. sufyanxtreme (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might have forgotten to link the billboard website article to the wiki page, my bad^[10]. sufyanxtreme (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Draftify until such time as the album is actually released and has some noteworthy reviews. (Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL.) That way it could still be worked on by numerous editors before going into article space, whereas redirecting would not allow for that. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that that too. Doing both really - moving to draftspace and creating a redirect for the album name to the artist article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's possible to do both, then I would recommend that. Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would think so. It'd even be ideal, really, as it would require an admin's approval to delete the redirect someday if they wanted to move the draft into the main-space. So that'd be a safeguard for premature recreation. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so without any response I see that my points have been sound and I hope however the moderator of this deletion article would nominate to Keep the article as it has many citations from third party and from the primary source (the singer, the record label and billboards) if you need more third party here you go.^[1]^[2]^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufyanxtreme (talk • contribs) 10:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, as you've been told before, sourcing must be from third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Sources straight from the artist or record label are first party sources. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Your Billboard sources are either not about the album itself, or extremely brief. There's not enough to sustain an article yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else agree with drafting or are there any other views?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems a fair compromise at this stage, on the understanding that it remains as a draft until it's been released and reliable, third-party sources have been added to demonstrate its notability ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify which standard restraints on moving back to mainspace. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:26, 18 November 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) 16:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlickRocket

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

Unreferenced, promotional article about unremarkable software. Probable UPE. MER-C 10:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. HINDWIKI • CHAT 13:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HINDWIKI • CHAT 13:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. created for only make advert.HINDWIKI • CHAT 13:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS findable by Google search. Not a notable product by our standards. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Not only it is unreferenced also there's no sources in RS that can be used to reference it as search results only return this Wikipedia article and their own website. — Ammarpad (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:32, 25 November 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) 21:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macabre (album)

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

The article cites only the self-published liner note for a different topic (an EP release that is from a few years earlier and therefore doesn't mention this topic at all) and a vending site offering a single for sale that is not on this album (but apparently has a B-side that is a rework of something from this album, and alas, saying the single is not currently available for sale on the site). There is no indication of in-depth coverage in reliable sources (or even any coverage at all, even in unreliable sources other than that online shopping site). The article contains various unsourced notes about the subject (such as explaining how certain words are shown in Cyrillic or what certain things mean in Japanese or how some versions of some of the songs are also found on other album releases from the same band), but the article contains no commentary by music critics and no indication that any in-depth coverage exists. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So let's see...article quality issues...article quality issues...and more article quality issues. Meanwhile, this shows the album at no. 2 in the Japanese album chart, so it seems exceptionally unlikely that there is no significant coverage in Japanese sources. It's almost certainly notable enough, but unless someone can dig out that coverage we don't have much of a basis for an article. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Can we ask ourselves, why is this at Articles for Deletion? This imparts basic information about the release and track listing of a hit album by an obviously notable band. Even the translations are useful to international fans (do we need to provide sources for literal translations?). Most of the things about this article are encyclopedic, and they are verifiable (discographical sources exist for things like the release date, and the track listing is printed in the album - it's catalogue data, like the title page of a printed book). If it is super important that we not have an article for this album because of a lack of third-party commentary, why would we delete it, rather than merge it into a general discography page? (Is that super important? Does it serve the reader interested in this plainly notable topic? Are we NOTINHERITing our nose to spite our face?) This speaks to a much larger problem, I think - Wikipedia's music editors don't know what to do with discographical information, and some of them are flushing a ton of it for reasons I can't defend. Chubbles (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Supported by the WP:GNG guideline, articles should be about topics that are sourced by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We shouldn't have articles that are basically only sourced by self-published and promotional content. There should be a difference between what you find on Wikipedia and what you find on the website of a record company or an online music vendor. Unsourced information such as translation comments (or blaming some unnamed censorship board for why a song name uses the words "hypodermic syringe" spelled backwards or asserting that some tune was derived from a particular prior work by someone else or asserting what some title "suggests") might just be from some random person's imagination or vandalism. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The GNG deals with the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, not the citation of such sources within an article. In this case, being a top 10 album in Japan, it seems highly likely that such coverage exists. Unfortunately, without identifying these sources, not much of the article is verifiable, and it should be possible to cover what's left in the band's discography (if only we could agree a way to include tracklistings within discographies). --Michig (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, of course we can cite chapter and verse and follow them to the letter, but I'm asking, does that make a better encyclopedia? It's a letter-versus-spirit of the law question. We can and should, indeed, remove speculative information about censorship boards and such. That I encourage! But it is plainly encyclopedic and of interest to the reader wanting to know more about Dir En Grey to, for instance, tell that reader what songs are contained on their top-selling album and what their English translations are. The content deserves to be here, somewhere, regardless of our hidebound devotion to ensuring it is not in a separate article. The embarrassing thing, I think, is that sometimes we differentiate ourselves from record company or music vendor websites only by refusing to include good, useful, verifiable information that they do provide. Chubbles (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good comments, from both you and Michig. I think the only thing I might like to add in response is that I find it annoying to have articles on Wikipedia that provide nothing more than a list of statistics or don't offer any additional perspective that's different from what I would read on the product label or a self-published product website. When I'm looking for information about a topic, I first click on Wikipedia rather than the product-maker's website, because I expect to find more real objective information there (sufficiently more to overcome the usual amount of sloppy editing quality and the insertion of random personal thoughts and opinion and vandalism). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I agree that album articles are always improved by the inclusion of reception history and critical commentary, but I suppose I just want to push back a little on the thought that, in its absence, there is basically nothing left to say. I guess it's a larger conversation than just this AfD, though it gets played out in AfD after AfD and pocket deletion after pocket deletion (i.e., unilateral redirecting without merging content). I've been thinking about ways to get a little more thought from the wider community about the issue, though I am not really an avid policy/guideline wonk. There was an interesting proposal recently at WT:MUSIC that spoke to similar concerns, and I left a tl;dr essay there, but I wonder whether folks from WikiProject Music or who edit in and around WP:MUSIC space might want to come together and think a little harder about how we could better structure discographical content on Wikipedia. Chubbles (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The biggest problem in trying to comment on this article is that the album was released 17 years ago and there is going to be little on the net. I found a few reviews ([5], [6]). as well as a few articles on a recent tour by the band that was centered on that old album ([7], [8]). Another issue is that Oricon's site doesn't provide rankings that far back ([9]), so it may take a bit to confirm it ranked no. 4 on the album chart (though I found this). Some have complained about the standards used here, but my complaint is that it is just inherently harder to prove notability with an older and a Japanese album. I am sure if we check the many rock magazines printed in Japan, we can find many articles on the album at the time, but none of those are online and not many libraries are going to have them. I personally think this should not be deleted, but I realize it might be hard to convince a skeptic. Michitaro (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album charted at number 4 on Oricon (the Oricon rankings page is archived on Archive.is: [10]), so we can presume coverage exists. As Michitaro noted, it impossible to find anything online now. (The only hope would be CDJournal, but it doesn't have a review for this one: [11].) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 18 November 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuso (video game)

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

A brief investigation of the sources listed in WP:VG/S [12] indicates a lack of independent reliable sources, much less any covering this game in depth, meaning this game does not meet the the general notability guideline. Izno (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails notability ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. I see mentions of other video games, but not this one. TOOSOON. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:18, 18 November 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. As mentioned, the nominator's rationaile is explicitly mentioned in the notability guideline as establishing notability, so this is put down as a SK. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zhisheng Niu

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

Article about an electrical engineer whose only claim to fame appears to be becoming a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. According to the IEEE website's Fellows Directory that makes him one of 9,909 such, which hardly seems notable. Emeraude (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Fellow of IEEE, the very thing the nomination complains about, is explicitly given in WP:PROF#C3 as an example of an honor that would make someone notable by that criterion. If you don't like the criterion, lobby to change it, but with the criterion as it is, there is no valid nomination. WP:SK #3 calls for speedy keep when "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question"; here we have something different, a nomination so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the notability guideline, but I think the reasoning is the same. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. To suggest I have "not even read the article in question" is total nonsense and, to be frank, rather insulting. It's a single sentence, which I edited/tidied before nominating, so your speedy argument is wrong. I accept your point about IEEE though. Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read more carefully. I did not suggest you had not read the article; I suggested that you had not read the notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Prototypical pass of WP:PROF#C3. (Also 6000+ GS citations and an h-index of 37.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not an obvious speedy keep to me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator admits the subject is a fellow of IEEE, which clearly passes PROF. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fellow of IEEE, which is the electrical engineer association. NPrOF. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:16, 18 November 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) Rcsprinter¹²³ (report) 21:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Sanders (creator)

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

Non-notable YouTuber. The sources do not appear to be significant coverage in reliable independent sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this, Sanders was at one point one of the best known viners and internet personalities in the world however the wikipedia is badly written and needs more and better sources. Jamesrichards12345 (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2017

Weak keep. First, AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Second, Inquisitr has covered Sanders' switch to Disney here. Coverage in this source appears significant. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 13:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true I personally think Sanders is worthy of being on Wikipedia. The metric for notable vs non-notable person (available at WP:BIO for perusal), is "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Which this article does not pass. The article has been flagged with issues since 2013 and no one has been able to find better sources to support the information in the article. I hate to say it, but perhaps deletion is the best option at this moment. At least until better sources can be made / found.--Frapsity (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the fact that the subject hasn't received coverage of secondary reliable sources. Here^[1] are^[2] a few^[3] different^[4] independent^[5] sources that I think should assess at least a good amount of notability, not counting the references I recently added to the article about his theatre career, the referenced fact that he has won two Shorty Awards and one Streamy Award for his Vine and YouTube career (WP:ANYBIO) (these are some of the most important social media content awards right now), and the cult status that he's reached online with thousands of people dressing up as his characters or making fanart about his work (a quick search of "Sanders Sides" on Google proves it) (WP:ENT). True, the article can and should be improved, and eventually it probably will be, but I don't think it's in a condition bad enough to be straightforwardly deleted. By the way, according to the article's history, the article was created in January 2017. I don't know why the issue template is saying "January 2013"?--Manbemel (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just noting I've been doing updates to the article in the past few days, just in case someone may want to change their opinion.--Manbemel (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sanders was/is one of the top Viners. Passes GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Manbemel. Thomas Sanders is definitely notable enough to have an Wikipedia article. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep With the recent improvements, I would say the article is in a much better state than it was.--Frapsity (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neither side is budging on this, and the personal attacks don't help either. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Adriano

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO as awards are niche or scene related. The article is sourced to online directories and industry PR materials; significant RS coverage not found. The article was kept at the 2013 AfD as meeting PORBIO at that time, i.e. multiple award nominations. However, PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then. The community consensus also appears to have evolved that articles on adult actors need to demonstrate that reliable, 3rd party sources indeed exist. So I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it hard to believe that Adriano doesn't meet our notability guidelines -- not as a performer, but as one of the industry's top directors. When I have access to a desktop computer, I'll see if I can find some material about him. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies two of the four criteria under WP:DIRECTOR:

Comment: Are you seriously claiming that this guy discovered that many men are erotically attracted by female butts? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and all Newton did was discover that if you drop something, it falls. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- All of the above is AVN coverage; I don't think this meets the requirement for SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it is. People in the film industry are covered in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, people in the music business are covered in Billboard, and people in the adult film business are covered in AVN. If you don't think it's a reliable source, WP:RS/N is that way. This is WP:AfD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per passing WP:DIRECTOR per Malik Shabazz. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Adriano. Minor porno actor, but more important as a porn director. In any event, article and coverage did not get worse in the meantime. Serial AFDs ought to have a good reason. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added sections on "Gonzo pornography" and "Influence", with academic references from Porn Studies (Maina and Zecca 2016) and from an anthology on paratext[!] (Saunders 2014), as well as some of the AVN material provided by Malik Shabazz above (thanks!). Adriano may not have originated gonzo pornography (his colleague and studio head John Stagliano did that) but he appears to have been influential in pushing it, and its performers, to extremes.

On AVN and XBIZ as sources: WikiProject Pornography has specifically addressed industry sources, and it characterizes AVN as a "reliable source for adult industry news and movie reviews", with some caveats. It characterizes XBIZ flatly as a "Reliable source for adult industry news", without any caveats. While community consensus on a wider scale could in theory override the local consensus of WikiProject Pornography per section WP:LOCALCONSENSUS within policy WP:CONSENSUS, I see no signs at RSN or elsewhere of any movement toward such a contrary wider consensus.

On changes in WP:PORNBIO: I checked the version of 1 August 2013, at the time of the first AfD nomination. The only substantive difference from the current version of that section is that the clause "or has been nominated for such an award several times" in the old version is omitted from the current one. It has not been "tightened" in any other way. And the relevant section for this article is WP:DIRECTOR anyway, not WP:PORNBIO.

On alleged evolution of a community consensus that "articles on adult actors need to demonstrate that reliable, 3rd party sources indeed exist": for all of the special notability guidelines, satisfying the condition of the guideline is supposed to be presumptive evidence of notability in and of itself. Any demand for additional evidence of notability, above and beyond that, would defeat the purpose of the special notability guidelines. It would render them superfluous. It would amount in effect to repealing the special notability guidelines altogether, and accepting only WP:GNG as evidence of notability. That approach is favored by a vocal faction, but it is explicitly rejected by WP:N, the guideline of which WP:GNG is merely one section. I don't see any consensus for repealing WP:PORNBIO, WP:DIRECTOR, or any other special notability guideline—nor any evolution of community consensus in that direction.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have reviewed the sources. These are: AVN (multiple times), XBiz, and one paper in a journal with negligible reach and citations. Basically, everything we have about him is Kayfabe, there are no substantive reality-based sources about this subject. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Malik Shabazz and I have already addressed the dismissal of AVN and XBIZ as sources. But the dismissal of Porn Studies as "a journal with negligible reach and citations" does merit further response. That dismissal is not consistent with the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) for Porn Studies, freely available at the SJR page for Porn Studies, nor with SJR's comparative rankings for Porn Studies relative to other journals in the same fields of study. Porn Studies ranks in the top quartile (57th out of 702) among Cultural Studies journals, in the top quartile (30th out of 118) among Gender Studies journals, and in the second quartile (103rd out of 230) among Social Psychology journals. Not bad for a journal that began publication in 2014. Also, it can be seen from its own SJR page that these quartiles, and most other metrics, for Porn Studies have increased sharply from 2015 (when SJR began tracking it) to 2016.

—Syrenka V (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also just now noticed, and reverted, your removal of the book reference I had added (Saunders 2014) based on the claim that IGI Global is an "academic vanity press". I see no evidence of that, and it is not on WP:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your assertions regarding the purported reliability of these sources. I reject them. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actor, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, Davey2010, you do realize that Adriano is an award-winning director, right? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless of who he is he's still non notable anyway, AVN report on everything trivial and pointless so I wouldn't consider them a reliable source at all. –Davey2010^Talk 03:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on levels of consensus and evaluation of sources: WP:CONSENSUS implicitly—and, in some places, such as the section WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, explicitly—sets up a hierarchical scale of levels of consensus, and states unequivocally that:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

WP:CONSENSUS describes the iterative processes of editing and discussion that generate consensus and legitimize its outcome as authoritative. The general picture is of a slow, extended process, highly visible to the community over a period of time, with participation available to all who are interested in the topic on which consensus is being built. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS places the consensus of policies and guidelines at the top of the hierarchy, since their effects are pervasive across a wide variety of topics, and mandates especially conservative procedures for modifying them.

So how do AfD discussions measure up on this scale? They just barely qualify as generating consensus at all. Even with multiple relistings, the fate of an article is decided, in a way that is not easy to reverse, over less than a month. They do not appear to attract a representative sample of those interested in the topic, nor is it easy to see how they could, given the short time frame—and that Wikipedians have lives.

This is why the admonitions of WP:CONSENSUS, that narrower levels of consensus should defer to wider ones, and that votes and pure opinion should count for little or nothing, apply especially strongly to AfDs. AfD consensus is about as narrow as Wikipedia consensus can get. AfDs are answerable to policies and guidelines, not the other way around. And the same is true even of broad consensus at a level lower than policy—such as that of longstanding, highly visible projects concerned with the relevant subject matter. What any one editor thinks of AVN and XBIZ as sources is less relevant than what WikiProject Pornography thinks. It's true that Wikipedia consensus cannot legislate matters of basic fact; we're still free to argue that WikiProject Pornography is simply wrong about this, but the burden of proof is very much on those who would make that claim, not on those who agree with the project. It's also possible to generate a level of consensus that would trump the project's consensus—for example, by writing specific caveats against sources from the adult film industry into the policies and guidelines. Yet another possibility is for those who want to see stricter rules on sources to enter WikiProject Pornography and change its consensus directly.

But these attempts should be made at the appropriate places, like policy, guideline and project talk pages, or RSN, or the Village Pump. AfDs are not the place to try to gain leverage against established wider consensus.

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's based on rejection of AVN and XBIZ as sources—see above. —Syrenka V (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. The AVN sources quoted above are little more than retouched PR copy, and the superlatives come mostly from other employees of the porn company he was working for. The "Porn Studies" mentions Adriano in passing a few times, but has no substantive critical commentary on his work. The harangues, above, about the porn wikiproject and consensus are belied by the extensive discussions that have taken place over the last few years, both on the guideline talk page and in the many discussions listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion. WP:BLP and WP:RS, by well-established consensus, carry more weight than a Wikiproject's opinions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure your viewpoint has been expressed vocally on policy, guideline, and project talk pages—and those, unlike AfDs, are at least appropriate venues to seek consensus. But the outcome, the bottom line on consensus, is the policies, guidelines, and project pages themselves, and the wider consensus you claim does not exist. If it did, WP:BLP and WP:RS would warn us explicitly against use of AVN and XBIZ as sources, and they don't. WikiProject Pornography isn't the highest level of consensus—just the highest level that has anything specific to say about the reliability of those particular sources.

The "retouched PR copy" statement is baseless, the relevant special notability guideline (as noted repeatedly) is WP:DIRECTOR rather than WP:PORNBIO, and the mentions in Porn Studies are not "in passing". They are used to illustrate the central points that Maina and Zecca are making. They don't critique Adriano; they use his work to critique gonzo pornography—and to identify it as "the privileged choice of award-winning directors such as ... Mike Adriano".

—Syrenka V (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop lying, Syrenka V. It's not at all "baseless", as you so falsely declare, to say that AVN posts retouched and recycled PR copy. It's a simple fact. It's been demonstrated repeatedly. Before I posted here, I checked the specific article at issue. Here's just one example of the PR source [13]. Here's another [14]. Your "point" about BLP and RS not specifically citing AVN and XBIZ as unreliable sources is just plain crap. The pages don't warn us "explicitly" against using the Weekly World News, Vox Populi, or reaganwasright.com, either, because there are way, way, way, way too many unreliable sources out there to list. You've only been editing for about three months, and it's clear you don't understand the policies you attempt to invoke. It's time for you to pull back and pay attention to the established practices of the more experienced community here. And that distorted quote you provide from "Porn Studies" is just a passing mention, as is clear from the text without your curiously selective editing: "the first sequence with a 'tease' or 'interview'. the second sequence with sex. These materials represent the real industrial backbone of contemporary gonzo in terms of volume of production; moreover, this model is often the privileged choice of award-winning directors such as Mason, Mike Adriano,and Jules Jordan". The real text tells us that directors like Adriano and others adhere strictly to a conventional structure, which is hardly supportive of the claims you make about Adriano's distinctive style, to the very limited extent that the text says anything nontrivial about the article subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've presented your basis for the PR charge, I do see your point about the quotations from John Stagliano and Peter Warren. It would have been better to present that evidence at the time you made the charge. For all I knew, there was no more evidence for it than for the earlier attempt to marginalize Porn Studies, which I have refuted above by reference to SLR rankings. Note however that I had not used those quotations in the article—only the ones from Candice Dare and Bonnie Rotten. Even without evidence of PR recycling, Stagliano—Adriano's studio head—appeared to me to be too closely linked to Adriano. Are you also claiming that the sources quoting Candice Dare and Bonnie Rotten are recycled PR?

The policy WP:BLP actually does specifically condemn tabloid journalism, in the section WP:BLPSOURCE, though it does not enumerate specific tabloids by name. There is no reason why WP:RS or WP:BLP couldn't include "specific caveats against sources from the adult film industry", as I put it in an earlier part of this discussion; that would be explicit enough, without singling out AVN and XBIZ by name. Alternatively, as noted, the consensus at the project page for WikiProject Pornography, which does discuss numerous sources by name, could be changed to reject these sources, or to limit them to specific, narrow uses (such as listing the awards given out by the adult film industry).

The problem with policies and guidelines vs. "the established practices of the more experienced community here" is not that I don't understand the policies and guidelines—it's that "the established practices of the more experienced community here" frequently deviate seriously from the policies and guidelines. WP:CONSENSUS does not give any special authority to an insiders' club, nor to discussions in which outsiders are less likely to be inclined to participate. On the contrary, WP:CONSENSUS gives most authority to the documents with the highest visibility and widest participation. The rampant attempt to use the marginal consensus of AfD (and DRV) discussions to override the plain meaning of policies and guidelines, or even of their interpretation at high-visibility project pages, is in my opinion a form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If AVN and XBIZ are as bad as deletion advocates here seem to think, it shouldn't be hard to make an overwhelming case at WikiProject Pornography and change the consensus there.

More about the Porn Studies article later.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the passages from the Porn Studies article: there are actually three paragraphs in which Adriano's work is mentioned: two on page 341, and one on page 345. The one on page 345 is referenced in the article to show that "Adriano is recognized as a major director in the genre of gonzo pornography." Which it does. It emphasizes his role as definitive of the common conventions of gonzo. As the full context of the section "Monstrative attraction and feigned reality" (starting on page 343) makes clear, the relevant conventions are specific to, and characteristic of, gonzo. The quotation from page 345 was not supposed to illustrate the distinctive characteristics that set him apart from other gonzo directors; that was emphasized instead in the other two paragraphs, from page 341, which are referenced in the article to support that point.

—Syrenka V (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't see how the subject meets WP:DIRECTOR. The awards are scene related, and the requirement in CREATIVE is that they'd be widely cited by peers and successors. The praise is mostly interviews with adult actors. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that this isn't the clearest case of WP:DIRECTOR in existence. But note that Bonnie Rotten is a director as well as an actor, and specifically credits Adriano as a mentor in her role as a director. Also, the Porn Studies article meets the "regarded as an important figure" clause of WP:DIRECTOR; Maina and Zecca include him in their example list of three "award-winning directors" in the gonzo pornography genre, in a scholarly article on the genre as a whole.

—Syrenka V (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete imo fails gng and the clained sng passes based on self serving industry noise areextbook arguments of why blps should default to the gng rather than sngs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the specific case of press releases for the Stagliano comments above—which are not used in the article, and are not needed for the WP:DIRECTOR argument (nor for a WP:GNG argument)—no case has been made for why adult film publications should be treated as "kayfabe" or "self serving industry noise", any more than Billboard or Variety. And if the adult film industry is as bad as professional wrestling in that respect (as the use of the term "kayfabe" implies), that case should be made at WikiProject Pornography. If it had been successfully made there, this AfD conversation would likely be going very differently. This is the third round (second relisting) of this AfD, and still no serious and general attempt has been made to refute Malik Shabazz's comments comparing adult film industry sources to the trade papers of other entertainment industries.

—Syrenka V (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz knows this isn't the right place to propose changes in policy, but he wants to pretend it is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV. There was a high school track star by this name in Kansas City in the 90s who gets lots more hits on a proquest news search - where this film director gets zero hits. Sourcing consists of several mentions in a single article in a minor academic journal called Porn Studies, two mentions in a magazine about adult videos, and winning a series of porn industry awards in categories such as "Most Outrageous Sex Scene." This is not enough to pass WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim that Porn Studies is "minor" (or any similarly dismissive term, however vague) has already been refuted by reference to its SJR rankings (see above). How this topic passes WP:DIRECTOR (= WP:CREATIVE) has already been explained above. And search engine hits are a very crude measure at best, as I'm sure deletionists would be quick to point out if they were used to justify a keep for a topic that had a large number of hits.

—Syrenka V (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I cannot locate any INDEPTH or SIGCOV in a mainstream or non-porn-industry, secondary source. Sourcing is mostly to AVN (magazine), the trade journal of the porn industry. Genuinely notable individuals - or the films, books, paintings they create - are expected to have at least some coverage outside the walled garden of the industry they work within. the fact taht Adriano lacks such coverage is a demonstration that it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DIRECTOR. Imho the subject suffices item 1. gidonb (talk) 03:47, 27 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Chomik

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thecomputernerd01

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

Last AfD closed as no consensus. Since then it only becomes clear this subject has no dependable WP:SIGCOV didn't meet basic WP:GNG nor any points of WP:CREATIVE, and this bio has no encyclopedic value at its present state. Searches returned barely his mention by fan sites or his own sources. — Ammarpad (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note here is the last AfD it didn't automatically appear since it was renamed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thecomputernerd01

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; at one point, Chomik was one of the largest creators on the platform and is a rich part of the site's history. Even I, one who isn't too familiar with the YouTube community, am familiar. I clicked a random debate amongst the articles for deletion and this is the one that appeared. Chomik also meets the notability standards, policies, and criteria of Wikipedia. Why deny Wikipedia of potential information and knowledge? What's the harm in keeping this article around? Why does Onision deserve an article? Why does Lisa Schwartz deserve an article? What have these two done that Josh Chomik has not? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you did not mention the policies and guidelines that you think this article met to merit keeping. Can you specifically mention and explain why? You comment is entirely Keep, because I like it and Keep, because Onision and Lisa have articles so this one must have even though he didn't met the criterion. — Ammarpad (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I never once specified that I liked the subject or article. That would be incorrect reasoning and the link does not apply to me. Also, I figured I'd mention other YouTubers. I was wondering if you could specify why these subjects have articles, and why Chomik does not meet the criteria. I'd like to know what Onision and Schwartz — and the many other stub YouTubers whom I could have examplified — meet the crtieria. What do they have that Chomik doesn't? Because to me it seems like they should be nominated for deletion as well if Chomik is going to be. They're practically one in the same. Once it is specified what Chomik doesn't have compared to them that qualified for an article, perhaps deletion could be considered. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still did not cite any guideline or policy that support keeping this article but you wrote strong keep and now say "Keep WP:ILIKEIT" is incorrect on you. Well, I can't force it on you but I left people to judge. Second: you now show clearly my only offence is not nominating Onision and Lisa Schwartz for deletion. Well, I've not even open these articles to see what they contain, and I am under no obligation to do so, If you feel they should be deleted you're free to nominate them. But this one is what I think should be deleted, because I read it and I've already given reason above. And I may advise you to read this very helpul advice on points to advance or not in deletion discussions — Ammarpad (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete A local human intest story, or passing mention in an article about parodies posted on YouTube are not the stuff of reliable source coverage. Humorous articles about humorous parodies do not make their multiple subjects all notable, no matter how notable the publication they appear in is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:ENT, and significant RS coverage not found. What's in the article is mostly trivia. Just a nn Youtuber. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sources available to meet WP:ENT. Does not otherwise meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:52, 24 November 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. No comments made that indicated this article should be kept, thus it should have been soft deleted (previous NAC close was a no consensus) Primefac (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scar Tissue (band)

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

Non-notable band with no coverage in RS and no coverage to be found of any of the 3 members. Fails GNG and WP:NMUSIC CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not much coverage found. There's a brief Allmusic review, and they made no. 20 in the CMJ Dance Chart. --Michig (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 18 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Cameron

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

This "songwriter/producer" fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTINHERITED. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation as a redirect per Beemer69. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than a few unimportant google items, a small write up in Billboard "Urban songwriters to watch" is a start, but it is the only thing and not enough. And considering it is 10 years old, it seems his track towards notability has yet to pan out and instead the subject has became a run-of-the-mill, working, industry journeyman. If he ever does anything that merits significant, independent coverage/recognition, article can be recreated. Also, it appears to be a vanity piece by an SPA editor. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of the general notability guidelines, let alone the music bio guidelines which are if anything more stringent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can certainly be better written by a music oriented editor. Perhaps the article does not emphasize this well enough, but he has produced tracks on two Billboard top 30 albums. He co-wrote the lead track on a #2 album by Christina Aguilera I added additional sources and some wikilinks. He is of enough importance that wikipedia also has well populated categories for songs written by Jasper Cameron and albums produced by Jasper Cameron. It would be kind of stupid to delete the master profile associated to those categories just because the above delete votes didn't take the time to google him before casting their votes. Trackinfo (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per request to discuss new sources. I previously i-voted “delete” and remain unswayed. Contrary to the statement with the “keep” vote above, when I originally weighed in I indeed searched for corroboration of notability. The additions the editor added were ones I had previously googled and at the time summed them up with my statement “..other than a few unimportant google items..” I stand by my assessment: three (Allmusic, Discogs, and Umusicpub) are merely listings and/or credits. The other two (Verge Campus and the 3/30/17 issue of Billboard) are name checks in articles about other subjects. These confirm existence but fail as examples of significant coverage. It’s true the writer(s) identify this subject as “high profile,” but that doesn’t mean he is “high profile” per wikipedia notability standards. The sole thing with merit, which I acknowledged with my original comment, is an entry in a “people to watch”-type article from a 2006 Billboard. It’s a fine argument for notability, but considering it is the only one (and not exclusively devoted to him as the subject) it is not enough. As for credits/collaborations, etc. with notable recordings, I defer to WP:INHERENT. Even if notability conferred was a qualifying criteria, it’s worth noting that his credits for tracks on notable albums/singles (such as a track on a Christine Aguilera album, where he is one of 6 co-writers on the song in question) lists him among many other contributing producers. In such cases, it is the Executive Producer who is more the significant creative contributor. I’m not seeing that he has had that level of involvement on these significant works. All combined, I still believe I hit the nail on the head with my original assessment: “a working, industry journeyman,” and a keep vote for this subject is to grant a wikipedia page for existence rather than notability. And yes, “existence” can mean respected and accomplished in one’s field. But per WP, that doesn’t automatically convert to encyclopedic importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:08, 20 November 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 The End (comics). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four: The End

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

Unreferenced since creation consisting of solely WP:PLOT. WP:BEFORE finds fan-generated content, blogs, pricing, etc. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed to the Wikipedia article, FF: The End. The End is a well-done mini-series. However, it is just a hypothetical future tale & had little impact on FF lore or the Marvel Universe. Therefore, I have no objection to its deletion. AaronCBurkeAaronCBurke (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the writer/artist info and a short plot summary to The End (comics). Argento Surfer (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Argento Surfer. No reason why the main series page should be a short stub with links to multiple, questionably notable entries, when all the content at those articles can be consolidated on the main series page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above re: Merge. There's some scant coverage but nit enough for standalone. Artw (talk) 18:55, 21 November 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. Appears to meet BAND Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lightyear (band)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. This source calls the band "one of the most successful British ska-punk bands of the early noughties", however, the only detailed biography I was able to find was this personal blog. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Drowned In Sound reference. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does the Drowned In Sound reference support notability? Lightyear is mentioned--barely--in just four sentences of that entire article:

"Lightyear were, frankly, one of the most ludicrous bands around (their posters advertised “Ska – Punk – Chaos” as gigs became known for a lot of nakedness and various shenanigans including a variation on morris dancing), and even though closed-minded punters wrote them off as wacky bullshit, the heart and soul that permeated each one of their songs was hugely infectious, and they would go on to write a true masterpiece in their second album; 2003’s Chris Gentleman’s Hairdresser and Railway Bookshop."
"The constant evolution of bands like No Comply, Howards Alias, Sonic Boom Six, Lightyear and Captain Everything! on a month-by-month basis as their music grew meant that even though only a relatively small number of people were actually bearing witness to the scene, it was consistently exciting."
"In 2005 and 2006, No Comply, Five Knuckle, Lightyear, King Prawn, Howards Alias, Freaks Union and Route 215 all split up (Howards Alias and Lightyear later reformed)."
"In terms of music, there are several albums and EPs that can transcend normal boundaries of genre and hold some appeal to more than just fans of noisy punk. Ye Wiles’ Smoothing Away The Horrors Of Indigestion, Adequate Seven’s Here On Earth and Lightyear’s Chris Gentleman’s Hairdresser And Railway Bookshop fall into this category, but are by no means the only examples." Magnolia677 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barely mention doesn't really characterise it. The article is an overview of that scene and it mentions them four times. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. No notable third-party coverage; not even a BBC article on the 40th anniversary of British ska made any mention of the band. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article more than demonstrates notability, showing that the band played big festivals, and were the suibject of features in national media, print and radioEgaoblai (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hardly. If there are "features in national media" about the band, then they should be in the article. Playing in a festival does not automatically establish notability, nor are they even signed to a notable label. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banquet Records reissued both of the bands albums on vinyl in 2012. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jonpatterns and Egaoblai. --Gpc62 (talk) 05:56, 23 November 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) 16:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoanalysis and Politics

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

Article on a conference series which does not appear to be at all significant. No independent sources, and the sole author appears to be an associate of the organiser (who also wrote the article on her). Guy (Help!) 08:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This conference appears unrelated to the similarly-named French feminist movement of the 1970s. The provided sources, including the Journal of Psycho-Social Studies interview, are close to WP:PRIMARY; the reprint of several papers from one conference in one issue of Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society may be the most considerable for notability, but this is not uncommon and does not I think provide the significant coverage necessary to establish encyclopaedic notability for the conference series itself. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not particularly notable academic conference series. Famous _dog (c) 10:22, 22 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marisha Ray

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs for the greater part are YouTube clips, blogs and twitter feeds. Nothing reliable and independent. There are no special claims to notability in the article. This looks like simple fandom. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

only remote relevance is that she has been attached to mercer's hip since before they all started playing dnd together. i say good riddance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:110F:2D2:C642:4589:6F71:8487 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way below the notability threshold for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 24 November 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 Wrong forum. Sandboxes needed to go to MFD, not here. (non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Discusandhammer/sandbox

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

A copy of the page Vasili Arkhipov.--Ковентри (talk) 07:24, 18 November 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 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:44, 18 November 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 Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wheaton

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person notable primarily as sergeant at arms in the House of Representatives. This is certainly a role that would qualify him for an article if he could be reliably sourced as the subject of enough coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie that guarantees him an unsourced article in perpetuity — it makes him a civil servant, not a legislator, so it's no WP:NPOL pass. But this has literally existed since 2005 without ever actually having had a real reference added to it but for a now-deadlinked primary source namecheck of his existence in a list of the sergeants at arms on Congress's own website. Per Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives, more of his successors don't have articles than do, and even most of the minority who do have articles have other claims of notability besides sergeant at arms per se — I just spotchecked three articles at random, and all three were also actual congressmen or state-level officials at other times in their careers. So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to US history referencing than I've got can salvage it with better sourcing, but an article that's been this bad for twelve years now can't wait anymore. Bearcat (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives. As the inaugural holder, he's certainly a reasonable redirect to the office and the list of holders. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this postion is not in any way one of legislative authority, and so does not make the holder a notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives per Bushranger. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives per Bushranger. Although I have a feeling this article was created with the intent or design to make every name on the table in that article to be Wikilinked. Operator873^CONNECT 07:39, 26 November 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) 16:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McCall (politician)

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

WP:BLP, written like a prosified résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, about a person notable only as a registrar of deeds at the county level and chair of his county's local chapter of a political party. Neither of these are claims of notability that satisfy WP:NPOL -- a person has to hold office at the state level, not the county level, to be considered automatically notable for the fact of holding office per se -- but it's not sourced to anywhere near enough reliable source coverage about him to get him past NPOL #2, but to a mix of primary sources, purely routine local coverage of the local elections, and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. Exactly none of this is any reason whatsoever why he would qualify for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low-level county official and political operative who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even in a county with well over 1 million inhabitants would the register of deeds be notable, but with under 200,000 inhabitants, clearly not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 25 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Fjeld

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in an election. As always, this is not an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:NPOL -- a person has to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered automatically notable as a politician -- but there's no other claim of notability here, and not nearly enough reliable source coverage to deem her candidacy more notable than the norm: the references here are two primary sources, one raw table of primary results, and two pieces of the purely routine local coverage that any candidate for any office could always expect to receive. This is not enough media coverage to consider her candidacy a special notability case. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2014, where her candidacy is mentioned. In the future, WP:BOLDly redirecting to the election article in these cases, instead of going to AfD, may be a worthwhile endeavour. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have actually been a considerable number of cases where RFD has weakened the notion of any standard consensus that every candidate should always be kept as a redirect to the election they ran in — for one thing they sometimes end up sitting on top of more notable people with a stronger claim to primary topic than the candidate has, and for another it's not always clear that any non-trivial number of people is ever actually going to search for a person who was notable only as a non-winning candidate (and in the rare event that somebody did, the election page would turn up in the search results anyway.) So while it's still not a thing that can never happen, it's not a thing that should automatically happen for all articles about non-winning candidates either — it's a thing that requires a more substantive reason than just "her name is present in that other article", so it requires discussion about its value rather than just arbitrary boldness. Not that I'm fundamentally opposed to it if consensus prefers that here, but it's not a thing that I would just do on my own without a consensus behind it. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with Bearcat here. However, I don't have a great universal test for when a redirect is more or less appropriate. Perhaps a first step would be to boldly move a losing candidate to a Name (Country Politician) naming style rather than just Name before a redirect would help with the primary topic concern. --Enos733 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Her campaign was so insignificant, it does not seem to merit any mention on the page of her opponent, which focuses entirely on the primary election. The privious Republican had not gotten less than 61% of the vote since the late 1980s, so this was not a truly contested seat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 24 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Daly (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in a state legislature primary. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed automatically notable as a politician — but there's no evidence of reliable source coverage about him to suggest that his candidacy was somehow more noteworthy than usual: four of the five references here are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, and the fifth is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in routine local coverage of the basic fact that the primary election was happening. This is not enough to make a non-winning candidate notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Clearly created to promote a 2016 Congressional primary run, and abandoned when the candidate lost. Future tense when past tense is called for is the evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Carolina Senate election, 2016 (which badly needs work itself, but that's another matter). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject was involved in a state legislative race, not even a federal race and fails WP:NPOL. It would not be a usual occurrence to redirect a losing candidate of a state legislative race to a page about the election, especially a page that is about multiple races (in 2016, there were 50 Senate seats up for election). --Enos733 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this was not "congressional", the state senate is a postion in the state legislature. Short of US senate, candidates are not notable, and for US senate there needs to be substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 23 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moriarty (government official)

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a deputy superintendent for one division of a government department. This is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles him to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but there's no evidence being shown that he passes WP:GNG at all -- the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as press releases from his own employer and transcripts of him speaking, with the closest thing to reliable source coverage being a single blurb in the "employment announcements" column of an insurance industry trade magazine. This is not even close to what it takes to make someone like this encyclopedically notable. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actual heads of state departments at times are notable, but deputy heads of parts of them clearly are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 25 November 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 David Duke#1988 presidential campaign. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Parker

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a minor fringe party candidate for vice-president of the United States. This is not an automatic notability freebie per WP:NPOL just because the person exists, but there's nowhere near enough reliable source coverage here to get him over WP:GNG in lieu -- the only references here are a glancing namecheck of his existence on one page of a book about the presidential candidate he was running under, and a raw table of election results. This is nowhere near enough to make him encyclopedically notable for this. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to David Duke#1988 presidential campaign. Apparently those who have contributed to this article have not been able to find much information about the subject, nor have I been able to do so in preparing this response. If reliable sources with more information about the subject are discovered later, the redirect can be turned back into a full article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on the Duke campaign. The total campaign got less than one half of one percent of the votes cast, but he was not even the Vice President candidate in all those votes. This is a very insignificant number of votes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 19 November 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. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danale Inc

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

Non notable company by any criterion created by declared COI editor, declined at AFC but he copy-pasted it prematurely to mainspace. He removed PROD and cannot provide an evidence their company is notable. Fails WP:GNG, no reliable coverage I can found the paid editor cannot provide one either. Fails all SNGs about organizations, no WP:CORPDEPTH. Earlier created it with name Danale platform and it was speedily deleted. — Ammarpad (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. On an interesting note, two blue linked execs in the infobox are the wrong people; the SPA who created the article was probably planning to create articles on them, hence the links. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotionalism,and almost certainly non notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 18 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lavora Barnes

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as chief operating officer (not even chair) of a state-level political party and press secretary for a political campaign. Neither of these is an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but the article isn't referenced well enough to get her over WP:GNG -- other than two primary source acknowledgements of her existence on the websites of directly-affiliated organizations, it's otherwise referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people, with no evidence being shown of any reliable source coverage about her. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete State party COO's need lots and lots of good coverage to show notability, that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to establish notability by itself, not that the party is any more notable because of this COO. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 19:52, 25 November 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 Heavy metal music. I'm going to leave this unprotected for now. If genre warring becomes a problem, we can readdress the question of protection. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional heavy metal

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no genre called "traditional heavy metal", it's just heavy metal with an adjective added in the front to indicate a straight-ahead, early or classic heavy metal style rather than a later subgenre such as death metal. It's obvious that this article was formed to deal with the straight-ahead metal style all by itself rather than the other usage of the term "heavy metal" which is an umbrella for all the metal genres and subgenres. The fatal problem here is that the Heavy metal music article already covers the umbrella term and the classic heavy metal style, as well as touching upon the main subgenres. The sources here are misrepresented, for instance, the About.com article says that traditional heavy metal is the same genre put forward by the New wave of British heavy metal. It doesn't say that traditional heavy metal is its own genre. The book Sound of the Beast by Ian Christe says nothing at all about traditional heavy metal. The book Metal: The Definitive Guide by Garry Sharpe-Young uses adjective "traditional" all over the place, but without using it to define a separate genre. It even says "traditional thrash metal" on page 443 and 452, and "traditional death metal" on page 489. Nowhere in the book is "traditional heavy metal" defined as its own genre. So this article doesn't have a basis for existence in the sources, and its intended information is already found in the articles heavy metal music and new wave of British heavy metal. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a remarkably well-argued nomination (with a redirect to the "heavy metal music" article mentioned above, as this would seem a plausible search term). Unless there's a multiplicity of sources using the term consistently - and I'm not finding them either - there's really no article to be had here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to heavy metal music per preceding comment ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Would only support a redirect with some heavy page protection, as this is going to keep coming up with all the genre-warring that occurs on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 18 November 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) 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ray Murray

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

WP:BLP of an unsuccessful candidate for political office, whose only discernible claim of notability is that after losing a primary he said something kind of loopy about the incumbent representative that he lost to. This just makes him a WP:BLP1E, but there's nowhere near enough reliable source coverage about any other aspect of his campaign to deem his candidacy more notable than the norm for other non-winning candidates -- apart from the robot weirdness, the only other sources here are the purely WP:ROUTINE results tables and political blog-analysis that any candidate for anything could always show. There's simply nothing here that constitutes a valid reason for a permanent encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and there are also BLP issues, as this person is also known locally for his delusional statements that indicate possible mental illness. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL is not close to being met, and there's no other claim of notability. Clearly doesn't meet WP:FRINGEBLP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete multiple discussions have over and over again demonstrated that candidates for congress are not default notable for such. We need to do better at preventing campaign promoting biographies from being made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I’m happy to revisit this if sources appear later. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Raggett

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

This is a music journalist. He's published lots of reviews, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage of him personally. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Raggett has written so much for so many publications (in the UK as well as the US) that any coverage of him will be difficult to find from a Google search among the multitude of works by him, but I found several Google Books results where his work is cited. I think he's sufficiently influential to be included. --Michig (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we have reliable sources that cover the subject in detail we delete the article. Handwaving and claiming such sources cannot be found because they are drowned in too much of a sea of sources does not avoid the problem that such sources have not been identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Though the presen sources may be inadequate but absence of many sources is not reason for deletion. This person is one of the most contributors of Music reviews, publishing thousands of them in various media since 1980s. His reviews are also well cited in many academic works. — Ammarpad (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds kind of like WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Where are these sources to show notability? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, thanks you say "kind of like". Nonetheless WP:MUSTBESOURCES is an essay while what I posted above is a guideline. I too noted that the souces present in the article might be inadequate but given his achievement he certainly passes WP:GNG. And that is the essence of WP:NPOSSIBLE guideline for people like this but no willing editor to mine the sources, since people generally focus on what interest them. Deletion is not cleanup here {{Refimprove}} can take care of this. — Ammarpad (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, prolific and probably good at their job, but being published often is not the same as being the subject of published works. There's a bit of handwaving that says that the sources should exist, but nobody has actually managed to present any. If sources are found later, then the article can be recreated easily enough. For now, fails WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 26 November 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. The single argument that the subject is not notable has been countered by evidence that he is. Michig (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard J. Cerullo

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

BLP with no external references Rathfelder (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He may pass WP:GNG with sources like [15] and [16].--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Keep: ~34 pages in book Vital Signs by the author of the Tribune article above, which also appears to have been adapted by Readers Digest[17]. "Pioneered the use of lasers in neurosurgery and noninvasive methods for various primary and metastatic brain tumors"[18]. President of the ASLMS from 93-94[19], which had given him an award in 1987[20], "...for their accomplishments in either the research or clinical field, based on their lifetime contribution to laser technology". Mentions in book reviews at [21] and [22]. Society of Neurological Surgeons bio is at [23]. NACADEMIC criteria requires expert assessment, as it appears he may have claims against a few of them. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per the large number of sources with a high reputation and easy significant coverage found in Vital Signs by sources independent of himself, thus qualifying for our general notability standards. Also, AfD is not cleanup, that being in reference to the nominator's statement. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 21:14, 24 November 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 Jesse Lacey#Personal life. Not much discussion here. I suppose I could call this No Consensus, but I'm going with the redirect. The history is still there, so if somebody wants to mine the current article for information to merge, that's an option, but I won't include it in the consensus. If you do perform a merge, please see WP:SMERGE to make sure you're providing proper attribution. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coasta (band)

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

Non-notable band/musician and only claim to fame is that the creator/lead is the brother of someone notable. No coverage in RS, no charts, nothing qualifying under WP:GNG CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Jesse Lacey. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did a Google search and found some more reliable sources, which I added to the article. I think it now passes GNG. Andise1 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure, since they haven't done much (released only one EP five years ago that went nowhere), and aren't signed to a notable label. WP:TOOSOON, if anything. Citations are more niche than third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 18 November 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 suggested redirect target, Naseer Ahmad Nasir#Works, was just deleted itself. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paighambar e Azam O Aakhir

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

Book published by vanity publisher. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alternative to deletion: Redirect to mention at Naseer Ahmad Nasir#Works as valid search term. czar 05:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No reviews from academic or notable people and no sources for proving if the book is really important. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:15, 25 November 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfaraz Rajar

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in various sources as a literary and political figure [24], besides book sources. Mar4d (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails because information is trivial. Störm (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination fails GNG. Adamgerber80 (talk)
Delete the sources are not substantial enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 25 November 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 seems to be an agreement that this page is promotional or has been promotional in the past, but there is no consensus on the question of whether it is so bad that the article should be deleted as opposed to just cleaned up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Vivace

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

Just advertising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. There are plenty of source for expanding and improving this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides the sources already shared, founder David Schomer is a regular speaker on the coffee conference circuit. I have seen him a couple of times in New York at conferences speaking on behalf of Vivace and Seattle coffee culture. Conference listings and presentations are not the usual reliable sources but the fact of these presentations establishes that Vivace is more than a local coffeehouse. They do consulting and advising for other coffeehouses. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is really promotional. Even if notable it needs a thorough rewrite, otherwise we might as well delete it as G11. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They might be notable, in which case an article could be written. But the first step is to remove this. If an erticle is fundamentally promotional to the point it would take a rewrite, it should be deleted. That's the only way we can make an impression of the promotional editors.Otherwise, any attempt to help them is doing their work for them, while they get paid for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the reason we can’t clean it up is you want to punish the article’s creator? Per WP:DENY or something? Even though they haven’t edited since 2008? And were’t blocked? Or are you accusing one of us of something? Who are the “promotional editors” you want to send a message to? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not punish, but to deter similar editing. I agree that's not ideal, but we have no other effective method, as long as we remain committed to "Anyone can edit". DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fully support that if I thought that would genuinely deter COI editing. I just don't believe that a PR flack working for Home Depot is going to notice that an article about a Seattle coffee shop was created in 2008 and deleted in 2017, and therefore they won't try to add advertising about Home Depot's new lawn mowers. The fact that the article existed for 9 years is encouragement enough, assuming they are even paying attention to this article. If they were, I'd hope they notice that it gets only 300 page views a month. If a company is paying $2 for 1,000 ad impressions, this works out to about about $8 worth of advertising per year. They would spend 2-3 person hours, at a cost of $50 to $100, for $8 worth of "free" ads. I wish they were paying attention enough to understand that. But I don't have any evidence that they do. COI editors know little to nothing about Wikipedia, and they don't learn the history and mistakes of other COI editors. They just jump in, write a biased article, and in the case of Espresso Vivace, it hangs around for years because hardly anybody is even aware it exists. Deleting this article won't prevent a future COI editor from doing the same thing.

And that is why there is nothing in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that lends much support to deleting this article on those grounds. The subject obviously has received significant coverage enough coverage to meet GNG, or WP:CORPDEPTH, or you could say David Schomer meets WP:ANYBIO and we should redirect there. Regardless of how we go about cleaning it up, the only applicable guideline here is "AfD is not cleanup." I am sympathetic to the idea of discouraging using Wikipedia for advertising, and getting rid of this minor article would be a small price to pay if it helped, but I don't see any evidence that it would help in a case like this. I'd change my mind if I did see evidence, or if we had clear guidelines saying promotional content was sufficient grounds for deletion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What will deter promotional editors is consistency in removing promotional articles. Even good faith but naive editors base their content in the promotional style , because there is so much of it they think it's what is wanted here. It's not this specific article by itself that will have the effect. but that can be argued against doing any such deletion, with the result that we'd delete none of them. To remove them all, we haveto go one at a time.

Keep — Notability is met several times over. Multiple high-quality sources make a good case for each of the following, any one of which is sufficient to keep the article:
1. Establishing and popularizing modern American latte art
2. Popularizing boutique espresso in Seattle and across the US
3. Training and influencing baristas across the US, establishing norms that are taken for granted now
4. Technical innovations in bean roasting and espresso brewing methods and equipment
5. Widespread acknowledgement of David C. Schomer as a pioneer in espresso small business entrepreneurship, foodie culture, and barista techniques

A good case could be made that we should have a bio about Schomer with a large section about Espresso Vivace, rather than an article about Espresso Vivace with a large section about Schomer (one or the other but not both), but that's a question of how to clean up the article. All that matters to us here is that it passes the bar for notability. WP:G11 doesn't apply because fundamentally, the article contents are fine. It's merely a matter of achieving a more neutral tone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the major issue here. it's promotionalism. If something doesn't pass WP:NOT, there's no point in even consideringthe notability guidelines, DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If a subject is notable, then we should keep and improve the article. Reduce it to a stub, if need be, to remove promotional content, but deletion is not necessary. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to know which content is promotional. If someone says the tone is promotional, OK, then please fix it. But the basic facts? Which ones? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep evidence for notability in several books: "has set the standard for excellence for lattes in Seattle and throughout the United States" [25], "[the] famed Seattle cafe Espresso Vivace" [26], "Espresso Vivace, renowned for its devotion to perfection in coffee" [27] and more. If this was just covered in one or two guidebooks (which it is, including Fodor's Seattle, Lonely Planet Washington, Oregon & the Pacific Northwest and Not for Tourists Guide to Seattle) I'd be less strident, but what exists here is actually something that has changed American culture and can be documented in an encylopedic fashion. Based on my research for this reply, I'm fine with Dennis Bratland's suggestion to swap the articles around so the main subject is David Schomer. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business page is an excellent example of advocating the business and that means WP:Not advocate, a basic policy and this policy supersedes WP:GNG, as the latter's first psrsgraph states. Notability is not relevant now that this is what lies between preserving the encyclopedia or an ordinary business. Trampton (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving the encyclopedia? Wikipedia will not survive if we don't delete this now? If that's the only way to save Wikipedia, then by all means, we must. But I kind of wonder how Wikipedia survived for the last nine years?

WP:NOTADVERTISING could supersede WP:GNG since policy trumps a guideline, but this policy doesn't do that. In fact WP:NOTADVERTISING explicitly tells us to follow those guidelines when it says, "See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability." If we do as the WP:NOT policy says and follow the advice on advertising, we are told to do three steps, in order: first, clean it up (per WP:NOTCLEANUP, obviously), second, remove the advertising content, and third, delete the whole article, if steps 1 and 2 didn't resolve the issue.

There simply isn't any policy or guideline that says "nuke promotional article on sight without even trying to fix the problem." Numerous polices and guidelines say clearly to not do that. Editing policy goes into even greater detail about how and why we operate this way, and WP:CANTFIX spells this out even more clearly. Don't nuke content that is fixable. You could claim it is harmful in its current state, but that doesn't square with the nine year history of this article having not caused any detectable harm. Or you could say "delete this article in spite of policy, because WP:IAR". You can always say IAR. But it's inaccurate to say that WP:NOT or any other policy justifies deletion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and to date, I have not found any article that is "intellectually independent". Invariably the references either talk about the founder, Schomer, which this article is *not* about, or the references rely on interviews with Schomer. For those that have expressed a KEEP !vote, can you please provide links to any two articles that meet the criteria for establishing notability and meet the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be near-complete agreement that redirecting Espresso Vivace to David Schomer to is at least as good as redirecting David Schomer to Espresso Vivace. I favor expanding Espresso Vivace first, and thinking about moving or renaming later, but it's really six of one or half a dozen of the other. Espresso Vivace has a broader scope than a Schomer bio, making it easier to cover the entire topic in one article and avoid multiple articles about these subjects, which would simply annoy our readers for no good reason. This is an editorial decision dealing with cleanup, outside the scope of AfD. Note that a long interview with a subject in a respected publication is evidence of notability: it is independent, and it is not self-published. The fact that a major publication will devote large amounts of space to printing the a subject's answers to questions is all the more proof that that person is notable.

The following more than meet GNG or CORPDEPTH:

Here is evidence for the claims to notability that I enumerated in my previous comment above. Standards such as WP:CREATIVE don't rely on a minimum quantity of coverage, such as article size or number of articles, but only on the existence of achievements or innovations in a field. These below are sufficient to keep, independent of meeting GNG (above):

Many sources credit Vivace with various innovations, but some take issue with that:

http://thesheridanpress.com/70176/baristas-connect-latte-art/

Per the due weight policy, we focus on the widespread consensus while giving proportionate attention to dissenting views. Also, Schomer's book Espresso Coffee: Professional Techniques IS self-published. Many reliable sources cite it, but we need to treat it as a WP:SPS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may well have a promotional tone. But the way to fix promotional tone is by cleaning up the article, and AfD is not for cleanup. The subject is clearly notable. At that point, we keep and scrub. I've picked up the strong sense that there's an aura pervading AfD these days of 'articles on businesses are inherently not notable and should be deleted', and the fact that some editors above are explicitly stating "notability doesn't matter" is extremely concerning. As Dennis Bratland points out, this is not a policy-based argument to delete, and I hope the closing admin considers that accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon consideration, meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD per a review of available sources, and also retain per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly expanded after this discussion was initiated (diff), and concerns regarding promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I quote WP:GNG:

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy and WP:AUD's same page says Except matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, routine restaurant reviews, passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization. Copyediting isn't an excuse for deleting an advertisement against WP:Deletion policy and WP:NOT which in turn say: pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content. These policies describe very clearly that we need an article in a good condition without promotion, and the article has those promotions without any proposals on how to fix it. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree with the notion that this article could potentially be renamed to David Schomer, becoming a biographical article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not aware that notability overrides G11 spam, and although the argument has been made that it could be cleaned up, no one has actually attempted to do so, unsurprising given that the refs are mainly PR pieces. And I don't acceptthat spam is OK if it doesn't get many views, either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This little place had a huge impact on the Seattle coffee scene that was the creative drive behind much larger companies, such as Starbucks as we know it today. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you to Dennis_Bratland for listing the references above. But. As I already stated above, references must be intellectually independent in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability. I also stated that interviews with Schomer or their staff or their customers/suppliers/etc generally do *not* meet the criteria. I'm not sure if my summary of policy/guidelines was misinterpreted but, of the first six you list under the heading of "more than meet GNG and CORPDEPTH", three significantly rely on quotations and interviews and therefore fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. But I believe that this seattletimes.com reference meets the criteria as it has (in my opinion) sufficient independent opinion. The remaining reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. None of the remaining references (excluding the books) meet the criteria either but since I do not have full access to some of the quoted books (and given that it is clear that Schomer is revered by knowledgeable baristas), I would be far more inclined to create a David Schomer article since *all* of the references invariably talk about David and he appears to be better known than this business. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They are published in independent sources with a policy of fact checking. They are not presumed to be mere mouthpieces for the businesses they write about. If a business makes a boast about itself, reliable sources seek verification. The New York Times, for example cites first Veraci sources for their influence on roasting and brewing methods, then quotes a barista on the other side of the country who is independent of the subject to corroborate that. Mark Pendergrast's book similarly quotes independent sources to verify the claims, and that book is published by Basic Books, a venerable and highly respected publisher with a reputation for integrity and fact checking. We don't expect sources to be omniscient and infallible, but they make a reasonable effort to get the facts right and that is our definition of a reliable source. Several of these sources have a consensus about this company's influence, and the due weight policy says we give that mainstream consensus the greatest weight, even if the mainstream consensus says a lot of nice things about the subject. There isn't always a hidden dark side to every single topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry but this is simple advertising. The refs do not establish notability. What they establishes is that there is a coffee shop in Seattle (probably serving good coffee) operated by an individual who is very good at selling himself and his ideas to others. Well, that is fine, but it doesn't make for notability - it's an advert. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement here is false. The refs to not merely say the coffee shop exists or is merely good. They say it is influential in several different areas. Do you dispute the sources? Are you saying the NYT, NBC, LA Weekly, Village Voice, etc, or the books by Mark Pendergrast and Robert W. Thurston are not reliable sources? Or that you have other sources that dispute the claims to notability? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something I wanted to importantly contribute here is to show the actual extent of promotion here and the unsuccessful attempts at improving this article: Once, Twice and Thrice. It's not possible to be both an independent neutral encyclopedia who is uninvolved to company interests also support their own publicity along with including each time as linked, a devoted section to promoting a businessman's own self gains. The precedence here is our own encyclopedia principles. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're complaining that the article describes things that ast the subject in a positive light? If we refused to include this type of content, then the article wouldn't contain any mention of the things that make the subject notable. It would be like the bio of Isaac Newton omitting any mention of his discovery of the laws of gravity because it's "promotional". Featured Articles about contemporary businesses, such as Panavision or Cracker Barrel are a chronological history of the subject's innovations, influences on their industries, and expansions. They also include contractions and reorganizations, which even in stub form, are mentioned in the Espresso Vivace article. You're attempting to argue for a universal principle but it's clearly arbitrary. The standard you're using against this article would justify the deletion of these FAs and many others. NeXT, or On the Origin of Species, you name it. Wikipedia is not prejudiced against articles that cast their subject in a positive light if that content is a reflection of independent reliable sources, which we presume have a policy of editorial oversight and fact checking. You're framing this as if the content all comes from publications written by the subject, and that is false. The basis is independent sources known for their integrity. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like what SwisterTwister said, the article is just simply too promotional and a huge advertisement for a coffee shop that has faded out of the spotlight. The failed attempts to remove promotion have not helped either. Sources are lacking in sufficient content to prove any true notability. FiendYT ★
- See WP:SURMOUNTABLE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. If people feel it should be TNTd, then that can happen. The time to delete something notable is when much of past versions constitute an attack page, not for being "promotional", which as pointed out above is a dubious claim.L3X1 (distænt write) 17:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1 Actually no, the policy as quoted above is that anything is deleted when the deletion policy says deletion is clearly needed. 3 unsuccessful attempts is no better why should we trust a 4th time? Also, an attack page is not solely the criteria at Wal: Deletion policy, as several things besides "an attack page" can be deleted such as advertising, copyvio, BLP, etc. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 25 November 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) 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angels' Nectar

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

this article was created for advertisement only. No 3rd party sources found here. HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - possibly even suitable for a WP:G11 speedy delete ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:50, 25 November 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) 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic prediction procedure

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

WP:OR by an author whose name identifies him as the author of the two cited sources. Now down to one. Originally three, but one was a predatory open access publisher and the second turns out to be a journal founded by the author and published at the time of this paper by a predatory open access publisher. Guy (Help!) 00:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for all of these connected nominations; they all form one big walled garden of original research with no independent verifiability. I've been meaning to nominate these myself for months and just haven't felt able to commit the time to see it through.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason given at WP:AFD/Stochastic measurement procedure: self-promotion of non-notable research. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Junk and original research like the rest of this walled garden. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 21 November 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) 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernoulli space

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

This article is blatant WP:SYN. The term "Bernoulli space" is rarely used - Google finds only a hundred or so results - and the user Stochastikon-Bernoulli has written at least half a dozen articles discussing elements of it, all primarily drawn from the work of Elart von Collani, whose company is called Stochastikon. The user has not only cited Elert's work, but also linked the company website and other projects. In multiple articles. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for all of these connected nominations; they all form one big walled garden of original research with no independent verifiability. I've been meaning to nominate these myself for months and just haven't felt able to commit the time to see it through.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above for at least Bernoulli space, Causal thinking and Stochastic thinking (haven't checked the others yet). Minimal presence and use of these terms outside of the few publications apparently directly connected to the originator, and consisting of novel synthesis with a few camouflaging references to auxiliary concepts. This is an attempt to use WP to make the topics notable, which is exactly the wrong way round. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Causal thinking. XOR'easter (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as grandiose puffery, unsupported and unsupportable. XOR'easter (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junk and original research like the rest of this walled garden. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:OR and promotion of primary source that survive for so long. I am in support of deleting all these OR articles by this user because they are all similar and sourced from same source –Ammarpad (talk) 02:37, 25 November 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) 16:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chanda Hahn

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

WP:BLP of a writer, with no strong claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable sourcing to carry a claim that she passes WP:GNG in lieu. This is sourced 3/4 to her own self-published website about herself and 1/4 to a glancing namecheck of her existence in a blog post whose subject is a very general phenomenon, not to any proper evidence of reliable source coverage about her in real media. As always, every writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- an article has to be referenced to media coverage about her, not to her own website about herself, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to absence of independent sources, plus near-certain COI. Guy (Help!) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per preceding comment ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the 4 sources, 3 are by the subject and so are in no way independent. The 4th is identified as a blog at the top of it. It also only makes passing mention of the subject, in the context of new marketing techniques for ebook publishers. Plus the article references the University of Minneapolis, which redirects to the University of Minnesota, which I am pretty sure as a public institution does not offer a major in "children's ministry". So the article has major issues of content accuracy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 19 November 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) 16:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Random structure function

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

This appears to be WP:SYN. It is basically the work of one user, who has written several closely-related articles. The principal source cited in these articles is Elart von Collani, who runs a company called Stochastikon. The company name matches the username of the article author. Who has never, as far as I can see, edited any article without including a reference to Elart von Collani. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for all of these connected nominations; they all form one big walled garden of original research with no independent verifiability. I've been meaning to nominate these myself for months and just haven't felt able to commit the time to see it through.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet another member of the Stochastikon-bernoulli walled garden. XOR'easter (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junk and original research like the rest of this walled garden. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 21 November 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) 16:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Variability function

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

This appears to be WP:SYN. It is basically the work of one user, who has written several closely-related articles. The principal source cited in these articles is Elart von Collani, who runs a company called Stochastikon. The company name matches the username of the article author. Who has never, as far as I can see, edited any article without including a reference to Elart von Collani. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for all of these connected nominations; they all form one big walled garden of original research with no independent verifiability. I've been meaning to nominate these myself for months and just haven't felt able to commit the time to see it through.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with all the rest of the walled garden for all the reasons stated above. XOR'easter (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. As above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Junk and original research like the rest of this walled garden. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:OR and promotion of primary source. I am in support of deleting all these OR articles by this user because they are all similar. The AfDs should've been bundled together. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:31, 25 November 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) 16:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic thinking

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

This appears to be an article describing a neologism by reference to primary sources including PhD theses. It is basically the work of one user, who has written several closely-related articles. The principal source cited in these articles is Elart von Collani, who runs a company called Stochastikon. The company name matches the username of the article author. Who has never, as far as I can see, edited any article without including a reference to Elart von Collani. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for all of these connected nominations; they all form one big walled garden of original research with no independent verifiability. I've been meaning to nominate these myself for months and just haven't felt able to commit the time to see it through.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vainglorious self-promotion. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PRIMARY. XOR'easter (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junk and original research like the rest of this walled garden. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant introduction of WP:OR and promotion of primary sources. I am in support of deleting all OR articles by this user. Ammarpad (talk) 02:21, 25 November 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) 16:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernoulli stochastics

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

This appears to be an article describing a neologism by reference to primary sources including PhD theses. It is basically the work of one user, who has written several closely-related articles. The principal source cited in these articles is Elart von Collani, who runs a company called Stochastikon. The company name matches the username of the article author. Who has never, as far as I can see, edited any article without including a reference to Elart von Collani. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for all of these connected nominations; they all form one big walled garden of original research with no independent verifiability. I've been meaning to nominate these myself for months and just haven't felt able to commit the time to see it through.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth adding to the pile, in my opinion, are Causal Thinking and Quantification of randomness (by the same creator), and maybe others I haven't noticed.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant self-promotion, tiresomely covering the same ground as other instances of the same (e.g., Bernoulli space). Fails WP:PRIMARY and WP:GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junk and original research like the rest of this walled garden. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional original research, fails GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:OR and promotion of primary source. I am in support of deleting all these OR articles by this user because they are all similar –Ammarpad (talk) 02:26, 25 November 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. Michig (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Gaines (composer)

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

Not notable. No sources given. Three External Links are to primary source. Searching turns up only mirrors or passing mentions. MB 00:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not independently verifiable, therefore not proven to be notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N is not clear or WP:V. I don't think any of the awards mentioned confer permanent notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are anywhere near being reliable sources, let alone third party sources be even the most generous interpretations of such. There is also nothing that comes close to meeting the general guidelines evident in our music notability guidelines, which are the types of notability guidlines, requiring something more than just meeting the GNG, and rejecting articles that just scape by that low standard, that we really need to start incorporating in sports notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 19 November 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.

[1] ttps://twitter.com/iameden/status/928854084005789696

[2] ttp://www.astralwerks.com/music/releases/vertigo/

[3] ttp://www.billboard.com/articles/news/dance/8031124/eden-new-song-gold-vertigo-debut-album

[4] ttp://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/livenation/pressreleases/irlaendska-supertalangen-eden-till-stockholm-2266698

[5] ttp://pigeonsandplanes.com/music/2017/11/eden-gold

[6] ttps://www.axs.com/eden-drops-new-single-and-announces-2018-vertigo-world-tour-in-support-125269

[7] ttps://www.stubwire.com/event/edenvertigoworldtourveacuteriteacute/whiteoakmusichall/houston/16467/

[8] ttp://ventsmagazine.com/2017/11/10/eden-announces-debut-album-vertigo-jan-19th-2018-astralwerks-virgin-emi/

[9] ttps://www.edmsauce.com/2017/11/10/eden-gold-debut-album-tour/

[10] ttp://www.billboard.com/articles/news/lifestyle/8005931/eden-start-end-video-guide-around-the-world

[11] ttps://live-arena.com/eden-vous-attend-avec-le-vertigo-world-tour-au-trabendo/

[12] ttp://pigeonsandplanes.com/in-depth/2017/11/best-songs-of-the-week-nov-10-2017/eden-gold-vertigo

[13] ttp://www.astralwerks.com/news/eden-release-debut-album-vertigo-january-19th-2018/

[14] Business Insider - 30 Most Popular Vine Stars - Thomas Sanders

[15] CNN - Vine Shut Down - Stars' next plans

[16] MTV - Thomas Sanders shares how being a Vine Star has helped him make a difference in the world

[17] AOL - Ultimate Storytime Tour with Vine Star Thomas Sanders

[18] Thomas Sanders on "The View"

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]