Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 August 27 August >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panzermadels[edit]

Panzermadels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can only find one "reliable" source, and it's more of a joke article. Other than that all the sources are WP:PRIMARY. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Which one did you feel was reliable? Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one, which doesn't appear in the article, though I really don't think that it fulfills the "significant" criteria as it's really only a few sentences when you remove all the images.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, I had just wondered if you had been referring to a source in the article, because I didn't think any of them there would be a RS. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of sources that meet the WP:GNG. Zero critic reviews at Metacritic doesn't instill confidence either. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I mean, what do you mean by "unreliable". Let's take this one for instance. What, exactly, is false or wrong in that source. Does the entity not exist and they're just making it up? Is it not a tank dating simulator? Was it not developed by DEVGRU-P and released on March 9? Please be more specific about which statements in the source you challenge.
Sources are reliable or unreliable for specific uses. The Lancet is an excellent source for information on new medical procedures. For information on the development of Lacrosse in the 19th century it is not a good source. Similarly the sources in this article would not be good sources for information about quantum mechanics. For information about video games they are good sources, since that is their field of expertise.
And of course it's not true that a full review of a couple paragraphs is not significant. It is true that the text of the GNG is not very helpful here, with the examples being "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band" [insufficient to support an article on that band], while the vast space between these two cases is left for our judgement. But I mean the rule is "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and it's stretching it quite a bit to equate a full two-paragraph review with a passing mention in part of a sentence. I think everyone would agree that the intent of the rule was not to deprecate full reviews, even short one.
There's also a quote from Brianna Wu, who is a significant person with a full article here. And I mean deleting this is going to put a big dent in our coverage of moe anthropomorphisms of military hardware, although we still have Kantai Collection. I don't see the win-win in that. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems you don't have a full understanding of what makes a source reliable or significant. A quote from Brianna Wu is not a significant reference, as it is only a single sentence on Twitter with no other context, and was not published in a secondary source. Thegg.net is certainly not a reliable source, as they reinterpreted an otherwise sarcastic quote as a feminist comment, then criticized her judgement and compared her to Anita Sarkeesian, showing they have no editorial standards or at least any common sense. TVTropes and VNDB and Kickstarter are either unreliable, or primary sources. And your final argument, is basically WP:ILIKEIT, and it's obvious why that can't be the sole criterion articles exist.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. This about covers all the ways I was going to point out how this "keep" rationale is invalid. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sergecross/Zxcvbnm. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - game has purportedly been out for a year and a half, but there's no media cover I can find in anything resembling mainstream press. The Egg is an opinion piece, and the other sites are user contributed. Fails WP:RS TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D'Avanzo[edit]

Robert D'Avanzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Except for an article about somebody with the same name, the only coverage I can find are from database sites like TV.com and IMDB and associated social media profiles, none of which convey notability. DrStrauss talk 16:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:51, 26 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sportska Dvorana Kralja Tomislava[edit]

Sportska Dvorana Kralja Tomislava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails building notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 14:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. I've been in school auditoria larger than this. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: let's write you an article! :P DrStrauss talk 21:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paris & Simo[edit]

Paris & Simo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An egregiously spammy article from the same folks as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSS Medical Research: built by a series of SPA PR-style and possibly sockpuppet accounts; with at least one Montreal-based IP popping up to remove advert tag. I think enough is enough. I don't believe this duo meets WP:BAND. I see no significant coverage or releases, with a great deal of the mentions that do exist coming from the non-notable blog "Your EDM." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Clearly WP:GNG notable I agree that the tone is not encyclopedic, and should be muffled. But the unrelenting and overboard fanzine style and wording merits a rewrite. It is no reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No compliance with WP:Before"? As I stated in my nomination, and reiterate, I found no significant coverage in reliable sources. I ask the above editor to link to some significant coverage in reliable sources. Not links to sound files. Not passing mentions in blogs. Bona fide WP:RS. If it exists, I'll withdraw this. How is it Clearly WP:GNG notable? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paris Simo team Karen Hardingpublished in Vents Magazine. Found this easily on Bing.com. Haven't yet gone beyond this one. But used "Paris Simo review". Using the Wikipedia article creates a biased return on the Google search. GIGO. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. That's useful and I would agree that may be one RS. I will continue to search without the ampersand to see what else might be found. For example, this story about the same pairing with Karen Harding from the Uproxx blog, states "In a press release, the duo explain..." so I would not consider that to be a bona fide reliable source indicating notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://bythewavs.com/paris-simo-zombie-3lau-tomorrowworld-edit/ FWIW, I think that this kind of music has its own echo chamber. I know nothing about the group – I never heard of them before – but they seem to be well-liked in their genre. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a sound file with a short blurb. It does nothing to meet GNG nor BAND. Our personal feelings have nothing to do with the matter: I live in the heart of Montreal's arts district and have never heard of them nor seen anything about them. That's not what this nomination is based on, nor should opposition to this nomination be based on personal impressions. If they're as manifestly notable as you have claimed, we should have no trouble finding significant coverage of them in independent media -- not sound files or minor blogs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal information (or lack of information) is even less persuasive than "feelings." You do not have reliable sources saying they are unimportant in Montreal – your bare personal opinion with any sources butters no parsnips here.. In any event, if you bing.com "Paris simo electronic dance music"there sure are a lot of entries under "the web", "video: and "news."
The AFD seems to be based on an Ad hominem argument (fallacy) as to the contributors.
But as I don't have a dog in this fight, I'll leave it to other editors to chime in. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, I'm sorry but you've accused me of not having done a BEFORE search when I have. And I must say you don't seem to have the foggiest notion of what a WP:RS actually is. You've managed to find what may be one reliable source. I've no intention of replying to you further nor in withdrawing this -- and I too am interested in hearing from other informed editors on the matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to agree to(cordially) disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the current state of play. Leaving aside the assorted cattiness above, this is an article long on promotion and short on notability. A quick scan of search results suggests that that's the position it would be in even if entirely re-written. The fact that there's a bit of an "echo chamber" effect (which seems to be the case with a lot of up-and-coming musos, regardless of style, online these days) means that reliability and notability from outside of the chamber is required, and there really isn't any of that right now. I'll admit I can't claim to be overly informed beyond what I've written here, but if the opinion of an uninformed and uninvolved editor who's tried gamely to cut through the mischaracterisation of the issues above counts, then here it is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "accuse" you of anything. Simply commented on content and the AFD. For me, at least, this is not personal. Comment on the article, not the editors. WP:AGF. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And neither did I accuse you of accusing me of anything. My comment is on the article, as well as on the debate that had been going on before I contributed, which is germane to the discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moving beyond the back and forth above, there is little—dare I say nothing—here of notable substance among the 63(!) references. User submitted sites such as Beatport, Soundcloud, etc., listings and charts of digital activity and/or appearances, trivial mentions, and promo/press release coverage among insignificant blogs and websites. All of this confirms existence and an active internet presence, but no evidence of significant third party recognition necessary to establish Wikipedia notability. Truthfully, this should be an easy delete based on the feebleness of sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Your EDM is definitely notable but none of its sources cover the topic significantly. I tried finding some GNG sources on Google News but there were about only 5-6 about Paris & Simo songs and I don't believe those to be significant enough. The existing sources are mostly interviews and event listings. Fails WP:GNG. The tone can be fixed as the article can be re-written, it's not a reason for deletion. — Zawl 17:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changing my vote in light of other examiners' comments. WP:Too soon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Warning (Mexican band)[edit]

The Warning (Mexican band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable band, not clear how this could possibly pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND ? Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the sources cited:
- iTunes, the band's website, a Vimeo link to one of their videos, Facebook, and Blogspot are either affiliated or fall under WP:USERG or WP:SPS
- Movidiam's page on Abraham Marcos establishes that he exists (but not that he's notable) and that he worked with them, not that The Warning is notable.
- This article from Perfect Sound Forever (magazine) potentially qualifies as a reliable source. By itself, it's not enough to establish notability, though. This has prompted me to look for further WP:RSs, which brought up this article from Mic (media company), this one from BuzzFeed, this one from People online, and this one from Laughing Squid -- in just the first 10 results of a Google search for "the warning band." While I was initially assuming this would be non-notable and deletion worthy, WP:1E doesn't quite apply to bands so I have to say that this probably can be turned into something worth keeping. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also located this one from Tom Tom Magazine, which is from a year earlier than most of rest of the sources (EDIT: also, the Perfect Sound Forever source is from this year instead of 2015); and a couple of others. They may end up being a one-hit wonder, but there was coverage from a variety of sources, including Nerdist Industries (here) and Boston (magazine) (here). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have significantly de-PROMOed the article, and added a pile of references, most of which are no good, but some show notability, such as the Huffington Post reference. Also it seems this band was on the Ellen show, and that there are numerous references to covers they have done, so looking further could be fruitful, since I didn't go to page 2 on the google search (for: The Warning (Mexican Band). EDIT: due to edit conflict in which my revision got blanked, you have to see [diff] to see what I did, Ian.thomson's version seems better, explained in detail by him on the article talk page along with a breakdown of the sources.A Guy into Books (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC) & A Guy into Books (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As originally nominated it was WP:PROMO, but subsequent edits have significantly improved it. Still, it's kind of WP:SINGLEEVENT by most persons definition of notability, but I think there is now a cumulative amount of worthy sources to merit weak Wikipedia notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:29, 28 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Overend[edit]

David Overend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article - a politician and artist - doesn't appear to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:ARTIST. He did not win an election, and although he played a reasonably important role in both the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Progressive Unionist Party (two relatively minor parties, though significant in their own ways), his political involvement does not appear to be the subject of significant coverage in sources. Most of the material here is based on sources about those parties, where he is briefly mentioned, rather than on sources about Overend himself. This material could usefully be used in the party articles, but is not enough to establish Overend's notability. A search for sources about his art only really turns up sites selling his work. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suspect there will be more in the Northern Irish regional media and possibly other Irish papers, but sadly I only have access to the Irish Times from the period when he was most active. The 1985 Irish Times article is substantially about Overend, but the other sources are shorter mentions. He doesn't meet the specific notability criteria for politicians or artists, so I suppose this will have to be deleted unless more is found, which is a shame as there is plenty to say about him based on published sources, and he is an interesting and fairly notable figure. Warofdreams talk 21:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments, Warofdreams. I did search LexisNexis for Northern Irish newspaper coverage in an attempt to expand the article, but didn't find much, and it was that that made me wonder whether Overend met the inclusion criteria. I now realise that LexisNexis's archives don't go back to the 1960s and 1970s for most NI media. I do have access to microfilm archives of the main NI newspapers, but I don't think they are indexed sufficiently to make finding coverage of Overend realistic. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking a look. Sounds like a definite delete with the possibility of recreation if more turns up in future. Warofdreams talk 22:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's certainly possible that better sourcing might exist, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually show that, but nominator is correct that the sourcing present here consists almost entirely of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage that's substantively about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG. And nothing claimed in the article entitles him to an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of enough sourcing to clear GNG, either. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 28 August 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) 12:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Connected Universe[edit]

The Connected Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was hoodwinked at first reading this article, but now I think it's clear that it fails WP:NFILM. The references are not seriously collected but instead are regurgitated propaganda from the filmmaker. No awards won, no serious distribution, not particularly successful. The sourced reviews are all puff pieces by amateurs. Just about the only thing that the film has going for it is a famous narrator, but WP:NOTINHERITED means that this isn't enough. The claims that it is the highest-funded documentary on a particular crowdfunding site could not be independently verified(!) -- neither could the claim that it was the first film to benefit from online distribution of Indiegogo content by Vimeo(!). I argue that this may actually be ployed claims to fool us into thinking this is a notable film (the author of the article is a paid promotionalist who did not follow the WP:COI guidelines, that I can see). Very disappointing. jps (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - this appears only to serve the purpose of being supporting material for a claim of notability for Nassim Haramein, whose article is also likely to be AFDed shortly - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the "evidence" for notability would be suspiciously specific superlatives, even if they could be independently verified, which it now transpires they can't. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Junk science without evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - From the references and my own search I agree that it fails WP:NFILM. The phrase in the article "highest-funded documentary on Indiegogo at the time" is very sneaky, it was the highest-funded among the fundraising campaigns that were active at that particular moment when the Globe&Mail article was written, but did not break the record even at the time. Other previous indiegogo documentary campaigns had raised more money, indeed more money by an order of magnitude. --Steve (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing issues for this page have been addressed. I don't know why anyone is bringing up 'pseudoscience' or 'junk science' as a reason to delete - this isn't a theory page, this is a film page, and whatever content is in the movie should have no baring on it's notability. Further, this article was AFD'd seemingly right in response to Haramein's own page being put up. The film was highly crowd funded, had multiple trusted news sources feature it, has a well known narrator, and was featured first in Vimeo's video on demand pilot program. — Joe science (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • They really haven't. The film shows no general notability, nor passing WP:NFILM - David Gerard (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the Vimeo video on demand pilot program could have a page, if it was a historic event. This film should be mentioned there if it was a significant part of it. As it stands, every source noting this film's role in this event also notes in the same paragraph, and using essentially the same wording, that it was the highest funded Indiegogo documentary in history at that time, which we know is incorrect by more than a factor of ten. These are press release parrots. See WP:INDY. – Bobathon71 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found a free download of the film and watched it. The film is well-crafted and very poetic, but it is painfully crammed with pseudo-scientific nonsense. - DVdm (talk) 08:51, 2 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Panesar[edit]

Arjun Panesar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marginal notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that while the topic may be notable, this article's content and sources are so poor that deletion is the best option. This does not prevent the creation of a more competently written article about this topic (or perhaps the more general topic of supposed US interference in Russian politics, to start with).  Sandstein  10:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American interference in the 1996 Russian elections[edit]

American interference in the 1996 Russian elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources in the article are directly about the US interfering in the election. Moreover, this inside the election is not WP:N and the article apprears to be WP:OR. Casprings (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was also going to AfD this, but I thought I would wait a few hours to see if the author was going to flesh out the empty sections with supported information. But nothing further was forthcoming, and the article fails to provide any evidence to support its title or its thesis. There is a Background section, which is entirely about internal Russian issues, and a speculative sentence saying "Bill Clinton might have ordered to bring some American advisers to help Yeltsin", and a twice-repeated claim that American interference was confirmed by "major medias", none of which are provided. There is one relevant reference, a very POV opinion piece which links to a historic TIME article; that article says that the Yeltsin campaign secretly hired some American political advisors (i.e., private parties). Evidence that the U.S. government itself was involved? None. I don't think we can classify this as a hoax, but it is certainly an unsupported claim. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing in provided links, that supports the claim. Also, all the info is in "speculation" area. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dead links, several book blurbs that don't mention the US and/or interference, a Time article saying that the Yeltsin campaign hired an American firm to "teach us Western political-advertising techniques" - zero sources supporting any of the editor's claims. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete original research. the article creator has a track record of creating very POV articles. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete point-y, pure original resource. Neutralitytalk 20:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it snowing yet? --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A little bit of "Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to Make a Point," a little bit of shame on you Wikipedians for piling on on the wrong side of an actually encyclopedic topic. The CIA & Co. was into propping up Yeltsin up to their elbows. That much is legit. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just don't want this to snow out. This is may be a bad, POV, POINTy title that needs to be fixed. However, American intervention in the Russian elections is a real thing that has been the subject of academic scrutiny. Whether TNT is called for is perhaps debatable, a title fix is essential, but this is an encyclopedic topic, period. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a little effort on my part to document the fact that this is not a horseshit topic: THIS is from an entity I haven't heard of, Global Research, but claiming "In keeping with Russian laws at the time, Zyuganov spent less than three million dollars on his campaign. Estimates of Yeltsin’s spending, by contrast, range from $700 million to $2.5 billion." and citing a book for this assertion: David M. Kotz, Russia’s Path from Gorbachev to Putin, 2007. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one you might have heard of, the Los Angeles Times: "The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time. He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions." LINK. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriately named Dick Morris INDICATES that Bill Clinton "meddled" in the 1996 Russian elections. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
THIS is probably a right wing source, but they're correctly dredging up Time magazine reportage of American interference in the 1996 Russian election. They cite a Time cover story: "Yanks To The Rescue — The Secret Story Of How American Advisers Helped Yeltsin Win." That Time feature would seem to count to GNG, eh? Carrite (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'm going to ping all the dogpilers and let them have a chance to contemplate things in this light. MelanieN Arthistorian1977 South Nashua Power~enwiki Space4Time3Continuum2x LibStar ... Carrite (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still positive it's a conspiracy theory and links provided do not have any verified claim of such interference. It's just a personal opinion of two editors out of thousand others. For such a controversial topic, in order to establish notability, there has to be much more. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lest you thing this is a right wing conspiracy theory (it is not), here is THE HUFFINGTON POST: "Ironically, given the outrage directed at Moscow today, in 1996 Washington did what it could to ensure the reelection of Boris Yeltsin over the communist opposition. The U.S. backed a $10.2 billion IMF loan, an ill-disguised bribe were used by the Yeltsin government for social spending before the election. Americans also went over to Russia to help. Time magazine placed Boris Yeltsin on the cover holding an American flag; the article was entitled “Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisers Helped Yeltsin Win.” Carrite (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a shit ton more, including details in a book by David Hoffman, The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia. You get the point. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved to the fence here given the work put in regarding this piece. The sources in there now seem to meet RS, so I want to give it a shot, but I still worry enough that I can't give it a Keep. South Nashua (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to give some input regarding some of references mentioned above:
  1. The Global Research article is not remotely a reliable source. Global Research/Centre for Research on Globalization is the product of 911 truther Michel Chossudovsky. (MelanieN is much too kind in her description of the organization.) If we accept that as a source, we might as well cite Institute for Historical Review when discussing the Holocaust.
  2. The Los Angeles Times, a reliable source, is discussing Don Levin's recent study. Levin has also discussed his own research in The Washington Post: [1].
  3. The article by Jeffrey Lord in the American Spectator[2] is quoting a Newsmax article recapping Steve Malzberg's interview of Dick Morris who claimed a number of things[3]. The claims of Morris have not been substantiated by anyone. Also keep in mind that Newsmax is the website of Christopher Ruddy known for Vince Foster conspiracy theories.
  4. Joseph Curl in The Daily Caller[4] is citing a 2001 Time article [5] that discusses how the Yeltsin hired some people (Dresner, Gorton, Shumate) who worked for Pete Wilson. The alleged link to the US government is through Morris, but that is denied by Dresner. An official response to the story - denying influencing the election, of course - is here.
  5. The Huffington Post article is a re-posting of Doug Bandow's article in Forbes which is probably reliable. He is citing the aforementioned research by Don Levin and the aforementioned Time article.
  6. Regarding David Hoffman's The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia, I'm not sure what details point in the book point to US influence in the election but I get two hits for "Clinton" and no hits for "Dick Morris" in my search of the Gbook.
My view is that Levin's research is valid and notable enough for mention in Wikipedia, but I don't think without mainstream acceptance of his conclusions that it is sufficient to create a stand-alone article based upon it. Levin's research and the allegations - centered around Dick Morris's ties with Clinton - might have enough coverage to mention them in Russian presidential election, 1996. -Location (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dogpiler comment: Why don't you tell me how Pres. Clinton endorsing a loan by the International Monetary Fund to Russia is interference in an election? For another perspective, read this. Dogpile before accusing editors of dog piling! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment, although I reject the description of "dogpiler": I already commented above about the TIME article, which says what I said it says: the Yeltsin campaign hired some American advisors. That's all. Global Research seems like a rather slanted site in an anti-American direction; see their "War Crimes" page for example, featuring titles like "Iraq Invasion – Anniversary of The Biggest Terrorist Attack in Modern History". The estimates of Yeltsin's spending - $700 million to $2.5 billion - seem absurd on their face (we conveniently can't see the source), unless they count Yeltsin's use of the IMF loan for public benefit spending (is payment of back wages and pensions a campaign expense now?). But the bottom line is: if you, Carrite, are trying to save this article, the way to do it is to improve the article. Add this information and these sources to the article. Then, maybe, you will change some minds. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. I understated the case: Global Research is a think tank with a strong anti-West, and particularly anti-U.S., slant. Just take a look at their current web page: [6]. I don't think it can be used as a source in the article, although your other sources can. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still an Unsourced POV fork with serious OR and synthesis issue. Can those who want to keep it insert these new sources (some of which are just about general US interference in Russian elections so support a page move).Slatersteven (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TO add, also the article needs to be a lot less POVy, At least one of these new sources says it was not interference by the US government they just knew about it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the article was copied from another article. Two sentences from the lead as well as the entire "Background" section were copied from Boris Yeltsin, as editor Diannaa pointed out. The text that wasn't copied is unsourced and pretty much unintelligible. Example: During 1996 Russian Presidential Election, Boris Yeltsin, the first President of modern Russia, was on its track due to the fear of revival of communism after leader of Communist Party of Russia, Gennady Zyuganov, went on track. Yeltsin was not in favor due to lack of supports from local public as his reforms were going nowhere, and the failure in Chechnya. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great point. The article as currently constituted consists of 1) material duplicated in its entirety from another article plus 2) a few sentences of nonsense. And to this point nobody, even the people arguing to keep, seems to think the article is worth improving. MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First off, some semantic quibbling (Chomsky is a linguist by trade, after all): How does a government go about interven[ing] quite blatantly and openly, then tr[ying] to conceal it? Buy up and burn all the newspapers in 1996? Secondly, he's welcome to his opinion, but that's all it is: his opinion, uttered in an interview he gave to flog his new book, zero source(s) to substantiate his claims. As for "genius" - that's Alfonso KC's opinion, and the world's leading public intellectual - that's your opinion. Here's Paul Robinson's: "On the one hand there is a large body of revolutionary and highly technical linguistic scholarship, much of it too difficult for anyone but the professional linguist or philosopher; on the other, an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple‐minded." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 31 August 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 procedural close. Per the consensus at WP:AN, this article is being draftified. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 08:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Khaliq (cricketer)[edit]

Abdul Khaliq (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No dates for when he played, no indication he is notable. and only one stats site as a source. This makes a mockery of our notability guidelines and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:16, 26 August 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.

Chicha's[edit]

The result was Speedied G7. GoldenRing (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chicha's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [7])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An eighteen month old restaurant with routine reviews is not, of itself, notable. WP is not a restaurant guide. Rhadow (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or even speedy delete under G10. Not notable, no matter how you slice it. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 03:05, 31 August 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. Subject clearly meets WP:NFOOTY, sources below also indicate wider WP:GNG Fenix down (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mazin Fayyadh[edit]

Mazin Fayyadh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This player seems to fail the GNG quite clearly. The article has been around for a year, and none of the listed sources discuss him in detail, except for database extract pages, and neither the Farsi, Arabic nor Italian pages seem to have any better sources. Remember, the topic-specific notability guideline doesn't guarantee notability; it just carries a presumption of notability. Slashme (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The player has now started in and scored in FIFA sanctioned matches for an international team, he is notable to have a wikipedia page.

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Here are sources discussing the player in detail and by himself [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Alitheboss55 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://newsabah.com/newspaper/69108/
  2. ^ http://www.the-afc.com/ar/u-19-championship-2016/iraqi-wizard-eyeing-spot-in-the-fifa-u-20-world-cup
  3. ^ http://iraqi-sn.com/archives/52592
  4. ^ http://aladalanews.net/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B6%D9%8A/%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%86-%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B6-%D8%A5%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%88-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%82%D9%84%D9%82-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A9/
  5. ^ http://www.nar-news.com/?p=85413
  6. ^ http://www.alayam.com/alayam/sports/609229/News.html
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY by playing multiple matches for the national team, as well as the fact that there is a decent amount of coverage (abet in Arabic) indicating that the subject of the article passes WP:GNG as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not a player making a single appearance in a lower league fourty years ago, he has made several appearances at senior international level so the presumption of notability made by WP:NFOOTBALL is justified in this case. Plus the articles provided above seem to go a long way toward meeting WP:GNG based on what Google translate is able to show. Kosack (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A claim is made here that "The player has now started in and scored in FIFA sanctioned matches for an international team" and a reference in the article refers to a match against Syria on 26-08-2017 which ended 1-1 with Fayyadh scoring the equaliser. A refenece in the article shows a teamsheet for the match with Fayyadh as a substitute. However, FIFA do not list the match, and neither do the Iraqi Football Association, and neither do 11v11.com and neither do soccerway (yet?), so I question whether there was a Tier 1 International played at all. None of the recent matches listed for Iraq on any of these sites have Mazin Fayyed listed in the line-ups. His US Soccerway profile shows he played 46 minutes in a friendly against Qatar in August 2016 (enough to pass NFOOTBALL) and no other senior appearances, just one international where he sat on the bench but there a lag before soccerway updates information. The dutch soccerway profile in his article only the bench one, so is obviously lagging even further. End of the day I'd like to see some more reliable references for these international appearances. ClubOranjeT 12:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator - Thanks to Alitheboss55 for providing those sources; if they had been in the article from the start I would not have submitted it to AfD, and not being able to speak Arabic or Farsi, it was difficult for me to find them. Can you add some information from these sources to the article and use them as references? That way the next person to arrive will be better informed :-D --Slashme (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@ClubOranje: I was mistaken, it turned out in the last few hours that the Syrian and Iraqi FA's failed to register the match with FIFA which means it is an unofficial friendly. The only way to find out about appearances in Iraq is through manually counting them, author and writer Hassanin Mubarak is usually the most reliable but I count them as well, I have reached out to him to find the accurate amount of official games, since the Iraqi FA is known to hold friendlies that don't count with FIFA for some reasonAlitheboss55 (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: I will once I find the time, when i do can i delete the deletion nomination notice? Alitheboss55 (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alitheboss55: No, the admin who closes this discussion will remove the notice. --Slashme (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International Footballer. Evidence of non routine coverage, albeit non English, but notability is not language dependent
  • Keep. For information, national-football-teams.com gives him 2 "FIFA matches" i.e. Tier 1 as per WP:NFOOTY, including the friendly against Uzbekistan in which he made his debut, and 1 "Non-FIFA match" (not the Syria one). NFT.com transliterate his name differently, as Mazen Fayad, but it's the same chap. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL per the provided sources. Smartyllama (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a full international footballer. He has also been a top player in the Iraqi league, and based on the few English-language sources covering Iraqi football, I think it can satisfy the GNG if editors can add Arabic-language sources to the article. Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 28 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afraz Rasool[edit]

Afraz Rasool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails to pass basic WP:GNG. cited sources are not RS. created by a blocked user. Saqib (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have a neutrality bias in addition to not being very notable. Firstclass306 (talk) 11:54, 29 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Dominique[edit]

Oliver Dominique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a high-school basketball player. Not notable. Fbdave (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Dominique was recently named as the number 1 player in England, supporting a following base of 20000 people this page is just to let people know more about him. He is a local celebrity in Northampton and highly recognised in the basketball community. Similar to player s like Lamelo Ball, Zion Williamson, Oliver is a force in basketball who is a definite draft prospect. He is the only British player on the ESPN Draft prospects list and is recognised for scoring 92 points in 2 games at the European tournaments for team GB. He is definitely Notable. BallMotivation (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2017 (GMT)

  • Couldn't really find anything about him online. Do you have any links to reliable sources about this kid that point to him being notable? -- Dammit_steve (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has articles on the NorthamptonaChronicle, the basketball england website and the deng top 50 website. I just watched him at the deng top 50 all star game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.167.70 (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be a good start to include links to those sources in his article for others to review them. This might help you in setting them up the right way -- Dammit_steve (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't seem to be anything on him on those sites, except a passing mention in the article on northamptonchron.co.uk where it only says how may points he scored. He might very well be the second comming of Zion Williamson but right now he does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would need to be included for this page to pass WP:GNG
Note: Same user created Oliver James Dominique, I've tagged with WP:A10 — IVORK Discuss 13:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 19:09, 30 August 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) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Payoneer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Payoneer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and rely almost exclusively on company announcements of new services or expansions or funding announcement. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, none are "intellectually independent". -- HighKing++ 14:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was clear consensus in the second AfD less than a year ago that the subject satisfies both CORPDEPTH and GNG. --Michig (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum to deny the existance of for-profit presences.  According to inc42.com on 30 June 2016 "Payoneer currently has 3 Mn users across 200+ countries and provides transactions in 150+ currencies. It has a global team of 700 people...Till date, it has raised $54 Mn from 14 investors".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Cao, Jing (2016-10-05). "Cross-Border Payments Startup Payoneer Raises $180 Million". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Research firm Pitchbook Inc. estimates Payoneer is valued at about $880 million after the most recent funding.

      The article further notes:

      Payoneer’s technology moves money for businesses in one country working with those in other countries and handles the regulatory and currency issues that come with international transactions. While many payments startups rely on the existing credit card infrastructure, Payoneer has built its own connectors directly into banks, allowing recipients to get money deposited in their accounts and avoiding the transaction fees that come with plastic.

      Payoneer’s technology allows small- and medium-sized companies to pay and manage invoices over the internet rather than using checks and paper. Amazon.com Inc., Google, Airbnb Inc. and Getty Images use Payoneer to pay en mass the businesses, proprietors and freelancers using their platforms. About half of Payoneer’s revenue comes from bulk payout.

      When a consumer buys products on Amazon’s marketplace from independent merchants or retailers, the e-commerce giant receives the payment. Using Payoneer’s software, Amazon can then at once send the sellers the money they’re due in their local currency. In any given month, Amazon pays merchants from more than 100 countries through Payoneer, Galit said. This is an important part of Amazon’s e-commerce business, with marketplace sales making up about half of all orders.

    2. Arnold, Martin (2016-10-05). "Payoneer raises $180m in venture capital funding: Fundraising one of the biggest by a financial tech company this year". Financial Times. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Payoneer has raised $180m from venture capital investors, making the Israeli-turned-US cross-border payments provider the subject of one of the biggest funding rounds by a financial technology company this year.

      The company was founded in 2005 by Yuval Tal, a former Israeli special forces officer, who is its president. It has its headquarters in New York, a large research centre in Tel Aviv and has clients in more than 200 countries, including many of the biggest internet marketplaces such as Amazon, Airbnb, Google, Getty Images and UpWork.

      Technology Crossover Ventures, the California-based investor, is leading the latest fundraising round for the company, taking the total it has raised to about $280m. TCV is buying newly issued shares alongside Susquehanna Growth Equity, the Pennsylvania-based investor, and offering to buy out existing shareholders.

      The article provides detailed information about the company, including negative information:

      Payoneer was linked by Dubai police to the incident in which Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was killed in 2010 in that the company was said to have provided pre-paid credit cards to some of the team that carried out the murder, which was widely believed to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli overseas intelligence service. Dubai Police did not release further details.

    3. Miller, Claire Cain (2008-08-26). "Start-Up Offers a Way to Pay Workers Abroad". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      As the Web makes it easier for U.S. companies to hire workers from Bangkok to Berlin, figuring out how to pay them is an increasingly pressing issue. Payoneer, an Israeli start-up now based in New York, aims to fill this niche in the international money-transfer market.

      Payoneer enables businesses to pay freelancers, contract workers or salaried employees with a prepaid MasterCard card that payees can use to withdraw cash from an A.T.M. and as a debit card in stores and online. Greylock Partners, Crossbar Capital and Carmel Ventures have invested $14 million in Payoneer.

      ...

      So far, Payoneer has helped 200 companies sending money to 120,000 cardholders, 85 percent of whom are outside the United States. Many of the companies that use Payoneer offer payees several options, like PayPal or wire transfer, and those who live abroad often choose Payoneer.

    4. Ziv, Amitai (2013-05-12). "Start-up of the Week Using Banks to Move Money Is So Yesterday. Israeli startup Payoneer facilitates payments in 95 local currencies and sees the sky as the limit in the global $1.1-trillion industry". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      "I established the company in New York in 2005," says Yuval Tal, Payoneer's founder, who served until 2011 as its CEO and now is its president and director of business development. "We began by serving American kids who come to Israel on programs like Taglit-Brithright, Hillel or with the Jewish Agency. We provided them with debit cards they could use to pay for things in Israel. "

      Payoneer's client base has long since expanded far beyond this core group. Today its technology is mainly for people with a long list of payment recipients, or what is known in Internet parlance as affiliate networks.

      ...

      Payoneer also has a product for very-small size service providers and a service that allows customers to open a virtual American bank account. This means that a small client in China can use Payoneer to offer their services on Amazon or another American website and receive payments to cover expenses, all in dollars.

      ...

      Payoneer is a mature startup. Some 180 of the company's 250 employees are located in Israel, with the rest working in the United States and Gibraltar. The company raised $22 million in capital in two rounds, the second in 2008. Payoneer hasn't needed external funding since. Tal claims the company's been profitable since 2010.

    5. Rubin, Eliran (2016-03-17). "Tech Nation: Chinese Tech Figures to Invest $50 Million in Israeli Startups. Payoneer to buy Armor Payments, a U.S.-based escrow startup; Next Insurance raises $13 million". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Israeli payments platform developer Payoneer is buying U.S. startup Armor Payments, it announced on Tuesday. Armor develops a system for guaranteeing payment security in business-to-business transactions. Payoneer declined to say how much it will pay for Armor, whose operations and seven employees are to be folded into Payoneer. Payoneer develops a platform enabling customers and businesses to make payments from different countries and in different currencies. It stated that the acquisition will reduce the suspicion and uncertainty when its customers make purchases from unfamiliar businesses.

    6. Kolodny, Lora (2014-03-05). "Payoneer Wired $25M to Make Cross-Border, Commercial Payments Easier". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
    7. Geron, Tomio (2016-10-15). "Payoneer Locks in $180M Led by TCV for International Payments". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
    8. Orpaz, Inbal (2014-03-06). "Payments Startup Payoneer Raises $25 Million in Capital". Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Payoneer, a startup whose technology enables companies to pay their suppliers anywhere in the world, said on Wednesday it had raised $25 million in an investment round led by the U.S. private equity firm Susquehanna Growth Equity.

      Existing investors Carmel Ventures, Greylock IL and Vintage Venture Partners joined the round, the company said. Amir Goldman, managing director of Susquehanna Growth Equity, will join Payoneer’s board.

      ...

      Payoneer provides a payment platform that connects thousands of companies with millions of professionals and small business owners in some 200 countries. Already profitable, the company said it would use the new capital to expand into new markets and increase sales and marketing as well as to pursue acquisitions.

      The company was founded in New York, where it is headquartered, in 2005 by Yuval Tal, who served until 2011 as CEO and is now its president and director of business development.

    9. Grimland, Guy (2010-03-03). "Did They Know? Israel-U.S. Startup Linked to Dubai Hit". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Employees at the Payoneer are still trying to understand what hit them: the Israeli startup company has faced a wave of unwanted publicity after Dubai police claimed that suspects in the assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh used its credit card technology.

      Payoneer provides prepaid credit cards, which means holders can fill them with money and use them, without the card being tied to a standard bank account. Thirteen of the 27 suspects used prepaid MasterCards issued by MetaBank, a regional American bank, in order to purchase plane tickets and book hotel rooms, said the Dubai police. The police then tied MetaBank to Payoneer.

      It is still not clear how bad the publicity is. One source close to Payoneer said: "All such publicity hurts," but added that customers were unlikely to be deterred from buying the company's products.

    10. Grut, Oscar Williams (2016-10-05). "A fintech company used by Google, Amazon, and Airbnb raised $180 million". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Payoneer, a US fintech company that helps businesses send and receive money across borders online, has raised $180 million (£141 million) in a Series E funding round.

      The cash comes from Technology Crossover Ventures (TCV), a Silicon Valley-headquartered VC fund that focuses on growth funding for established tech businesses. TCV has backed giants such as Facebook, Netflix, and Spotify.

      The funding round is double Payoneer's funding to date and takes its total raised to $270 million (£211 million). CEO Scott Galit wouldn't comment on the company's valuation but it's likely in the billions given the amount of equity doled out.

      Founded in 2005, Payoneer has two main parts to its business: helping small and medium-sized businesses make overseas payments online; and helping global tech giants like Amazon, Airbnb, and Google, to pay suppliers around the world.

    11. Goldenberg, Roy (2015-11-05). "Amazon selects Payoneer's payment solutions". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Israeli online payments solution company Payoneer Inc. has been selected by online retail giant Amazon Inc. to expand cross-border payment options to sellers from 24 countries who sell on marketplaces in the US, Spain, France, Italy, Germany and the UK. As a featured payment solution for select countries within Amazon Seller Central, Payoneer will provide a simple and convenient way for sellers from top markets including China, Japan and South Korea to receive their Amazon disbursements.

      In cooperation with Payoneer, Amazon now allows sellers to sign up for Payoneer directly from Amazon Seller Central. Upon Payoneer registration, sellers receive online accounts that can collect Amazon disbursements, and that provide access to these disbursements through local bank account withdrawal or through the use of a Payoneer MasterCard. This alliance marks the first time that Amazon has expanded Seller Central cross-border payment capabilities through alliance with an external payment solution.

      Payoneer was founded in 2005 by entrepreneur and investor Yuval Tal and has raised $90 million to date including $50 million in August. With 500 employees worldwide, the company is today headquartered in New York with its R&D center in Tel Aviv. Two years ago there were rumors that the company was planning an IPO at a company value of $700 million but in the end it chose a financing round of $25 million instead. Payoneer's investors include 83North, Carmel Ventures, Greylock, Vintage, Ping An and private investors such as Yuval Tal himself, Zohar Gilon, and others. Payoneer has been in the past chosen as one of "Globes" most promising Israeli startups.

    12. Tsipori, Tali (2016-10-05). "Israeli digital payments co Payoneer raises $180m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Israeli digital payments company Payoneer has raised $180 million in growth equity financing from TCV (Technology CrossOver Ventures) with the participation of former investor Susquehanna Growth Equity. The financing includes $90 million for expanding the company while shareholders sold a stake worth a further $90 million. This is the largest-ever investment in an Israeli fintech company and the proceeds from the financing will be used to accelerate global growth and to enhance an already strong and debt-free balance sheet.

      Payoneer transforms the way businesses send and receive cross-border payments. The company was founded in 2005 in Israel by president Yuval Tal and former CTO Ben Yaniv Chechik and has raised $235 million to date including the latest financing round.

      Payoneer CEO Scott Galit said, “TCV shares our belief that we can make a difference by empowering entrepreneurs throughout the world by offering them tools and solutions to participate, compete and succeed in the global economy. TCV’s connections with fast growing e-commerce marketplaces, global brand-building expertise and its long-term investment philosophy are the perfect fit for Payoneer and will help us propel our growth in the years to come.”

      Payoneer is headquartered in New York and has its development office in Tel Aviv, which houses 560 of the company's 760 employees worldwide.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Payoneer to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payoneer (3rd nomination) participants and closer: Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), Mark viking (talk · contribs), and Davey2010 (talk · contribs).

    Cunard (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cunard canvassing is not acceptable behaviour. At the very least, if you want to notify editors of a discussion, make the effort to not select only those that share your opinion. Pinging Light2021 as the nominator. -- HighKing++ 11:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per Cunard as well as per sources in this, the previous, the previous and the previous AFD, Subject meets GNG and that's been proven 3 times in the space of 6 years, Consensus was keep in the last 3 AFDs and consensus will be to keep here so might I suggest knocking off the renominating ?.... –Davey2010Talk 02:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a lot of sources. None meet the criteria for establishing notability. Repeating that this article meets the criteria because of the outcomes of previous AfD's is not a good argument unless it can be backed up with arguments in relation to policy/guidelines and more importantly, sources that actually meet the criteria for establishing notability - namely intellectually independent references that do not rely on company-produced materials or quotations. The problem with Cunard's references (every single time - and that's leaving aside the length of the post) is that while the *sources* might meet the criteria for reliable sources (yay!) the references themselves invariably fail to meet the criteria of WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. For example:
    • The Financial Times article fails WP:CORPDEPTH "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and fails WP:ORGIND "press releases, press kits, or similar works" as it is largely based on this press release and interviews with company and/or investor sources. The quotations are shared in a number of different publications such as Techcrunch and israel21c. The WSJ article listed later fails for the same reasons.
    • This NYTIMES article is a blog post which is usually not a reliable source. Leaving that aside, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH since it is largely based on quotations from an organization's personnel as a story source. It is not "intellectually independent" since is describes Paypal as a "Competitor" and is clearly written in collaboration with company sources therefore failing WP:ORGIND also.
    • The Haaretz article fails WP:CORPDEPTH for the same reasons as above - article is completely based on quotations from company sources. Not independent.
    • The next Haaretz article fails WP:ORGIND since it based on a company announcement, just like all these other articles based on the same announcement. Note they're all written within a couple of days of 15th March 2016 (date of the annoucement) too. Not one of the articles actually writes anything intellectually independent and all rabbit the company announcement with perhaps an extra soundbite or background snippet.
    • This Haaretz article (and there are also others reporting on the same event) related to an assassination in Dubai where the police suspected that the assassins used Payoneer cards to pay for flights and hotels. If this is truly why the company is notable, this should be the main part of the article on the topic. Since it is not even mentioned, it is clear that this has been disregarded for the purposes of notability.
    • The WSJ article fails WP:ORGIND as it is not intellectually independent. The company's PR firm takes credit and lists the article on the "Client Coverage" section of their website. The Haaretz version of the story is available without a subscription and you can see that the article is based on what the company said and is peppered with quotes from company sources and peppered with company-provided background facts.
    • This BusinessInsider article fails WP:CORPDEPTH for the usual reason as mentioned above and fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons also as above. Quoting this as a reference for the purposes of establishing notability is a great example of an editor that clearly does not understand the difference between a "reliable source" (I'm pretty sure the website meets that criteria) and a "reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability" (which it very clearly does not).
    • This Globes.co.il article is based on this PR announcement. Even uses the same quotations from the CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This Globes.co.il article talks about the funding raised the same as the other articles listed at the start of this post. Fails for the same reasons. All based on quotations/interviews with company sources. This article takes it one step further and the later parts are direct quotations from an interview with Question/Answer format.
  • At a risk of repeating myself, I've looked at the sources. None meet the criteria for establishing notability. If this company is truly notable, there should be at least two sources that *don't* have a quotation from the CEO or based on a Press Release. -- HighKing++ 10:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Cunard and Davey2010. Important payment company; despite the quoting of related persons and press releases, the coverage is broad and independent. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin Please note that despite the number of sources listed here by Cunard and within the article, none of the editors have provided any rebuttal to my argument that none of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. Despite Cunard's statements and others by editors here, the criteria for notability is not simply two references from reliable sources where the sources are independent of the company. The interpretation that "Independence of sources" means a 'source that is independent of the company' is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by "independent of the article subject". At least two references that are intellectually independent from the topic and are not based on Press Releases or interviews are required. Despite the high number of references linked here and in the article, those references all fail the criteria for establishing notability and only points to an efficient PR department within the company. Those references are not independent of the company and fail PRIMARY, CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. -- HighKing++ 11:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find Cunard's sources adequate. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Antrocent, I'll ask you the same question I asked everyone else - kindly list two or three references that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing++ 21:42, 1 September 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 strength of the nomination was insufficient to outweigh the general consensus that the topic's winning of a national competition infers notability- these arguments touched upon WP:MUSICBIO #9 (or possibly 8- the distinction is slightly fudged in this discussion), as indeed, the only 'delete' !vote acknowledged the possibility if not certainty of. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 11:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finest Hour (quartet)[edit]

Finest Hour (quartet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

28th ranked barbershop quartet in the world. They do not appear notable in any way ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. WP:USUAL may apply, of course, and if they won awards that are judged notable, then you might have a case for inclusion. I mean, 28th in the world at anything is pretty impressive. But WP:NPRETTYIMPRESSIVE is a redlink, so... UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the below Keeps... We do have an article for the British Association of Barbershop Singers, but not one for the award in question. In most cases, if the award is notable enough for an article, then winning the award is enough to confer notability. That's not always the case, and certainly every award (and subject) is different, but that's what I was looking at. And I still don't see sources about this quartet that indicate notability. I mean, the two references are to their scores at competitions - good as far as it goes, but there's no independent sources noting those results, or explaining why they are relevant. I'm not sold on this one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another source has since been added. —ADavidB 21:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there the subject is shown in a photo, and the only text about the subject is the caption of that photo. It confirms that they won an award, but to say it's about Finest Hour is stretching it somewhat. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source is about the barbershop genre, and notes Finest Hour's win as a current example. This WP article has expanded further with additional sources and content. —ADavidB 14:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The year before their first international competition, they were judged the top quartet in the UK, establishing their notability. —ADavidB 19:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Every year since 1974 someone has won the BABS Quartet Championship, and none of them have been considered enough to get a WP page. I know that's WP:Otherstuffexists but, it is valid here. Winning an annual contest does not make a quartet notable, especially since barbershop quartets are a pretty marginal topic in the first place. My opinion. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that prior winning quartets have had articles submitted and rejected, or is that only a supposition? I submit that winning a national-level competition does establish a quartet's notability. —ADavidB 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godric on Leave (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If being the 28th best barbershop quartet in the world isn't wikipedia worthy then what is the point of anything Theodolite (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The lead paragraph clearly notes their 2016 win as best quartet in the UK, with a record-high score. Their international ranking is not their notability. —ADavidB 11:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, also national winner of a competition, so to represent is quite a hurdle for participation. Sadads (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Show me one non-music source talking about this group - something not related to or published by groups related to Barbershop Quartets - and I'd bean enthusiastic "Keep". But there is, as yet, nothing to indicate any notability beyond the awards shown, and those awards aren't in themselves enough. One media article along the lines of "Local quartet wins national award" or some such, and I'd be fine. I just don't see that here, unfortunately. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of opinions here, but I'm seeing a distinct lack of arguments which cite policy. So, relisting this in the hope of that improving.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see enough sources to (just) meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC guidelines. There is no requirement for any 'non-music source', nor is their getting an award discounted due to the award not having an article. Despite various arguments about their world prominence, that is not relevant, the world number 124,000th quartet has an equal chance of being notable, what matters are reliable independent sources. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:25, 3 September 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) Lourdes 15:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abbas (actor)[edit]

Ali Abbas (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like he had minor roles in serials, majority of article tells his notability as only being son of Waseem Abbas. Fails WP:ACTORS. SahabAliwadia 13:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: It is not seen that in which dramas the actor has acted, but 'what major works did he do' is seen. Currently he is only known for acting in dramas, which doesn't give reliable sense of news. SahabAliwadia 14:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, acting in dramas makes him less of an actor? — fortunavelut luna 14:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most television dramas are notable as per WP:TVSERIES, and having a wikipedia article makes them notable in most cases Atlantic306 (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me or the OP? — fortunavelut luna 14:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, the op Atlantic306 (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ACTORS, actors can be only notable if they have done since significant work out major role which also means films. Atlantic306 and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, read it before saying. SahabAliwadia 14:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR means television and/or film roles, there are thousands of wikipedia articles (some featured articles) on actors who have had prominent television roles but little or no film work, so actors with prominent tv roles mainly pass WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nominator. — fortunavelut luna 15:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he pass WP:GNG and WP:ACTORS because he he seems to had significant roles in multiple television shows, . --Saqib (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Via Google you find more references, seems ok for WP:ACTORS because of his role roles in several television shows. --ClrView (talk) 17:56, 26 August 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 Dismissal of James Comey. The result of this discussion is that most believe that there is no need to split this topic into two separate articles. Content can be merged from history subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  10:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comey memos[edit]

Comey memos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was merged 3 weeks ago to Dismissal of James Comey per WP:CFORK and a brief informal discussion with no opposition. Almost all content was duplicated, and everything was WP:PRESERVED during the merge. Re-instating the article today is unproductive and borderline disruptive. — JFG talk 13:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In other words, it's likely that the memos will ultimately result in Trump's resignation. That is a truly remarkable statement at this point, and more than a little irresponsible. I'm making this small because it's tangential to this discussion, but it needed saying nevertheless. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, my comment was tangential to this discussion and that's why I made it small. You do understand what "tangential to this discussion" means, right? It means it's not about whether Comey memos should or should not exist, as that's what this discussion is about. I have not taken a position in this AfD, which appears to be more about process than content anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Government-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. With all due respect to Casprings, who seems to have created more new articles on "Trump—Russia" than anyone, most such articles are classic WP:RECENTISM and will be irrelevant once we move beyond immediate political considerations and adopt a more historical view a decade from now. Comey memos is among the best examples of this phenomenon, as no–one has actually verified the existence of these alleged memos and no reliable sources discuss them as a separate topic from Dismissal of James Comey. Indeed, as Vanamonde93 recently remarked, Dismissal of James Comey itself is likely to be merged to "the main pages for the topic, ie Trump's administration/white house and James Comey" at some point in the indefinite future. I can see no arguments against JFG's central point that Comey memos is a redundant WP:CFORK.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not another one Come on, folks. The media by its very nature will produce a vast number of stories covering every last detail of every scandal. As an encyclopedia we cannot blindly reproduce such detail. Even having an article on the dismissal is borderline recentism, in my view. If that does not convince you; common sense dictates that every administration of similar historical significance should be treated at a similar level of detail. Is this a reasonable level of detail by that criterion? No, of course not; it is absurd. This should most certainly be merged. Of course, the same could be said about a lot of the trivia from the Clinton emails extended family. Vanamonde (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if there's anything worth merging) and redirect to Dismissal of James Comey Seriously. He wrote memos that are part of the dismissal story. They're not independently notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close I don't see any reason to have the debate here when the merge discussion at Talk:Dismissal of James Comey has been re-opened. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 43 reliable sources and hundreds more available show that the subject is independently notable. The subject abundantly satisfies WP:SIGCOV. It is not appropriate for merging with Dismissal of James Comey, and article straining under it's own girth. I suspect the goal is to eliminate this article and then promptly trim unflattering material out of the target article, as has already been attempted. Page view stats shows that the previous non-consensus attempt to merge and redirect was a disservice to readers. Casprings makes an apt comparison with Watergate scandal—Nixon White House tapes provides a best-practices model for how Comey memos should be handled. - MrX 13:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeating something doesn't make it true. The Nixon White House tapes are not just independently notable of Watergate, but, from a longer-term perspective, their greatest value to historians is largely unrelated to Watergate. As our article states: "The tapes contain more than 3,000 hours of conversation. Hundreds of hours are of discussions on foreign policy, including planning for the 1972 Nixon visit to China and subsequent visit to the Soviet Union. Only 200 of the 3,500 hours contain references to Watergate and less than 5% of the recorded material has been transcribed or published." It is shockingly ahistorical to equate the Nixon tapes with alleged Comey memos that have yet to be seen or analyzed by any secondary source, let alone the public.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to cite page views as support for a separate article, you should be honest and compare them to the main article page views.Here they are both on the same graph. Comey memos have always been a subset of the dismissal article, and the extra page views when both articles were separate are not significant. I remain convinced that our readers are better served by a combined article. If some day the memos acquire some independent notoriety, there will be an opportunity to split the article again. Until then, it's a pure WP:CONTENTFORK. — JFG talk 20:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding your hypothesis that some editors may harbour a goal [to] promptly trim unflattering material out of the target article, as has already been attempted, it sounds like an uncalled-for assumption of bad faith. I haven't seen any recent attempts to do that, and even if that was the case, it would easily be remedied by the normal editorial process. It's much easier to preserve article neutrality when content is not duplicated across several pages. — JFG talk 20:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dismissal of James Comey. I supported, and still support, the merge. I did feel that the discussion did not go on long enough, but it has now been reopened; so far it is looking as if the merge will still be approved. I presume that the nominator actually wants this article to be redirected rather than deleted; if so he should say so in his nomination statement. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In response to the argument that these memos might turn out later to have historical value in ways unrelated to the Comey dismissal: With the article title being a redirect the history is preserved, and the redirect could be re-expanded into an article at any time in the future if the memos take on added significance. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 27 August 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. For Michig: there is nothing in the target article merged from this one. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aan Baan Shaan Mera Hindustan[edit]

Aan Baan Shaan Mera Hindustan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This show is not notable. I have merged the content into the article of the shows creator. If it turns out to be notable once filmed and broadcast a separate page could be created again Lineslarge (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: -- non-notable per TELEVISION and GNG. Quis separabit? 13:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable at this current time; may become eligible later Spiderone 12:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the nominator has merged content from this article to another, it cannot be deleted, as attribution needs to be preserved, and it should be redirected. --Michig (talk) 19:25, 2 September 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) 19:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Scott[edit]

Kyle Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable, third-party sources and fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not appeared in a competitive, first-team game for a fully professional club. – PeeJay 12:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although the player has not made his debut (yet), he has been promoted to the first team of Chelsea F.C, and will (eventually) make his debut at some point this season. He is part of the first team squad of a top level club and that should make him notable enough Alitheboss55 (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. That makes him not notable unless he makes his debut (If he makes it at some point). That's the guidelines. Kante4 (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet even our insanely low notability gudelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or at senior international level. Although there is some degree of interest above normal youth player levels, I do not think there is enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Can be easily recreated if he ever makes his senior debut. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOSOON per above. Recreate if and when... ClubOranjeT 10:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hasn't played in a fully pro league match, competitive cup match nor a senior international match. Will that change soon? Probably, but until then, he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restore when he makes his debut, to the creator should keep it in your sandbox till he makes his debut. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Bina[edit]

Arya Bina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While he may have the notability someday, it is not today. I see that Bill Gates daughter is also mentioned as a "powerful person" to watch from the Business Insider article, but I bet you don't know her name without looking it up? Someday she might be notable, and someone to watch, same with Arya Bina. If the two companies Cheap Travel Hunter and Kobe Digital had Wikipedia pages then I would feel more comfortable with changing my vote.Sgerbic (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo de Pape[edit]

Aldo de Pape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful notability. Promotional article. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Created by a WP:SPA, who has only edited this and the article about the company he founded, TeachPitch. Edwardx (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- lack of sufficient sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Walled garden / promo article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree - lack of sufficient references, promotional. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotions or a repository of CVs. -- HighKing++ 12:17, 29 August 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 procedural close. Nomination proposes that the content should be included in another article. AfD is not for merge discussions. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 1989 World Tour Live[edit]

The 1989 World Tour Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason: The 1989 World Tour Live is a concert film which is only available on Apple Music. It is not released for sale. There is no charting, no review from critics like usual live album/video album articles such as MDNA World Tour (album) or The Beyoncé Experience Live. It should be include in The 1989 World Tour article.—Phamthuathienvan (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The 1989 World Tour was still released as a video album, and many of the sources indicated it as a video album. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 13:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue  This forum is for deletion discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Под звуки поцелуев[edit]

Под звуки поцелуев (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The album is not yet released and the singer herself has a borderline notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:34, 26 August 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. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Ready Becoming : High-Fashion SuperModel Of Europe[edit]

Are You Ready Becoming : High-Fashion SuperModel Of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references provided, and very little description. Google search does not find coverage of the show. Does not satisfy television notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - CSD A11 might have been appropriate here. No references given, definitely seems suspicious. -- numbermaniac (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  08:15, 26 August 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. For Everyking and anyone else: let me know if anyone wants a particular article restored to draftspace. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Astana Defender of the Fatherland Day Parade[edit]

2014 Astana Defender of the Fatherland Day Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominated:

These are all (distinctly ostalgic) articles about Soviet or post-Soviet military parades in specific years, created by Aa372798 (talk · contribs). Even if these each were (one assumes) covered extensively in the national press at least, all of them are WP:MILL as far as I can see, given that these states like(d) to do a lot of parading. The contents are all as one would expect: tanks roll, president salutes, General Somethingevich gives a patriotic speech, etc. Essentially, this amounts to WP:NOTPRAVDA. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1964 May 1 Parade.

I did not nominate articles about parades covering multiple years, or parades that appear to have individual historic significance. I did stop at some point in the user's history, but might nominate more batches of such articles if these are deleted.  Sandstein  06:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Famous how? The article doesn't tell us. I could see an article about this parade generally, but a single year?  Sandstein  06:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was the 40th anniversary of the GDR, so it was quite a special occasion and most of the Eastern Bloc leaders were in attendance, but the thing most remembered is how the event turned into an embarrassment for the regime due to chants of "Gorby, save us". Everyking (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources? I suggest that a more general article about this annual parade is created first, and the spinoff of individual years is considered later per WP:SS.  Sandstein  10:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of notability per each parade, and certainly having all of these random parades as stubs without indication as to their importance is a violation of at least the spirit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The result was overturned to no consensus with the closer's agreement per this deletion review.—S Marshall T/C 20:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manifest (convention)[edit]

Manifest (convention) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic is a defunct anime convention. All sources on the article are primary or user-generated. The topic lacks reliable secondary sources, failing WP:GNG. No reliable sources have been added since a template requesting additional citations for verification was added in October 2008. Cjhard (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Have a look at List of anime conventions and thence the listed articles references. The referencing here seems to be the accepted type of referencing for this whole cohort of articles, admittedly though this article is one of the weakest, but none the less is the same general type of referencing for many of these articles. Perhaps telling though this article is not (yet) listed in List of anime conventions. Aoziwe (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is listed there under List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - missed it - thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All submissions are checked and verified against the convention's website at animecons.com so it has been deemed a reliable site. This being said I have to agree with the article lacks enough reliable secondary sources which would make it fail WP:EVENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Norman, Tim (2012-08-24). "Manifest 2012 Wrap-Up". Rocket Chainsaw. Archived from the original on 2017-08-26. Retrieved 2017-08-26.

      The article notes:

      On a weekend, late in August, something special happens in Melbourne. People who you would see travelling to and from work during the week, dressed like any other person, change. They put on different clothes, change their hair colour, wear makeup. They tranform themselves into as close an approximation of their favourite anime (and, more recently, popular culture) characters.

      Then they head to the Showgrounds. For one weekend, they get to be someone else. For over ten years now, the Melbourne Anime Festival, more commonly known as Manifest, has been bringing them together, offering them somewhere to meet others and express themselves.

      Manifest has the clear distinction of being Australia’s first true anime convention. It began in 2000, a one-and-a-half day event in the Old Arts Building at Melbourne University. Evolving from a series of screenings marathons run by local anime clubs, the first Manifest attracted a few hundred people. The following year a few hundred more showed up to the same place for a full two days. That year even saw traders for the first time, crunched together in a narrow corridor at the southern end of Old Arts.

      From there, Manifest has grown and grown. First to a second building at the university (Economics & Commerce), then a third (originally Wilson Hall, later the Union building) and then, in 2009, to the Melbourne Showgrounds. Each year, the committee looked on incredulously as more and more people showed up. From a few hundred in 2000, to well over ten thousand a decade later.

      According to its staff pageWebCite, Rocket Chainsaw has editorial oversight.
    2. Hayward, Jon (2011-09-02). "Last Exile - Fam, the Silver Wing- Australian Premiere". Anime News Network. Archived from the original on 2017-08-26. Retrieved 2017-08-26.

      The article notes:

      This weekend at the Melbourne Anime Festival, Madman Entertainment and Gonzo gave Australia something really special--a preview screening of Last Exile -Fam, The Silver Wing-. We were shuffled in sans bags and recording devices (bagged and sealed like sandwiches) and Madman's anime product manager Sylvester Ip took the stage. He welcomed us to the screening and apologised for the privacy restrictions, pointing out that Madman plans to simulcast the series in October when it starts airing in Japan.

      ...

      The convention scene in Australia has gradually moved away from anime screenings as a core event over many years, as downloading fansubs became easier and the length of time between Japanese and English-language DVD releases shortened. At Manifest's encore screening of Last Exile, though, there's still a full theatre of fans waiting for the rare opportunity to be the first to see a new episode, even after the inconvenience of surrendering their phones and cameras at the door. Despite the delays to the start of the screening (by 15, 30 or 45 minutes depending on which version of Manifest's mercurial schedule you're following) there's little sense of impatience among the crowd. They're still enthusiastic enough to cheer wildly at Sly Ip's command. Even further delays due to technical problems lead to excited rather than mutinous rumbles. When the ending credits roll, the audience applauds, a response I haven't seen at a Manifest screening since the Evangelion movies in 2002.

    3. King, Emerald (July 2013). "Girls Who are Boys Who like Girls to be Boys: BL and the Australian Cosplay Community". Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific. No. 32. Australian National University. ISSN 1440-9151. Archived from the original on 2017-08-26. Retrieved 2017-08-26.

      The article notes:

      This was my first time at the Amaranth Cosplay Ball, a dinner and costume event which is held annually on the Thursday before Manifest (the Melbourne Anime Festival, reportedly one of Australia's largest and longest running anime and popular culture conventions).

      ...

      Manifest is said to be Australia's first cosplay convention, starting as an anime screening and barbecue between several Melbourne anime clubs in 1998/99. In 2000 Manifest Inc was formed and the Manifest convention was born.

      ...

      The most (in)famous yaoi panel hosted in the Australian cosplay community is the 2007 Manifest panel which resulted in the banning of the panellists from future Manifest conventions for a period of five years. The ban was placed after the body responsible for organising Manifest received complaints that inappropriate adult themed material had been screened during the panel. Many convention participants applauded the ban of the two panellists. However there was also a backlash from cosplayers who stated that Manifest needed to show more responsibility:

    4. Hjorth, Larissa (April 2009). "Game Girl: Re-imagining Japanese Gender and Gaming via Melbourne Female Cosplayers". Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific. No. 20. Australian National University. ISSN 1440-9151. Archived from the original on 2017-08-26. Retrieved 2017-08-26.

      The article notes:

      One of the first cosplay conventions was held in the Australian Centre for Independent Gaming, Melbourne, in 2000, with the beginnings of the now annual Manifest (Melbourne Anime Festival) convention.

      ...

      Events such as Manifest provide cosplayers with official occasions to perform, however, for many, much of the time spent being a cosplayer is as much about not being one and preparing or adapting everyday clothing to incorporate elements of cosplay.

      ...

    5. Brown, Andrew (2011-11-30). "Nintendo Cosplay Gallery". Nintendo World Report. Archived from the original on 2017-08-26. Retrieved 2017-08-26.

      The article notes:

      During my visits to Manifest 2011, the EB Expo and various launch parties this year, I've managed to amass a small gallery of talented role performers, proudly donning the garb of their favorite video game heroes and heroines. As one who has dabbled in the art of cosplay myself, I can appreciate the effort that goes into making these costumes. If any Nintendo-related cosplayers wish to send me their photos (my email is in the staff page below) I'll happily feature them in a future gallery. Likewise, if you see me at any future video game and/or anime conventions or events, feel free to come say hi.

    6. Brown, Andrew (2013-09-04). "Manifest 2013 Nintendo Cosplay Gallery". Nintendo World Report. Archived from the original on 2017-08-26. Retrieved 2017-08-26.

      The article notes:

      The other week I attended Manifest 2013, otherwise known as the Melbourne Anime Festival. To keep up with annual tradition, I scoured the event in search of any Nintendo-related cosplayers to photograph.

      This year I snapped up pics of Zelda enthusiasts, a trio of sexy Kongs, a parade of Pokémon peeps (including Giovanni and his personal Rocket posse!), enough Phoenix Wright cast members to fill a courtroom, and many more! If you're one of the cosplayers I got to photograph, give yourself a pat on the back for the amazing work. Sorry to anyone I missed!

    7. Brown, Andrew (2012-09-07). "NSMB2 Launch Party and Manifest Gallery". Nintendo World Report. Retrieved 2017-08-26.

      The article notes:

      After the launch of the game, we headed across to the Melbourne Showgrounds. It's become somewhat of a tradition of mine to go to Manifest and make a Nintendo-themed cosplay gallery for NWR, after all. I had planned to write up a special edition Mariobilia feature about the overwhelming amount of Mario, Kirby and Pokémon merchandise that's usually on sale at Manifest, but sadly this year there wasn't anything particularly noteworthy. A few stalls had the Zero Suit Samus figure I spoke about a few weeks ago, and with the post-release prices I saw, I'm sure glad I pre-ordered mine.

    8. Pink, Sarah; Horst, Heather; Postill, John; Hjorth, Larissa; Lewis, Tania; Tacchi, Jo (2015). Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: SAGE Publications. p. 138. ISBN 1473943132. Retrieved 2017-08-26.

      The article notes:

      One of the first cosplay conventions was held at the Australian Centre for Independent Gaming, Melbourne, in 2000, with the beginnings of the now annual Manifest (Melbourne Anime Festival) convention.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Manifest to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:33, 26 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Willems[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eddy Willems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Plus we're being used for promotion here - the main 3 contributors to this article are all WP:SPAs. Was deleted in 2011. Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I'm Guy Kindermans, the author of the re-write of this lemma. This is my first entry in Wikipedia, which probably explains my SPA. However, if possible, this will not stay the case (i.e. remain a single article). Regarding infractions on the policies, I thought I was complying with the rules, as this is not meant for promotion purposes (truly). I also have good knowledge of the sources (granted, several are in Dutch, but that's my maternal language) and their veracity (please indicate which sources are questionable. If possible, I can search for additional sources). Please advice me how I can adapt this lemma conform the policies. Regarding promotion: allow me to point out that E Willems really is one of the early pioneers regarding anti-virus/anti-malware actions in Belgium (I've followed this subject since the eighties of last century...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eddy Willems is a well-respected member of the security community and has been for many years. I would consider it appropriate to keep the article, albeit with some changes in content and presentation. I base this recommendation on his work with the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization and the European Institute for Computer Antivirus Research as well as some significant contributions to the corpus of security literature, such as a useful security book and at least two important papers on the EICAR test file. I intend to make some direct edits to the article relevant to WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG which should make the case for keeping it stronger. LiverpoolLorry (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - big concerns here So this article was created by GGGTeam (WP:SPA), then the other main contributors were G Kindermans and WikieWikie (also WP:SPAs). LiverpoolLorry made a handful of edits in 2011, then nothing until this AfD 6 years later. I am doubtful about both commenters above (or the same?) I'm calling WP:DUCK. And the G Kindermans who has commented above is presumably Guy Kindermans, senior staff writer on Willems' blog [8]. Any WP:COI needs to be clearly stated. Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some misunderstanding or unintentional ambiguity here My edits to this article were made yesterday (15th August 2017), which was the first time I'd seen the article. Unless that was meant to refer to the fact that I haven't edited on Wikipedia for several years, which is probably true. At the time when I initiated and edited some articles, I felt that the security industry could be better represented in Wikipedia - I still do - but changes in my personal circumstances diverted me in other directions. The jury is still out on whether it's worth my returning to that project: I'll see what happens with this article. WP:COI: Yes, I'm acquainted with Eddy Willems. I know a great many people in the security industry: that's why I feel entitled to make a recommendation. I've made some edits that I hope make it clearer why I think he merits an entry, but the main body could certainly do with some neutral editing. I was actually planning to make some more edits there today, but perhaps I'll wait and see what further comments are made here. And no, I'm not Eddy Willems or G. Kindermans. :) LiverpoolLorry (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello & a comment regarding 'big concerns here'. Yes, G Kindermans is 'Guy Kindermans' as mentioned above. And with all due respect, I am not, repeat not a duck... I won't comment on who the initial contributors were, as I don't know them. However, let me make it quite clear at this point, very clear, I am not one of the original contributors. The edit of this lemma was my very first effort in Wikipedia! So that should be final, as this discussion point is concerned.
Regarding a conflict of interest... First the reference to 'sr staff writer' on Eddy Willems' blog. I am not, nor have I ever been a contributor to Eddy Willems' blog. The reference to 'sr staff writer' on the blog regards my job as sr staff writer at Data News (Belgium's major ICT publication) at that time. The entry on the blog simply was an announcement of a panel I moderated as a Data News editorial staff member at that year's InfoSecurity (the Belgian edition of the well known InfoSecurity event) with Eddy Willems being a panel member. Since then, Data News ended my full time employment at the publication, and at this point in time I only write articles for them occasionally as a freelance (usually on the subject of security, the subject I've covered for DN for more than 25 years).
And regarding COI, please note that the number of Belgian information security experts is quite small. Anybody active in this sector for some time knows the major players and has interacted with them one way or another. Certainly that's the case for me, as I have covered this field for many years (as mentioned). Allow me to protest in the strongest terms the insinuation regarding COI, as this would impugn my integrity as an author and journalist.
So actually, I see no reason to continue this discussion for deletion. I too propose to keep this article (obviously) as I think that any doubts about its relevance and origin can be (and have been) put to rest. Clearly, if additional edits are called for, I am perfectly willing to make them, or to have these made by people with more expertise in this matter (and/or a better knowledge of the English language).
Regards, Guy Kindermans 38-I)3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Negligible GS citations in a field in which they are usually huge. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment @G Kindermans and Liverpool Larry: per WP:COI you should not write about people you are personally acquainted with. It is considered a conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia is concerned. However, that is not the subject of this AfD. The question is whether or not Willems is notable enough for an article and for that we need to see independent, reliable sources that talk about him, not personal recommendations from people "in the industry". – Joe (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Guy Kindermans here, re 'Comment' above. Sir, as you will understand it is pretty much the business of a journalist to be acquainted with people, but also not more than acquainted. If this is considered to be a 'COI', it would rather disqualify me from writing in Wikipedia about many people. This was my first effort (doing a re-write as a first 'exercise', rather than a new article), but the above remarks kind of prevent me from writing 'people'-focused entries????? Regarding your remark about 'notable enough'. Are you suggesting that perhaps Eddy Willems isn't notable enough for an entry in the 'English'-language Wikipedia, but could rather be notable enough for entries in the Dutch and French versions? These are the languages spoken in Belgium - his country of origin, where also most of the references originate from. BTW, these references truly are from reputable sources (e.g. newspapers) - perhaps them being in Dutch is a problem considering their reliability? Kind regards, Guy Kindermans — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 12:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@G Kindermans: That is the policy, yes. You're the only one who can judge whether you know someone well enough that you shouldn't be writing their Wikipedia article. My personal take on it is that it's best to edit subjects you know about, but not ones that you are involved in. So for example I edit articles about my field of study (archaeology) and biographies of notable archaeologists, but never ones about research I have been involved in or archaeologists that I know. You have to use your own judgement of where the line is in your own field.
The English, Dutch, French, and other language Wikipedias, are editorially independent. It's not always the case that a subject that has an article in one version will be meet the standards of another. However, the language of the sources doesn't matter. As long as there are sources, we can keep the article. But as far as I can tell there are only a couple of sources about Willems, in reliable and independent publications, in the article, and nobody has put forward any additional ones in this AfD. If you know of other sources (in any language), listing them here would be a great help in moving this discussion forward. – Joe (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re 'above remark'. @Joe Roe: Sir, Many thanks for this clarification. As I've been covering the field of information security in Belgium for many years, I certainly have met/talked to/interviewed most if not all mayor players in this field in Belgium. Of quite a few, I know somewhat more of their background as well. While maintaining good relations with them, I've also always took into account a sufficient 'granis salis' (journalistic distance) regarding them, as any journalist worth his money is required to do. Clearly, it is a matter of discussion whether this 'journalistic distance' is sufficient to consider me 'not involved'. Obviously, I'm inclined to say this is sufficient ( :-) ) but I'm kind of curious to know how other journalists handle this. Is there a way to get some background on this (to be honest, this is relevant to my continuing writing information security related entries)? Regarding additional sources, I'll certainly try and propose some. Many thanks & kind regards, Guy Kindermans 38-I)3
@Joe Roe:@G Kindermans:I perfectly understand that Wikipedia frowns upon articles written by friends, family etc. However, I'm not one of the writers of this article: basically, I added a few verifiable links that go to notability. I wouldn't expect this article to be kept purely because I vote in favor of keeping it. It would certainly be possible to add more: for instance, a link to Willems' private site in the references points to a number of video and audio clips of interviews with international media organizations that might support his claim to notability as a security evangelist better if linked to more directly. Nonetheless, there are certainly more than a 'couple' of articles in the references that seem to me to be viable. In terms of reliability and independence, I'd consider Virus Bulletin to meet both criteria (YMMV): among the articles I found there that might be considered relevant are these (I'm not necessarily suggesting that they should all be cited in the article): his review of a book by François Paget; abstract of his 2005 conference paper; review of his security conference; article; abstract of his 2010 conference paper; quoted in editorial; review of security conference. As for Guy Kinderman's question: I'm a researcher, not a journalist, but I think this extract from the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest page covers it for me: "Subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." I respect Joe Roe's position on not writing about people he knows in archaeology, but the research community specializing in malware/anti-malware issues is small enough that it's difficult to write meaningfully about related topics without reference to people you know (including those with whom you may have engaged directly or indirectly by email, on specialist forums and so on).LiverpoolLorry (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LiverpoolLorry: Thanks for providing sources, but I'm afraid publications by Willems (which all but one[9] of the links you provided appear to be) don't help us to judge whether he is notable to the wider world. Please do read through Wikipedia:Notability if you haven't already. I'm sorry if it seems like we're having you jump through hoops, but it is probably the most important of Wikipedia's many content guidelines and describes the basic threshold that all articles on Wikipedia must meet. – Joe (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Thanks. I was definitely off the point there: clearly I'm out of practice at this... I see Guy has provided some more relevant links subsequently.LiverpoolLorry (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LiverpoolLorry and Joe Roe: Gentlemen, thank you for these clarifications. I have been looking for some additional sources referencing Eddy Willems (articles referencing Willems as expert, interviews, references in publications). Please find some of these below:
articles:
articles based on interviews with Willems:
References in publications:
(I rechecked all links and they are still active)
Could I have some feedback on the relevance of these sources? These are not sources 'by Willems', but publications that have called upon Willems, so clearly he was considered a worthwhile expert by them. I have tried to go for some geographic spread, so as to proof interest in his person beyond the borders of Belgium (cfr the 'notable to the wider world' remark above). As I said, please, give me some feedback on the relevance of these sources. If required, I can find some more references.
Regarding the above 'Subject-matter experts' remark: I have certainly no financial conflict of interest in this matter. For instance: I have no, nor have I ever held shares or investments in information security related companies (and so no shares in companies Willems worked/works for). Nor is any payment involved. As stated, this was a first effort, with me re-writing an existing entry rather than starting a new one (I considered this to be easier... Good grief...).
Regarding 'hoops'... I have no objection to jumping through hoops, provided I get it right ultimately. While Eddy Willems is probably not as 'notable' as e.g. Mikko Hypponen, he's certainly been around in the information security world as long as other pioneering experts (the start of his involvement in the Eighties really dates from the initial the emergence of viruses and malware as a problem), with a solid track record and notability.
Kind regards, Guy Kindermans 38-I)3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 16:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have twice added the template — G Kindermans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (WP:Single purpose account) to this AfD, which appears to be chock-a-block with WP:COI. The template has been twice removed by User:Joe Roe with the edit comment No need for this. Already discussed in the AfD and no evidence of sock puppetry. It is a misunderstanding of WP:Spa to think that it is associated with sock puppetry, and it is also inappropriate to remove other editors' comments from an AfD. The closer of the AfD will give due weight to the comments of all editors, and the contribution of editors should not be censored before that stage. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
re: above comment. Regarding the SPA-matter. Please note that I have already pointed out that this re-write was my first effort regarding Wikipedia. Obviously, this explains my 'few or no other edits'. I simply haven't made them yet. And with all due respect, I am waiting for the conclusion of this discussion whether to make any additional efforts. As I pointed out in my previous entry in this discussion, I thought a re-write would be 'easier'. Well, good grief... I repeat that I'm perfectly willing to jump through hoops, as I understand there are aspects to be learned/understood. However, if it truly becomes a matter of my being considered a 'SPA', please grant me some credit regarding my integrity. I mentioned I'm a journalist (i.e. consider me a subject-matter expert), and during my career as journalist I did always abide by the rules of 'keeping my distance' (cfr the granis salis remark). I see no reason why I would change this approach when contributing to Wikipedia. So yes, I'm 'apparently' a SPA, but again, how else could this be as this is my first effort????????????? Please note that I did not request a deletion of a comment. But I do question the relevance of the SPA matter in this particular case, for the reason I've repeatedly stated (first effort...). Actually, I was rather looking forward to some feedback regarding the additional sources I proposed in my previous entry in this discussion. I believe this kind of feedback would be more worthwhile for me, as it would clarify which sources are acceptable (or not, and why) in a person-related lemma. That would help me to avoid AfD problems in case of future efforts... Kind regards, Guy Kindermans 38-I)3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing discreditable about being a WP:Spa spa. It just records a fact and allows other editors to inform their judgements. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
re above: Hello & thnx. I was wondering about this, considering the insistence on this matter, and I thought I had given a rather obvious and logical explanation (and why it obviously should not really weigh on the decision regarding this lemma). Actually, as I stated, I'm looking forward to feedback on which sources are appropriate/needed etc and whether the new sources are helpful to reach a decision. Kind regards, Guy Kindermans 38-I)3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 03:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Xxanthippe, I haven't removed or censored any of your comments. I removed a note you appended to another editor's comment because I do not see how it "serves a constructive purpose in the context that it is being used" (WP:SPA). G Kindermans and Liverpool Larry's motivations for editing this article and possible COIs have already been discussed at length (far too much length; this is supposed to be a discussion about the article, not its editors). There is no way the closer or any other competent editor reading this AfD could miss that discussion. Let's assume good faith and let them participate without slapping three-letter acronyms on everything they say. – Joe (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand this: It is considered unacceptable to interfere with other editors' contributions in an AfD debate. If you think that an edit needs to be reverted, take it to an administrator. Do not assume such powers yourself. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: Do you not see the irony in this statement when the edit we're talking about was you modifying another editor's comment? The idea that you need an admin to revert unconstructive changes to a talk page is ludicrous. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are dissatisfied with the matter you could take it to ANI. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Joe Roe, WP:AGF is appreciated. As regards Guy Kindermans' suggested links: a quick Google search did find more links in English from SC Magazine, The Register, CNN, the BBC etc. which I think would go to notability, but I won't add them here unless someone thinks more refs would be useful. Nor do I intend to make any more edits to the original article, certainly not while the deletion of the article is still under discussion. LiverpoolLorry (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe he passes the GNG based off the newspapers which either quote or include him as a security expert, some of which aren't in English. If there is promo TNT it. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So long as the apparent SPA accounts aren't violating policies like WP:PAID (and even if they are, AFAIC) the question of whether they should be editing the article isn't really relevant to the question of whether WP should have an article about Eddy Willems. The answer to that question seems to be yes; there is enough substantive, independent, reliable coverage of him and his career in software security to meet the WP:GNG, so any digressions from that central question are, in the end, just that: digressions. Note that while I'm not fully fluent in Dutch, I am able to follow enough to confirm that the Dutch sources constitute more than passing mentions. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in its current form the page does not establish notability. The references seem to be mainly from primary sources, from works he has written himself, rather than from independent and impartial peer reviews of those works. Other citations are from publicly editable websites and do not demonstrate independent media or news coverage or notability within his field. Darthamender (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I checked the links provided in the article, over here and more on the internet: most of them are from reliable and notable sources in different countries in various languages. I found English, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese and more. With Google Translate we can see that most of the publications and articles have called upon the subject, considering him as an expert. The German publisher of his book is a notable publisher mentioned in WP. The question remains whether WP should have an article about Eddy Willems. The answer to that question seems to be yes to me as well; there is enough to meet the WP:GNG. Maybe the suggested and discussed links in this section should be added to the WP article.--ClrView (talk) 10:00, 28 August 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 Duke Chapel#Robert E. Lee statue. Content remains in the history so anyone wishing to merge anything can do so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Lee Monument (Durham, North Carolina)[edit]

Robert E. Lee Monument (Durham, North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This monument isn't notable on its own; it's only notable as one of many confederate monuments facing increased scrutiny over the past few weeks. Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials may be a possible redirect target, but this is a new page and not a particularly plausible search term. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have a subsection about it at Duke Chapel. So that would be a better redirect.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to anchor now set at Duke Chapel#Robert E. Lee statue would be okay by me. That short section is currently primarily about removal, but has a sentence about it being unclear how the statue got there, and it could be a place to cover the statue. --doncram 17:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No need to delete. If there's not enough coverage to justify a standalone article, just redirect. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect' per above. I would have approved of a redirect with no offical discussion. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter O. Halloran[edit]

Peter O. Halloran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So far, nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Only interest is to build an online reputation and Luring customers in the name of Wikipedia. Prodded by User:Mabuska, removed by the creator. A possible sock farm. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The references in this article take it close to Hoax territory: shovelling in anybody named Peter O Halloran, including a farming tax expert in KwaZulu-Natal, a lecturer in Belfast and even a general who joined the army 7 years before the subject was born. We are left with little more than a smattering of weight loss promo postings. No evidence of WP:ANYBIO notability.AllyD (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:ANYBIO. As per AllyD's note above, after a quick glance at the references one might think that WP:GNG is met. However, as soon as you scratch the surface it is clear that all those "reference" links relate to at least three different men. There may be an innocent explanation for that (newbie exuberance or good faith mistake), but it does lend to hoax-ish overtones (or possible paid-editing/COI attempts to feign GNG). Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What made me tag the article in the first place is that the article seems to be an attempt at self-advertisement by a non-notable person, two things I still believe. Mabuska (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete obviously created for promotional purposes. There is nothing anybody can learn from this, and WP is not a directory. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UpKeep[edit]

UpKeep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- clearly too soon. A directory listing on a private company with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:CORPDEPTH and TOOSOON. COI and/or paid-editing overtones notwithstanding, there is no apparent indication that this organisation (with perhaps ~20 employees and ~3 years in operation) meets the project's inclusion criteria for commercial entities. The handful of coverage examples in the article (and handful of other examples returned in a simple GOOGLETEST search[10]) would not seem to meet SIGCOV expectations. Guliolopez (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Too Soon. But then you have to look at every other entry in List of Y Combinator startups Rhadow (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suta (clothing)[edit]

Suta (clothing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So far, nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Only interest is to build an online reputation and Luring customers in the name of Wikipedia. Burn it. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: currently has "Disambiguation" page. Only reason to create it is because of their unique way of sourcing of textiles: directly from handweavers in different states of India. Heard about them at a start-up forum where they stood out. Bare-bones article written with complete neutrality. absolutely no COI. Akshaygn (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTDIRECTORY; insufficient RS to validate any claim to notability. WP:TOOSOON may also apply since the article creator's original edit summary states that the firm is "upcoming." — fortunavelut luna 08:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, fails criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing++ 14:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably an A7, as there is nothing in the article to indicate even importance, let alone notability DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close  The proposal to burn is uncivil and incendiary.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: Made a last attempt at adding verified independent websites - reliable sources. Please check and I leave it here. The decision that is taken after this is binding - We can accept. @TenPoundHammer:
    • Comment You added 5 sources. This Zepo article is a blog post and blog posts are not regarded as reliable sources. Also the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it rely's on quotations from company personnel as a news story. Similarly, the keepmestylish reference is not a true "publication" and fails the criteria for reliable sources. The womentorship reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND since it is a question/answer format interview with the founders. It is not intellectually independent. Your fourth reference from cityshor is from a questionable reliable source but leaving that aside, it is clearly a promotional piece with more photographs than text. The PretCurry reference is a lovely website but fails as a reliable source. It is a one-(wo)man fashion blog. Finally, the deblinarababi reference also fails as a reliable source for the same reason - it is a one-(wo)man fashion blog. -- HighKing++ 11:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the GNG. Like I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shift (website), appeals for fire are not necessary for something as low key as a promo piece. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shift (website)[edit]

Shift (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So far, nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Only interest is to build an online reputation and Luring customers in the name of Wikipedia. Another vanity prodded by User:Crystallizedcarbon, deleted by a stale creator account . Burn it. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons explained in the PROD. The sources are not independent (open wiki, press release, etc). There is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, so neither WP:GNG or WP:CORP are met. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close  The proposal to burn is uncivil and incendiary.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, PROMO. While I wouldn't say "burn it" for a promo piece like this, I don't see it as worthy of a Procedural Close either. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Marble, Slate and Stone Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters' Helpers and Marble Mosaic and Terrazzo Workers' Helpers[edit]

International Association of Marble, Slate and Stone Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters' Helpers and Marble Mosaic and Terrazzo Workers' Helpers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only notable as a very long answer to a trivia question. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the supposed notability is based on trivia rather than third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia rather than a proper article. This isn't an article about a union; it's an article about a union's name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nelson (North Carolina politician)[edit]

Mike Nelson (North Carolina politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a former mayor, in a town not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL. The strongest potential "more notable than the norm" claim here is that he was the first openly gay mayor in his state -- but being the first member of an underrepresented minority to hold an otherwise non-notable political office is not a Wikipedia inclusion criterion in and of itself, and the article isn't showing the depth of reliable source coverage it would take to get him over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders: the only two sources here are one deadlinked news article in one newspaper, and one deadlinked article on an advocacy organization's blog which may have mentioned his name but appears from its headline to not have been about him per se. Simply put, the sourcing would have to be quite a lot better than this to qualify him for an article. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayors of cities of this size (20,000 people) are not usually considered to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:07, 19 August 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, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. The sourcing does not appear to be sufficient for a mayor of a small city. --Enos733 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature move[edit]

Signature move (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a straight up WP:DICDEF that has existed for a decade without sources, meaning that it is unlikely to be sourced or encyclopedic. I couldn't find any significant mentions in references. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
modus operandi? I don't think so.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are not about the concept of a signature move, but about people who have once done signature moves. The mentions are not significant enough to make the topic notable and not just a dictionary definition with related trivia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative option is to rename it List of signature moves. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think that has a high chance of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to "signature moves" being pretty much anything under the rainbow, from a signature photo to a signature martial arts move. It also will most likely become a dumping ground for fiction cruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem to be an encyclopedic topic. No sources discussing the concept, rather just using it as a term that does exist in the dictionary. Reywas92Talk 20:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw a book discussing signature moves in sport, for example. I cannot use google but you can find a lot of newspaper articles about this topic in sport or maybe even videogames, it is just "pop". To me, this is the typical "exaggerated" wiki deletion. This article could remain and noone would even notice. In any case, enjoy the "purism", but for future reference I should remind to the generic reader that I am aware that such deletions add nothing to the effective or perceived quality of our encyclopedia, we need sources in other article for that... please no pedantic answers to this comment. I won't change my mind and they won't make anyone look more "professional".--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This argument is basically WP:HARMLESS, which is a discouraged argument in deletion discussions. Ultimately just because there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES doesn't make it notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit of a WP:DICDEF, almost. It might be reasonable to see if Wiktionary will take it, since they don't appear to have an entry on the phrase. (Not a transwiki, but just a note at one of their community forums.) --Izno (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's captured at wikt:signature. --Izno (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make it clear, I'm for a delete per DICDEF. Even the proposed alternative list ends up being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Izno (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's literally just a thing. Alternately, merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DICDEF L3X1 (distænt write) 02:23, 3 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous[edit]

Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 3-year-old organization appears to fail WP:CORP inclusion criteria. The sources are either primary sources, trivial mentions, or directory listings. No significant coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find any sources that clearly discuss the topic. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 15:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your classification of some of the sources. The Chicagoly Magazine article ("Plugged In: The Story of Internet Addiction".) is, in my mind, not "trivial", as the article goes into some detail regarding the CGAA meeting, even if it is not the main topic of the article. I do agree that the VICE article probably qualifies as an incidental mention.
As for the two other independent sources, which I assume you categorise as "directory listings", again I have to disagree. They are articles describing how to get help - and giving specific suggestions for where to get this help. In both cases, these suggestions include text written by the article author, giving further information on the groups mentioned. The fact that the relevant part of these sources are in list form does not make the source a "lists of similar organizations". Especially the Project Know article is interesting, since it lists both an author and an editor for the article.
Finally, I present you with an additional source. Quite similar to the Chicagoly article, it goes into even more detail about the specifics of CGAA: http://shoeleathermagazine.com/june-2015/time-for-e-hab/ . I have added it to the article.
Bottom line: CGAA has been covered more than incidentally in several online magazine article. Several pages dealing with addiction are specifically including CGAA in their recommendations for where to get help.
However, after creating the article (and writing the above parts of this comment), I became aware of WP:COI. Since I am a member of CGAA, I have now declared a Conflict of Interest. Since this is a quite weak COI - I have no formal position nor financial interest in CGAA, I do not believe that it should disqualify me from contributing to the article. I do however realize that my association with the subject may have influenced my judgement when it comes to whether the page should exist in the first place. For this reason I change my recommendation:
  • KeepAbstainNisJørgensen (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Chicagolymag source devotes about half a paragraph and a couple of trivial mentions to the group, in a much longer article. That completely fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH as required. The other sources are also trivial mentions. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The organization may be notable someday, but it isn't yet, and until that happens, it can't have a Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to video game addiction. I'm not even sure the creator of an article can vote keep in their own AFD anyway, but regardless, I don't think it's notable. While it is mentioned in reliable references, they fail the "significant" criterion, as it's usually just a passing mention of about a paragraph or so. Therefore it fails WP:ORGDEPTH. It already has a mention in the aforementioned article, so redirection there is the best option.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, Zxcbvnm, yes, article creators are allowed to !vote in an AFD of an article they created, though they are supposed to identify themselves as article creators, so they can factor that role into their stance and the overall discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Vice article is definitely not a substantial mention. The two paragraphs in ChicagoLYMag (if that's a reliable source) does not constitute the coverage necessary to satisfy the GNG. ShoeLeather does not strike me as reliable as it does not appear to have editorial control. I'm fine with a mention in video game addiction, but it needs to hew closely to the Vice's mention (rather than use primary sources). Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, delete and redirect to video game addiction is my suggestion. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG. No need for a redirect / merge, as this content would be undue there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHO (film)[edit]

WHO (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As of yet an unreleased film that violates WP:FUTURE and WP:TOOSOON. Topic coverage exists, but is not notable beyond standard press releases and fails to establish the significant coverage Wikipedia's WP:FFILM guidelines requires for future films. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Considering it's August, if it is indeed a 2017 film, we should have had something pop up (previews or TV spots) by our Indian editors, seems to be nothing though. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed that, as is, it violates WP:BALL, but it could be easily rejiggered into present tense as a movie in production. 158.59.127.132 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 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 Keep votes do not address the issues raised with the article. There may indeed be an article to be written about this subject, but it is clear that this is not it. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smartphone Films[edit]

Smartphone Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly written WP:ESSAY about an original research topic. While it's certainly possible to shoot a film with a smartphone camera, in exactly the same way as it's possible to shoot a film with any other kind of digital camera, there are no sources out there analyzing "smartphone films" as a class of thing distinct from other digitally-shot films. The sources here just discuss a couple of notable individual examples (while missing at least one other notable one, namely Tangerine — plus, this "topic" would include a considerable percentage of all the videos uploaded to YouTube), but fail to link them to each other as a group that would be defined by having been filmed on a smartphone rather than some other kind of digital camera. Plus there are some advertorial overtones here, e.g. "Today, aspiring filmmakers no longer have to go to film school to make great work. With a simple mobile phone, almost anyone can now become a filmmaker. Again and again, the cell phone films are made by many filmmakers from all over world." Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think, there is no need a source to prove, smartphone films is a class of thing distinct from other digitally-shot films. Because of its first purpose of origin. Other cameras are made for only capture purpose. But, a smartphone or a mobile phone is firstly not for it. that is the difference and it is common think. another matter, any one can add suitable thinks and remove unwanted lines or links and other if any against Wikipedia policies. Many Wiki articles provides YouTube links and if it here not proper it can remove. And last one, the article is not full filled. it can expand. Tangerine any one can add at any time. So, I think these are no matters to delete the article. My thought is straightforward to the improvement of Wikipedia. Undaporiyal (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in an initial stage. Every Wikipedian can do one thing here, start article with a basic information with Wikipedia Policy. maybe other Wikipedians will expand the article or the creator of the article will do it. Otherwise, after a limited time it may nominate for deletion. So, now leave the article to improve it self.210.18.172.239 (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how Wikipedia works. It's true that an article doesn't already have to be perfect right off the bat before it's allowed to exist, but there are still specific minimum standards of notability and article quality that an article has to meet before it's allowed to exist. It's not enough to say "other editors might improve it in the future" if it hasn't even passed the miminum standards yet. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because smartphones can be used for other things besides shooting films does not mean that films that are shot using smartphone cameras represent a unique class of thing different from films shot using digital cameras that don't also do other things. Films are defined by what they're about, not what kind of equipment happened to get used to make them. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But, we should consider, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and if anyone search about anything here, even about a single matter, It is good or not, point out of an acknowledgement with complete sense for the article's content it must be in Wikipedia. Otherwise, it is shame only for Wikipedia. Nowadays, I think, commonly speaks everywhere about these kind of movies and many film festivals are conducted only for these type of movies. There are a huge peoples behind these type of movies all over the world. Finally, my suggestion is, Wikipedia should consider articles with its reliability except like Gossip, Rumour, Accusation etc to exist them with Wikipedia other article build policies.210.18.172.239 (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude, but I can't make heads or tails of what you're even trying to say here. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I mean it, even a single matter, even about a rural subject, if search about them in Wikipedia, the Wikipedia can say-'that is this or that is here.' That should be Wikipedia. Other wise, Wikipedia has lost its meaning of 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.' encyclopedia is meaning to all acknowledgement(information), otherwise, to be maximum acknowledgement here. That should be Wikipedia. 210.18.181.121 (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 210.18.181.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete First of all this article is, as the nominator observes, Original Research and reads like an essay. Its topic is a made up by an editor. Secondly it is exactly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information that we have to make sure our articles are about notable topics, that are known to exist as such outside Wikipedia. Because a few notable people used smartphones to make a movie, "Smartphone Films" does not become a notable topic, unless of course it starts having coverage by notable media as such. Hoverfish Talk 17:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hoverfish, Bearcat is absolutely right with his own or somebody's version. But, that is only one side view of the matter. We can't predict what a major people is thinking to. We have no other way to find out it. Because, the major people doesn't come here to participate this conversation. So, we have no other way. We should be taken a discussion upon the matter with an available majority who came to here. That is good. But, we can't say that is right.

And, one think also, we can't suggest or rigid to an article's wright up style with a style or a specific style. All Wikipeadians can't study in our school. They have their own styles. Wikipedia can't prevent an editor's wright up style. If can, that is foolishness. But, Wikipedia can suggest 'make your wright up style to be better.' 210.18.181.121 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand what you are saying right, you do not understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy where people come here to vote and what the majority wants is accepted. We discuss here about the rules of Wikipedia and how they apply to individual cases, like this one. Building consensus in discussions involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. What we are discussing here is not personal preference or style, but how some rules apply. If more people are to join this discussion, they also have to understand how Wikipedia works first. Hoverfish Talk 22:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That I don't know, how to apologize for my headache. Hoverfish, I am so sorry with my misunderstanding you and Bearcat. Please forgive me both of you. I read now carefully Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Then I got my mistake and why you are against to the article. You are very able and very long time here. I just wrote my thoughts here. I am just searching and checking here with my curiosity. because, I want to learn make an article and trying for it. I don't know the article is good or not according to Wikipedia. I just argue with a common facts or thoughts. That's all. If you decide with the deletion of the article, if you think the article is unnecessary here or it is not good with its write up style you do your wish. Now I am fully convincing with you. Once again, sorry and your answer is Heartfelt to me and to all.Thank you...210.18.165.32 (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per nom-Poorly written- moderately right, but it is not become a serious issue and it seems lightly only top of the article. Undaporiyal cleared up nom's other questions and it is very clear that "Other cameras are made for only capture purpose. But, a smartphone or a mobile phone is firstly not for it. that is the difference". mechanically it is true that the video output format of smartphone camera is digital. But this is not a evaluation or a separation between film roll camera film and digital camera film or about a camera equipment which shot a film. It is clear that, there is a difference and novelty for smartphone films from other. Surely,"smartphone films" is a class of thing distinct from shot other camera equipment, it is digitally or film rolled. So, Smartphone Films has right to get notability 157.50.12.207 (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 157.50.12.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The fact that it is possible to do other things with smartphones besides capturing video does not reify smartphone video as some special class of video defined by that fact per se. It's possible to do other things with conventional film cameras too. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article in written in poor English, and if it is to be kept, it should be written in a better style of English. Vorbee (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-I have just modified the foreword of the article. Certainly this is an indispensable article here.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indispensable how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire TNT. The subject of SmartPhone films is definetly notable, however, we need a proper wikipedia article that reflects what the sources say per policy. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 3 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_August_26&oldid=1142619828"