Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aakhir Kab Tak

Aakhir Kab Tak (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 is a straight to YouTube short film that doesn't come close to meeting WP:NOTFILM. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. My search found nothing to add to that, fails WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks the substantial coverage to meet WP:NFILM as well as WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 02:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are some coverage in Hindi-language sources, but they are not as substantial as required by GNG and NF. Anup [Talk] 02:46, 6 November 2016 (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 with overwhelming consensus. (non-admin closure) Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 ^{𐍄𐌀ℓК} 17:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

danah boyd

Danah boyd (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)

Hey, I added the deletion thought, this post has not been touched in years. I know teachers that have been on television and have written a book or two. They do not have a wikipedia page, and it is unnecessary for this person to have one. Nate Rybner 22:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner (talk • contribs) --Finngall ^talk 23:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The above text was added to the previous AfD from ten years ago. Nominator is a new user whose account is approximately two days old. I was willing to treat this as a good-faith nomination and cleaned it up appropriately, but to me the subject appears to clearly meet the notability standards of today. @Naterybner: If you wish to nominate further articles, I recommend following the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO more closely, after a careful perusal of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. --Finngall ^talk 23:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My account is not 2 days old. I started becoming a lot more active 2 days ago, but before that i was only on once or twice a week to edit a new article that ended up getting deleted. Nate Rybner 23:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• I apologize. The account is a month old. I was thrown off by there being only two days' worth of undeleted edits. --Finngall ^talk 23:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - regardless of how old the user's account is, the subject is clearly noticeable - she has written a couple of novels and is the founder of a research institute. This article could definitely use some cleanup, the case is inconsistent and it doesn't always read like an encyclopedia article should. Sheepythemouse (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its cool!

Nate Rybner 23:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - She is a very notable figure, and increasingly more so with her Data + Society Institute. She won at least one major award, from the American Sociological Association's relevant section. This article has justifiably been around for many years. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2016 (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  14:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee-style pizza

Milwaukee-style pizza (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)

Milwaukee-style pizza is just Chicago-style thin crust pizza sold in Milwaukee. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found [1] but overall the sources are few and not particularly professional. It does seem like mostly promotional / social media catchphrase. I cannot even load 2 of the 3 sources, but the one I can is again, not particularly good. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG IMHO. Having opened the other 2 sources (they just load very slowly), they do seem to mention and define the concept. However. the coverage is limited to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and some blogs/promotional sites. I am not sure this suffices for a food to gain notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No real evidence of notability. Sources are blogs, and Ben is correct that the pizza described is the same as another style. oknazevad (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advidi

Advidi (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 indication of notability and blatant promotional. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as another noticeable example of a new company publishing or republishing advertising information, wherever that may be, and seeking any means of advertising and focusing with exactly that, the one account is a company employee himself therefore it emphasizes the advertising concerns, regardless of what comments say otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the author I'm happy to make changes - I was very cautious to keep it objective, but am open to areas where subjectivity may have leaked. There are many companies with far less notability who have had articles last for years, many with highly subjective promotion. In fact, each of the examples given in Piotrus' Op-Ed remains online in the same state cited, despite years passing. I know the logical response is "well, they should be taken down, too" but the fact is that it's not happening. The best that can be done is to adhere closely to objectivity. More than happy to reduce the content or link more sources, but many of those sources are in Dutch... I really do want to play by the rules here and believe the company is as notable or more so than many others in the space. - Little lepidoptera | Say hi here 11:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I know you are the author, saying "companies with far less notability who have had articles last for years" is in fact not a convincing statement because it actually emphasizes why we need to remove such advertisements, not keep and hope to change and improve them if, in actuality, it may not be improvable. The three of us have heavily nominated a lot of these and we will continue, therefore since this one is currently an advertisement, it can be removed. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: is there an essay or "WP" page somewhere that explains why this is literally the worst argument ever? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is, WP:OSE. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, SwisterTwister, and I agree, but I think my point in raising that was unclear (apologies!). I'm not asking for clarification on the reason for nomination; I'm asking for specifics, because I do believe notability can be proven in this case and I don't think my conflict of interest should be the sole reason for dismissal. I would really appreciate examples cited from what is written that highlight the issue. By claiming WP:OSE I am suggesting that others have been successful in defending their articles, and I would like to be as well (following all rules, of course). In order for me to do this, I would like to see what you're seeing in the article (beside my conflict of interest; I understand you can "smell" advertising, but it wasn't my intention to promote the company; if I can identify the odor I'll eliminate the source). Zackmann08: from the article you cited: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." I don't consider hyperbole an effective argumentation technique ("worst argument ever"). I understand you are adamant about cleaning these up, but please understand I want to play by the rules, not skirt them; that was not my intention in citing WP:OSE (which, by the way, also states: "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." - mine was poorly contended, but I think with clarification it is valid; correct me if I'm wrong!). Either way, I do appreciate what you guys are doing and understand I'm the "bad guy" here. Really not trying to be a pain in the %$#@...! It would just be ideal to hear back "here's what you can do" rather than "here's a reason you shouldn't have done what you did" - does that make sense? - Little lepidoptera | Say hi here 07:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've stricken a duplicate vote above as the editor also voted below. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I made some further edits and believe I've removed anything that leaked my conflict of interest. As I requested in the above discussion, I would be very happy to receive specific examples which I can then address. So far the Delete comments are primarily based on "I can just tell" which is an impression I also don't want to give... I think it's notable, and I want it to remain here for that reason (in an objective state, of course, which I'm keen to ensure with help). Thanks! Little lepidoptera (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the comments are not simply based from "I can tell impressions", the article itself here is still an advertisement because it only focuses with what the company would advertise about itself, which is their services, how to contact them, their business motivations, etc, and see the current article: "information about business services, business activities of applications and advertisers, offices and how to contact them and named mentions of others"; even with a few changes, none of this has established what is needed for a genuinely convincing article. What also involves this is simply the fact this company has only existed for 4 years and is still hoping to establish itself by advertising itself, therefore there's no notability or significance. The sources themselves listed here are still not convincing. As mentioned here, when an article is so bare about this, it's simply not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no indications of notability or importance. The article includes as section on the company's office: "The company is located in the former machine pump building in Amsterdam West, a historic building dating from...." suggesting that there's nothing better to write about. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Ratnam

Samantha Ratnam (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)

Suburban mayors elected by one-year rotation are not notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambros Tapinos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Larocca from the same council). Neither are unsuccessful candidates for office. The only other bit of coverage in the article was for speaking at a rally. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The timing of this suggestion for removal stinks, just as Victorian Council elections were pending. In which Ms Ratnam was re-elected. "Suburban Mayor" is offensively minimising - Moreland is not a suburb, but a large area of metropolitan Melbourne. Very sad to see Wikipedia apparently being misused for political purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercmarshall (talk • contribs) 07:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Petercmarshall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I would argue that the article meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Of the 11 secondary sources, 6 are substantively about her profile or political career, 1 is a comment piece writen by Ratnam herself in a major media outlet, and 4 are minor articles in which she features. She has also received press coverage at the state level on a number of issues involving Moreland Council not listed in the article. Yes, I read some of the debate about deletion of other councillors and agree that election to suburban council, or as Mayor, does not in itself create notability. What must be weighed in this instance is that this is the first instance in Moreland of a Greens Councillor being elected Mayor, and her ethnic origins from Sri Lanka[2] which have created notability in relation to the Indian community in Australia[3], and in Sri Lanka[4], and Tamil Culture[5], which should definitely add to the basic case of notability.Takver (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

additional info to Keep: Ratnam's research in the field of social work has been peer reviewed and published, and she has contributed to at least one academic book. While this level of research and academic publication may not of itself confer academic notability, it adds to her general notability.Takver (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pretty standard. The only source that goes to GNG is the Age one (#6), and unsuccessful candidates are generally not notable for that candidature. Her mayoralty is not only indirectly elected on rotating terms, but has not received anything like the coverage that is generally required for local politicians. Frickeg (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject's election as mayor was noted in foreign countries per Takver, meeting the community's expectations under WP:POLOUTCOMES. "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage." - Enos733 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Takver.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 10:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not a genuine !vote as per WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: At a Federal level, Australia's Greens have become a significant political force in progressive electorates. Adam Bandt became the first Greens member of the House of Representatives, though there had been several senators prior to him. In this election just gone, the two northern Melbourne electorates of Batman and Wills, which have traditionally been safe ALP seats, both came remarkably close to changing hands to the Greens. The Batman race was particularly close, coming down to just a handful of votes. Ratnam's fight against Peter Singh was not as close, but it was still a remarkable swing, taking a major bite out of what has never been considered a marginal seat and coming within 5% of victory. If the ALP lose Wills or Batman in the next election, it will be an event of major important to Australian political history, but the gains already made are significant in themselves. 49.193.215.212 (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 49.193.215.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

the above sounds incredibly biased with zero attempt to address notability criteria. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Drastically fails to meet WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. That fact that the Green party may be doing nicely, is not a reason why this particualr individual in notable --the previous comment make no sense whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete if she was a long standing mayor perhaps but on a 1 year rotation. Her academic achievements do not meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Without meeting a special notability guideline, this bio could be kept if it met WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. I'd change my mind if I saw more international coverage, outside of fairly routine Australian news, and unsurprising local interest in India of an expatriate elected to office elsewhere.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Ratnam is not a normal mayor. She has received international recognition and is extremely popular in her area - at current counts, she has more than double the number of votes she needs to win. She is also notable as one of the first mayors from the Greens, which is a notable achievement. And this isn't even considering her status as a researcher. Orthogonal1 (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

being a greens mayor is hardly notable in itself, there have already been green mayors across australia and mayors from smaller parties. LibStar (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed below, it meets GNG; being a Greens mayor strengthens her claim further. Orthogonal1 (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Reynolds, Peter (2015-10-29). "Moreland Council elects first Green mayor Samantha Ratnam". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. Retrieved 2016-10-24.

     The article notes:

     A MIGRANT whose family fled Sri Lankan riots for a better life has been elected Moreland’s first Greens mayor.

     South Ward councillor Samantha Ratnam won the mayoral vote 6-5 over Labor candidate Cr Lita Gillies, bringing an end to the ALP’s stranglehold on the mayorship.

     Cr Ratnam had been unsuccessful in the previous two mayoral votes, but secured the vote of independent councillor Helen Davidson, who had backed Labor candidates in previous mayoral votes.

     ...

     The ascension to mayor has capped an incredible personal journey for Cr Ratnam, who arrived in Australia with her family in 1989 having fled war-torn Sri Lanka and spent time in Europe and Canada.

     Aged 6 at the time, Cr Ratnam said she remembered the 1983 riots in Colombo that gave rise to the country’s 30-year internal war, including her family being split as they took refuge when Sinhalese Sri Lankans burnt Tamil Sri Lankans’ homes.

     ...

     Her family left Sri Lanka in 1987 and Cr Ratnam said it wasn’t until she moved to Brunswick seven years ago that she felt at home.

     She said her experiences fuelled her interest in social work and motivated her to take the program manager position at the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.

  2. Kallivayalil, Tanu (2014-04-24). "Taking A Stand". The Indian Sun. Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. Retrieved 2016-10-24.

     The article notes:

     Councillor Samatha Ratnam recently inaugurated the Recognize campaign in Coburg, Melbourne. It is a project funded by Reconciliation Australia and Moreland City Council. She called on those gathered to “arm themselves with information” and begin conversations with friends, family as well as unlikely people.

     ...

     Thus she edged her way to politics. First joining Labor and then moving to the Greens. She made her first move to run for a seat in 2010.

     In 2012, her bid for a seat on the Moreland City Council as a Greens candidate was successful and she says that she has found her niche in this position.

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

  Cunard (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Ratnam's re-election to Moreland Council achieved significant media coverage due to the high swing (>30%). For instance: Stayner, Guy (2014-04-24). "Melbourne council elections: Strong Greens vote poses questions for Labor, Liberals"., Choahan, Neelima (2014-04-24). "Melbourne council elections: Greens vote surges in Victorian Council Elections".

and the above can be covered in City of Moreland. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Practically, it can't be covered in much detail in City of Moreland. This article would be the best place for it. Orthogonal1 (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All elected public officials are notable. South Nashua (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no they're not. Read point 3 of WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It Won't Stop

It Won't Stop (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 song. Per WP:NSONG, charting is only an indication that a song may be notable. The song lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as required by NSONG and WP:GNG. I have no objection to restoring the redirect. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The song seems very notable and it also lists a series of references. I have am objection to restoring the redirect. Musiclover46 (talk), 14 October 2016 (UTC) sock edit struck--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having references does not imply notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It has charted several times and has won a gold certification. Musiclover46 (talk), 14 October 2016 (UTC) sock edit struck--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article was recreated by a WP:SOCK of MrWriter245. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I see JJMC89's point... the record has charted on the Billoard Hot 100 and gained a RIAA gold certification, which would pass two of the criteria for WP:NSONG. But on the other hand, there doesn't seem anything else to be said about the single. A redirect to the EP Call Me Crazy, But... might be the best option here, with the chart placings for "It Won't Stop" added to the chart section for that EP. Richard3120 (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep Chart hit, it's notable, i.e. something people would actually look up. There's one minor RS review there, I'd be frankly amazed if more don't exist. The reference chaff is considerable, but there's enough here to keep IMO with a bit of hacking - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Gerard. It has also been certified gold in the United States, thus strengthening its notability. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required by WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. This has not been demonstrated – one minor RS review is not significant coverage. Charting does not imply notability per NSONG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a few more reliable references to the article, including Billboard and Rolling Stone, among others. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still not seeing significant coverage. Two sentences in Rolling Stone, an announcement in Billboard, and a MTV article that doesn't say anything about the song don't cut it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONG states that a song is "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Coverage (doesn't have to even be a "significant" amount) on this charted single is enough for an article to be created. This single has also been released to urban radio and acquired a gold certification, which allowed for it to chart on the highly notable Billboard Hot 100 (this is also a possible criteria mentioned in WP:NSONG. Since you think there isn't enough coverage, here is a quick list of additional reliable sources:

National Basketball Association: http://www.nba.com/blazers/dorell-wright-plays-love-interest-sevyn-streeter-it-wont-stop-video/

Idolator (website): http://www.idolator.com/7506451/sevyn-streeter-it-wont-stop-remixes

Second Billboard (magazine): http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/5827387/sevyn-streeter-makes-crazy-debut-on-top-rbhip-hop-albums-chart

The Source: http://thesource.com/2013/08/29/sevyn-streeters-new-single-it-wont-stop-remix-featuring-chris-brown/

NPR Music: http://www.npr.org/event/music/338276926/sevyn-streeter-knocks-us-out

AllMusic: http://www.allmusic.com/album/it-wont-stop-mw0002565150

Vibe (magazine): http://www.vibe.com/2013/08/vixen-boombox-sevyn-streeter-feat-chris-brown-it-wont-stop-remix/

The Boombox: http://theboombox.com/sevyn-streeter-it-wont-stop-arsenio/

Singersroom: http://singersroom.com/content/2013-10-11/sevyn-streeter-it-wont-stop-ft-chris-brown/

Singersroom 2: http://singersroom.com/content/2013-05-23/Sevyn-Streeter-It-Wont-Stop/

The Urban Daily: http://theurbandaily.com/2013/10/11/sevyn-streeter-it-wont-stop-chris-brown-official-video/

Grammy Award: http://www.grammy.com/news/sevyn-streeter-wont-stop

Music Times: http://mstarsnews.musictimes.com/articles/20177/20131011/sevyn-streeter-ft-chris-brown-wont-stop-music-video-call.htm

Also, regarding your remark about the "MTV article that doesn't say anything about the song", I'm not sure if you have read the article. It talks about the song's music video, which is an integral part to include in the article. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, coverage needs to be significant. All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.^WP:NMUSIC Many of those sources are trivial. Examples: AllMusic is a database entry; The Source is trivial; grammy.com is just a mention; Vibe is a mere announcement. I did read the MTV article. It talks about the video, not the song itself. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case is, it's still received significant coverage - I don't really get why you're targeting this article to be deleted even though there's plenty of other articles out there that haven't charted at all with minimal to no coverage whatsoever. And, once again, articles on the music video of the song still talk about the song itself -> adding on to the "significant coverage" that the song has received. Have you not realized that almost all good/featured song articles with music videos have a section titled "Music video" on them? —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• eh, I think we can have enough here that this article existing wouldn't be a disgrace - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the article is a disgrace or not (your personal opinion) is not the point of the discussion; it is notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability has been established per WP:NMUSIC. You then argued it needed "significant coverage" as well. Please keep track of which argument you are using in a given thread - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NMUSIC does require significant coverage. All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.^WP:NMUSIC — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - case closed, it's notable. Blythwood (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: probably meant notable per above reasoning. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Here's a sample blurb: "Streeter has written songs for Chris Brown, Ariana Grande and other stars. In 2013, she had a Top 40 hit with "It Won't Stop," a duet with Brown that reached Recording Industry Association of America gold status." ESPN. The song charted multiple times & reached a gold status; in a sea of cruft that are music-related articles on Wikipedia, this one really stands out. Here's a review of the song from Idolator. NPR is discussing this song:

• In the spring of 2013, songwriter and R&B singer Sevyn Streeter released a song called "It Won't Stop," which she's called her "baby." Over the year and change that's followed, the song has sunk into our collective consciousness through commercial radio play and a music video viewed more than 35 million times, and on the recommendation of a growing group of critics and fans. The lyrics are vernacular, warm, unpretentious, while the performance demanded by the music is not for the meek. Away from a studio — and air conditioning — in a New Orleans boxing gym, Streeter executed with muscle and grace. link.

From the Billboard above:

• Streeter’s breakthrough record, however, is clearly “It Won’t Stop,” featuring Brown. The lead single from the EP reaches a new peak of No. 9 on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and is currently in its fourth consecutive week atop the Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop airplay chart. The infectious track sells 22,000 downloads (up 4%), sending it to a new peak (6-4) on R&B Digital Songs (viewable on billboard.biz). The track has now sold 254,000 since being released.

That's plenty for notability. I've added a few references to the article. It's a clear keep for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2016 (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. CSD G5. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1988 Nabisco Championship

1988 Nabisco Championship (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)

Yearly edition of a non-major golf championships. Only a few non-majors, WGC events & Players Championship are, have been deemed notable enough for yearly articles. This tournament has been around 1987 and no yearly articles exist other than this. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same issues as recent 1997 Sprint International discussion. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Assessment#Specific individual tournament pages ("This type of page is restricted to the Major Championships (Men and Women), WGC events and a few of the most important other tournaments"). Nigej (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tour Championship must fall under the "a few of the most important other tournaments" heading. --Harthacnut (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 2016 non-Majors/WGC list is currently: 2016 Players Championship, 2016 BMW PGA Championship, 2016 FedEx Cup Playoffs, 2016 CME Group Tour Championship plus the Olympics (Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's individual, Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's individual). Also worth noting that the FedEx Cup Playoffs pages include the results of the last 10 Tour Championships (2007 to 2016) already. The other issue is whether we need more red-links for tournament pages, unless there is some prospect of filling them in. Even the Players Championship has only 19 pages out of 43. Nigej (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is that list actually defined somewhere or is it just your opinion? Also that there might be red links is IMO not a good argument. --Harthacnut (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply The list is at list of Events-related deletion discussions. I wrote this section, but it was based on the accepted (by regular WP:GOLF contributors) list that's evolved over time. Regular WP:GOLF contributors have tended to try to keep the list short but it's expanded a little over the years. The BMW PGA Championship was added a few years ago (as I remember) following a similar debate. With over 300 Professional tournaments each year around the world, over a 100 years of golf to cover and little effort available, it's clear that a limit needs to set somewhere. Interesting information about a particular tournament can easily be added to the tournament page (eg Tour Championship) without creating new articles. I'm actually a fan of red links, especially to golfers, since they help in the creation of new biographies, but link to missing tournaments don't help in this regard. Nigej (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Tour Championship clearly qualifies as one of the most important other tournaments. Smartyllama (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2016 (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. SpinningSpark 15:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Rizzello

Flavio Rizzello (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)

Unreferenced BLP Rathfelder (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2016 (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. SpinningSpark 16:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 328

London Buses route 328 (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 bus route. Of the eight refs, three are to do with the last operator and have no use within this article. Nordic Nightfury 12:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not in the slightest bit notable. It's only "notable incidents" bare little relationship to the route itself. I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that someone being hit by a bus is notable (though, sympathy to the person who was hit). Jeni ^(talk) 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But being shot by a nail gun is not an everyday occurrence, is it?

• Notability is not inherited from incidents on a route. It depends on secondary coverage of the route in itself.Charles (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources like the Evening Standard and Daily Telegraph seem fine. Previous operators are relevant because notability does not expire. Andrew D. (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Strongly agree with Andrew Davidson. The route also has notability as it was the first route (I believe) to receive Hybrid Double deckers in London. Class455 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PRODUCT. Goods and services should be covered at the providers' pages. Not notable in itself.Charles (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the next portion of your selective quote from WP:PRODUCT says "unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Needless to say having all of the London bus articles on one page would be unwieldy. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Most of what is in the articles is from self-published sources or primary sources. The history of significant routes could easily be condensed into the main article.Charles (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an interesting prospect; it would require some collaboration, but it seems possible, and certainly would stop the problem where every so often a few bus articles are nominated for deletion and the same arguments come up again and again. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient coverage in the sources to pass WP:GNG. While Jcc has in my view already successfully refuted the WP:Product argument, just to add a bus route is not just a "product" but among other things an element of public infrastructure. It would be as senseless to delete a bus route for being a product as it would be to destroy or merge a motorway article just beacause it happened to be toll road. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Motorways are major engineering structures which are of course notable. Bus routes are little more than lines on a map that often change over time. There is no reason for every run-of-the-mill route to need an article. WP:NOTTRAVEL has a bearing on this.Charles (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable bus route, A mention on List of London bus routes would be more than sufficent, Anyway fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bus routes are significant, permanent parts of cities, which tend to be consistent. Above as part of an arguement for deletion it is mentioned that the content could be placed into List of London bus routes, however, that page currently contains a table of bus routes, which whilst sufficient for truly insignificant bus routes, would not offer sufficient coverage of the more important bus routes. London bus routes are well discussed in a variety of books; and normally individual bus routes are discussed in local papers etc. when there are major changes as can be seen in this article. There is a small trickle of bus routes nominated for deletion every-so-often; the main argument of those voting delete are similar every time, thus there should be a large scale deletion nomination articles of such bus articles where there is actually significant community input as opposed to the same editors popping up every time. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 406

London Buses route 406 (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 bus route. Some sources are a bit dubious, with original research within article. Nordic Nightfury 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing notable about this route at all, all that has ever happened to it is route and frequency changes. Jeni ^(talk 14:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a historic route – nearly a century old – and there's a detailed history of it in sources such as The Motor Bus in London Country. The article seems quite reasonable as it is and further improvement should be done by ordinary editing rather than deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Once again, agreeing with Andrew Davidson There are a number of sources here that can establish notability. Class455 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PRODUCT, WP:GNG. Goods and services should be covered at the providers' pages. Not notable in itself. Take out the self-published sources and there is insufficient secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG. Charles (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't say this about all bus routes, but a lot of the London bus routes have been around for almost a century or so and can be considered almost as notable as rail routes. I would say this qualifies as notable given the age and sourcing. Blythwood (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Blythwood, this is a particularly venerable and noteable bus route. Nothing gained by destroying the article. Sorry to repeat my argument against the WP:PRODUCT attack, but a bus route is not just a "product" but among other things an element of public infrastructure. It would be as senseless to delete a bus route for being a product as it would be to destroy or merge a motorway article just beacause it happened to be toll road. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Motorways are major engineering structures which are of course notable. Bus routes are little more than lines on a map that often change over time. There is no reason for every run-of-the-mill route to need an article. WP:NOTTRAVEL has a bearing on this.Charles (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable bus route, A mention on List of London bus routes would be more than sufficent, Anyway fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bus routes are significant, permanent parts of cities- this particular bus route is fast approaching its 100th anniversary. London bus routes are well discussed in a variety of books; and normally individual bus routes are discussed in local papers etc. when there are major changes. If the bus route was more recently created I might disagree, but this route has, as I have said, been around since 1920, and should not be subject to the small trickle of bus routes nominated for deletion every-so-often; the main argument of those voting delete are similar every time, thus there should be a large scale deletion nomination articles of such bus articles where there is actually significant community input as opposed to the same editors popping up every time. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:22, 4 November 2016 (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. There is no meaningful "keep" argument to be found anywhere in this discussion.  Sandstein  18:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empire loyalism

Empire loyalism (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 far as I can tell it's a hoax, with the factual parts not having enough substance for an article. No hits anywhere for "Movement for Ireland" together with "James Wills". If its one somewhat vague reference exists at all, it's not mentioned anywhere online. Kolbasz (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing relating to James Wills or the 'Movement for Ireland' in the article. All the citations add up and using the 'page link' tool, I can see correlation between the two subject points brought up within the article. WilliamKingstonCox (talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC) --WilliamKingstonCox (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: WilliamKingstonCox (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• A substantial part of the page was about that person/movement at the time of the AfD nomination and until this edit. AllyD (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can this be resolved as soon as possible please. This AfD entry is top in political lists - can a third party with an extensive knowledge give this article the greenlight to be kept? --WilliamKingstonCox (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to be a hoax - or at the very least OR synthesis, since it is taking and misinterpreting / misordering a selection of genuine but unconnected events in order to claim something new and unsourced: "the ideology that the British Empire should be re-established and continued". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article may need to be severely amended is confusion is occurring. However, I would like to point out that the topic on the "League of Empire Loyalists" has been linked to the paraphrase - '...and to a lesser extent imperial continuation'. Also, in terms to the Canadian 'loyalists' the paragraph has been opened with "the term itself" - 'itself' here being the keyword.Sabloem (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC) — Sabloem (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of TheHumbugBar (talk • contribs). [reply]

Exactly, its all synth. League of Empire Loyalists was a genuine 1950s entity, but has nothing to do with the subject of this article, there were inhabitants of America who decided (for allegiance reasons or for their safety) to move to the still British ruled territories in Canada after the War of Independence, but they have nothing to so with the subject of this article or indeed with League of Empire Loyalists, there was a 1997 Ontario state legislature decision to commemorate that migration because it was an important event in the development of Canada, but it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now? Do we keep, severely amend or delete this article? -TheHumbugBar (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: TheHumbugBar (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!. This is a process that takes some time. Kolbasz (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The apparent hoax has now been removed - though we haven't gotten a reason for its inclusion in the first place - but what remains seems to be, as pointed out, original synthesis, so my AfD nomination stands. Kolbasz (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand whats wrong with it? Its a general political standpoint. JohnTombs48 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC) - Struck !vote by blocked sock. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a genuine political standpoint. No such "ideology that the British Empire should be re-established and continued" standpoint exists in reality, which is why the claim that such an ideology exists is unsourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Amend What has occurred here is simple - a misunderstanding between two seperate meanings for the same term. The page states two different points in its opening line. I think Imperial continuation is the ideology we will go with for that of the League of Empire Loyalists. For the Canadian situation, is the page on United Empire Loyalists sufficient enough? I think either we keep the page and amend it or we continue the process of AfD and allow other insight from those specialising in the field, like myself, as a postgraduate at the University of Oxford studying British politics. Birmuk (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC) — Birmuk (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of TheHumbugBar (talk • contribs). [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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispero Ras Siento

Dispero Ras Siento (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 promotional article that doesn't sufficiently assert the notability of the subject.

At first glance, this appears to be a very in-depth and extensively-referenced article. However, upon examination, very few of these are to clearly independent third party sources. The vast majority of references are simply links to his material (i.e. videos or upload pages) or to profiles whose provenance is unclear and read strongly like self-penned or PR content.

(One of the few that doesn't come across as this is a blogspot.co.uk article, which I don't consider a reliable reference for notability purposes).

In addition, this article is clearly derived significantly from the Last FM profile "referenced" here with large chunks being almost identical. This pushes things beyond legitimate referencing into copyright violation... assuming that the author (Natasha Pap) *is* an unconnected third party. Otherwise, it might be more a case of someone associated with the subject rehashing their own PR. (I don't know who writes the Last.FM profiles, FWIW).

All articles directly associated with the subject appear to have been created by Natasha Pap who shows no notable activity in any other areas. Perhaps she's genuinely a big fan of the guy or perhaps she works for his record company- I can't tell.

I've nominated this as the main article, but I'd also like people to consider other Natasha Pap-created articles associated with the artist; specifically, these ones.

(This discussion at Commons might also be useful).

Ubcule (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Ubcule, i want to ask some questions. First of all i want to let you know that it's my first time writing on Wikipedia and i would like it to be complete and elaborate. I went to Dispero's company ( Music Kitchen) and asked about everything and Mr. Roilidis told me they opened one account ( Dispero Ras Siento) and they uploaded everything I need for my article. After what they upload I tried to correct it to make it better. So my question to you is why are you doing this to me? Is it easier for you to delete my work rather than helping me fix it?

Thank you.

Natasha (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please read the Wikipedia articles on notability and reliable sources. Notability is required for the subject of an article, and can be shown via coverage in reputable and independent third-party sources.

As I've already explained, the problem with your references is that (while there are a lot of them) almost *none* of come from sources that are clearly reliable *and* independent.

For example, the paragraph starting "In 2009 Dispero released two new video clips, while recording his next cd" appears in the Greek.FM profile. Who wrote this? Where did it come from? It's not a reliable source if we don't know. The problem is that almost all your "references" are like this.

Also, you cannot simply copy content from elsewhere verbatim. (Using a reference or source to back up an article is *not* the same as simply copying it). If it's not your article, do you have permission to copy it? If not, it's a copyright violation.

I'm sorry, but I can only judge your article by what I can see here, and unfortunately it comes across as very promotional without demonstrating the notability of the subject.

As the creator, it's your responsibility to demonstrate that the article subject is (at least) notable, not ours. If you can address this issue by providing references that are both reliable and independent for this, and you can explain/justify the material copied from other sources, then your article stands a better chance of being kept.

Ubcule (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Pap: Ubcule is not "doing this to you", his concern is with the article. As it stands, it has many worthless references, to Youtube and to blogs. He also states that it includes copyright violations, though I haven't checked that claim. If you can fix these problems, and supply some valid citations showing that the subject is notable, it should survive the proposal for deletion. But please be aware that Ubcule, and I, and all the editors here, are volunteers. We have no duty to try to fix articles created by others. Maproom (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If someone can provide reliable sources for two of this musician's albums (Hip-Hop Show, ΠΟΣΟ ΛΥΠΑΜΑΙ (Dispero album)) being produced by Universal Music Group, then the subject qualifies easily on WP:NMUSICIAN. As of right now, there is no English language RS I can find to confirm this claim. Perhaps there are Greek sources; unfortunately, Spanish, Portuguese and English are the maximum places I can traverse to on the RS front. If no sources can be provided, a SOFTDELETE may be in order. The current sources in the article are all unreliable. Lourdes 03:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, promotional and non-notable. I would have at least considered speedying this Note I've removed all the links to his YouTube videos Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional; I've noticed that the referenced article at Greek.FM appears to be almost- if not exactly- the same as the bio article at Last.FM. So one is merely a duplicate of the other (i.e. these aren't two references), it's unclear which is the original, and it's still unclear who wrote either (i.e. can't be taken as a reliable reference).

Also, the Blogspot(!) article referenced is no longer there; an Internet Archive copy does exist.

Just to be clear, this is not a judgement by us on the quality of the guy's music- quite the opposite, our opinion is irrelevant here but we need evidence of notability via reputable publications. There's none here so far, unfortunately.

Ubcule (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys, thank you for your opinion and help, these two old cds made by universal and some years after Dispero changed companies and released his work from "music kitchen record". I am searching for evidence from universal but everything changed to "music kitchen". I don't know why is this important because "music kitchen" is an original and legitimate record company. I have the cd in my hands if you want me to take pictures of it and send them to you for examination. Thanks again guys, I'm trying my best. Jimfbleak thank you for your help.

Natasha (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As no sources have been provided despite my request and despite the time given during the past few days, I'll have to go for delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. Lourdes 03:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If all these proofs aren't strong enough for your community, go like : last.fm , sonichits.com , mygreek.fm e.t.c. I'm very sorry but I don't know how else to prove it to you. I don't know why is it so difficult for you to understand, i mean with just one visit to Dispero's page or on YouTube you'll find video clips, shows and interviews on tv that can prove it to you. The truth is that I'm very sad for the way they behave. They call themselves "volunteers" but they only destroy they don't create. Mr. Lourdes , do what you were born to do, delete my dreams and my 8 month long work. Natasha (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Natasha Pap, I am a Ms., not a Mr. That apart, the intention is not to destroy your creation. The intention is to ensure that the widely read Wikipedia has articles that are notable. Might I suggest that you give a read to WP:Notability, WP:BIO and to WP:BLP? That would enable you to understand what kind of articles we have on Wikipedia and what kind of verifiable sourcing we require within them. Please follow the guidelines and policies I have linked to, and you may have your article recreated. You can work on your article in a draft section before moving it to the main space the next time. That way, you can ask my or any other editor's comments on whether the article qualifies on our notability guidelines. Thanks. Lourdes 09:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the sake of one last attempt at helping you, can you provide us two or three newspaper or book sources/links that have discussed this performer in-depth? Your radio sources, blog sources and videos are not reliable as per our policies and guidelines. We need reliable sources. Can you provide the ones I have requested? Thanks. Lourdes 09:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't find anything on news or books or on the internet but I can find it in magazines and newspapers on paper. I am searching for some kind of rules on wikipedia and they say that if a musician has 4 cd/albums or more it's ok to make an article. Ok Lourdes i'm not sure what more to do to prove to you the existance of this musician, so do what you must do and i will continue searching for a complete article to write about this..thanks for your guidance. Natasha (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2016 (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.  Sandstein  16:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simpay

Simpay (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)

Merely a Press Release Notable. Nothing to be here as new article for closed consortium. Light2021 (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For lacking notability and being closed as of June 2005. Meatsgains (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I've stuck through my previous vote changing it from "delete" to "weak delete" as a result of the sources provided below. While the company is covered in additional sources, IMO, there still isn't enough out there to warrant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has one terrible source, for sure. But a quick search finds depth of coverage (a BBC article and an interesting "whatever happened to x?" piece). That's already a start towards passing WP:CORP and no doubt a search for offline sources (given the time period) would uncover more. This is exactly the sort of topic that I want to be able to find on Wikipedia: a failed attempt at an Apple Pay-style system that was 10 years too early. There's clearly potential for an encyclopedic article here and I'd be happy to write it. Meatsgains offers the service being dead since 2005 as a reason for deleting it -- we may as well delete Pontiac and Richard Pryor, too then. :) A Train^talk 14:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's all still advertising and the sheer number of IPs in the history emphasize this, the BBC article is simply advertising what there is to say about the company and its services, something the current article noticeably shows. There is such a sensible deletion if it means its benefits are outweighed by the concerns. My own searches are not finding what we would need to significantly improve this, and so, what's offered is not nearly enough for actual convincing, let alone substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwisterTwister, how exactly does one advertise for a defunct platform from 11 years ago? Are you hip to some sort of advertising time travel? If I've misunderstood what you've written here (entirely possible) please correct me. A Train^talk 21:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused how the BBC article is advertising. I do not see a sponsored notice on it and it is written by a member of its staff writers, not a contributor. Also, "there is such a sensible deletion if it means its benefits are outweighed by the concerns" does not make sense to me. Can you clarify? --CNMall41 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The BBC article alone with this one from The Register show in-depth coverage. There is a Computer Weekly article that is behind a pay wall so I am unable to see but wanted to mention it in case someone has access. There are also two books that talk about the subject - [6] & [7]. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples to qualify my !vote include: The Guardian, BBC News, Taipei Times, The Register, The Register, Electronic Commerce, The New Legal Framework for E-Commerce in Europe, Corporate and Social Transformation of Money and Banking, Computer Weekly, Gigaom, IBM. Whether or not a company or consortium is active or defunct is not associated with notability. See WP:DEFUNCTS for more information about this notion. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT due to no apparent lasting notability or impact; a defunct initiative with passing mentions in the press. For example, one of the article linked above states:

• By 2005 that [Simpay] had morphed into PayForIt, for UK operators only but with similar aspirations, and a similar lack of success. A decade later, mobile network operators are still being cut out of the payment loop, but not for lack of trying.

This tells us that this was not a significant entity, and I don't see coverage that meets the notability requirements for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Simpay passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline per the significant coverage provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Simpay has received sustained coverage. This article from The Register was published in 2003, this article from The Guardian was published in 2004, this article from the BBC and this article from The Register was published in 2005. Per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary and WP:DEFUNCT, that Simpay is defunct does not make it non-notable.

  Cunard (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pining Meatsgains (talk · contribs). What are your thoughts about the sources provided after your comment? Cunard (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The Delete comments above have cared to better analysis the sources and have cared to mention and quote the concerns in those articles, regardless of publication name, and in this, the fact they are all simply interviewed company quotes and republishing of company finances or other company information, hence it's not notable, convincing or substantial. When we start taking such republished PR as coverage, we're completely damned as an encyclopedia.

Also, it is not sustained coverage if it's simply once again publishing company quotes and finances, because only the company would know and therefore advertise it. None of that makes it independent regardless of who published it or when. When there's literally nothing else but this to suggest as sourcing, it suggests the mere bareness. With this, WP:GNG means nothing if it means removing an advertisement in which WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply. For example simply take Simpay planned....Simply chose....The founders started work....was founded with a goal....[so and so] then joined them]....Simpay started operations.... [To begin the article], the company....posted the announcement....The company is different because....The company promises it will....Simpay thinks....Simpay has expressed an interest.... and that's simply a minor portion of this, therefore if that's literally the best there is to add in an article and its sources, it shows the mere bareness. The quotes here alone show the either complete bareness of company-published words or the thin cover of rephrasing.

As it is, trivial PR and advertising, regardless of wherever published, is explicitly emboldened in Wikipedia policy to be unacceptable, regardless of anything. When we start becoming a PR business listing for every single company who wants an article, we're damned. As it is, there's been damages enough so we mustn't take things so lightly given the stakes. As it is, the fact of simply repeating the same "news" articles simply shows the emphasized bareness.

Also, importantly to note, the international articles all something in common and that's the mere starting of everything of "The company said" or "The company says" every single time", this is an automatic suggestion that the information was merely rehashed from company PR and its advertising, especially considering that's where said PR advertising originates, hence the company is simply republishing its own words into whatever publication it pleases in return of advertising. That alone, together with WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, is enough to delete, regardless of anything else. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 13 November 2016 (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. Kurykh (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Ascarrunz

Cesar Ascarrunz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)Us

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

Mr. Ascarrunz does not, in my humble estimation, meet the notability requirements under WP:POLITICIAN and the current sources appear to be links to various election sites. Dolotta (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete candidates for mayorship are never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If enough reliable source coverage could be piled onto Cesar's Latin Palace to get him over WP:GNG for that, then he'd be notable on that basis — but a non-winning mayoral candidate is not automatically entitled to an article because candidate, so his notability depends solely on the nightclub. And even the candidacies are stacked exclusively onto primary sources that cannot carry notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Hi, Dolotta. What efforts have you made regarding:
  • WP:BEFORE
  • ALTERNATIVES TO DELETION

The above are WP:POLICIES that must be followed before an article may be nominated for deletion. Additionally, Señor Ascarrunz is more than a "politician". Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Checkingfax, I have not been able to find anything specific from my end here in the midwest. Do you have access to more information on your end in California? Dolotta (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a perennial candidate per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLOUTCOMES contains no indication that perennial candidates are accorded any special degree of notability above and beyond any other unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Fun

Mobile Fun (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)

not notable firm; all of the notices and minor awards are just routine for any business of this sort. A concentration of really minor awards and promotional articles is characteristic of an attempt to write a promotional article about a minor company. Some articles like this are done by paid editors; some by good-faith new editors copying what the paid editors do, because they think that is what we want here. It's time to remove the bad examples. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The basic name of this company may make source searching difficult. I have found the following source below, which provides in-depth coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hurley, James (February 22, 2011). "Is the time right for a costly expansion at Mobile Fun?". The Telegraph. Retrieved October 15, 2016.

It's an interview with their exec., published in a section called "Business Club", which is a newsletter/blog that one can become a "member" of. It's an advertorial. I think its time we stoped counting interviews with the ceo as evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: It's often standard practice for reporters for reliable news sources to actually speak with people involved in the companies they report upon. It would be biased for them not to. The Telegraph article example I posted above has a decent amount of background coverage about the company. Also "joining" The Telegraph's Business Club only means that those that "join" will receive a newsletter from The Telegraph (see this link). It does not appear at all that anyone can write anything and The Telegraph will automatically publish it, just from joining to receive a newsletter. Also per this source, the author of The Telegraph article, James Hurley, was an editor for both of The Telegraph newspapers for over three years, and when comparing the dates of these respective articles, it appears quite likely that Hurley was an editor at the time the source I provided above was published. Also, by referring to the article as an advertorial, you imply that the Mobile Fun paid The Telegraph to publish the article. However, such assertions are best proven with actual evidence. For example, the article does not state anywhere "paid content", "paid advertisement", or the like. Actual advertorials often have such types of "paid content" disclaimers, in order to maintain journalistic objectivity. No offense, but relative to my research about the source and author, I find the statement "it's an advertorial" to be unconvincing, particularly relative to the definition of what an advertorial actually comprises. I'm also skeptical of the notion that The Telegraph was compensated by the company to publish the article. I may not volunteer more of my time to further research this company, so perhaps the article will simply be deleted regardless of source availability, since it's described in part as promotional. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I belive that the above comment presents the coverage as "investigative journalism" while in fact this appears to be uncritical coverage based on the interview with the CEO. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not all coi involves money. I'd suspect some is quid pro quo journalism. You give me something interesting, and I print it as you would like it. Just an hypothesis, and we can make many. I judge by the content, which I can actually see. One of the dangers of WP is the uncritical acceptance of sources. Material worded like advertising is intrinsically unreliable, no matter where it occurs. If I see it anywhere, I know not to believe it , or take it seriously for any purpose, except to say what the writer intended to say or let be said in his name. --I cannot determine his purpose. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources do not help to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The Telegraph source, for example, for the vast majority quotes an employee. This is essentially an indirect reprint of their words (stuff the company is talking about itself). I would have liked to see some better sources for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the significant coverage in this article in The Telegraph and this article in the Birmingham Post. I agree with Northamerica1000 that it is good journalistic practice to interview of their articles' subjects. I also agree the sources are not promotionally written. There is sufficient non-interview coverage about the company to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I concur with the nomination in that there's advertising in both the information and sources and , looking at the supposed "news" article above simply finds it matching with the same exact advertising information shown and emulated in the deletion nomination, especially since the link then goes to list company quotes and other triviality hence it's enough to confirm as PR and therefore delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertorial backed largely by churnalism. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- strictly promotional content for an unremarkable business. Sources are weak as discussed above. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Pure promotional nonsense. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotion of a non-notable company. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:31, 20 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Milne

Bob Milne (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)

Does not meet notability requirements WP:MUSBIO Maineartists (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject and content achievements (2) do not meet notability requirements. Lede: "considered as a "very good specialist of ragtime boogie" is not worthy of inclusion based on verbiage alone, where others in the field are "recognized" and "leading". Cited reference does not claim "national treasure" in its source [8]. Furthermore, simply being called a "national treasure" by an interviewer, does not warrant inclusion on WP. Finally, the claim by Penn State neuroscientist Kerstin Bettermann is a bit over the top in that any musician of standing and quality has the ability to focus attention in more than one generalized area of musical thought: i.e. a soloist performing a concerto and leading an orchestra at the same time. An organist who plays 2 consoles and a pedal board while conducting a choir with verbal commands. A street musician who plays multiple instruments and rhythms with his body. Even a simple bar pianist who is playing tunes while carrying on a conversation and joking with patrons at a restaurant. This is not worthy of inclusion on WP. It is standard practice in the music world.Maineartists (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Good for him for getting into the Library of Congress, but I cannot see notability here. If he's a concert pianist, where are the reviews? If a ragtime pianist, ditto? "He can play technically challenging pieces of music on demand while carrying on a conversation and cracking jokes." So could Dudley Moore, but that's not what makes him notable. So could a retired professional French horn player I know, and so could his colleagues. (He once told me a story of the day when the principal bassoonist in one of the top Dutch orchestras made such a good joke about the conductor that it was difficult to maintain concentration; but being pros, they managed it.) (If Penn State neuroscientist Kerstin Bettermann established that Milne has the unusual ability to mentally "play" up to 4 symphonies in his head simultaneously, then Penn State neuroscientist Kerstin Bettermann hasn't taken Music 101.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and copy edit. The subject meets WP:BASIC, per source examples below. Regarding the notion of being a national treasure, this article from The Chattanoogan this bylined article from Keyboard magazine states, "The U.S. Library of Congress considers Bob Milne a national treasure because of his contributions to the preservation of ragtime", so this appears to be a legitimate claim. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article in The Chattanoogan is a standard press release associated directly with the subject prior to an appearance on the Sewanee campus and the wording and facts can be found in all the provided links. It does not support the claim. There needs to be a better source given if he is to be deemed notable. Regarding the list of references provided: they do not meet WP:BASIC since all cite direct interviews with the subject for the original 2 claims to notability. For as much as the subject states in his interviews: "travels the world playing for kings and presidents and heads of state", “is a Musical Ambassador”, "considered to be the best ragtime/boogie-woogie pianist in the world", one would think there would be more written about him separate and non-related directly. Press releases announcing an upcoming concert do not provide for reliable resources of notability. Maineartists (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck/modified part of my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I still feel that the subject meets WP:BASIC per the bylined news articles in Keyboard, Flint Journal, The County Press and the Radiolab source. It is standard journalistic practice to speak with subjects; it would be biased for reporters not to. These articles have some quotes to varying degrees, but also contain non-interview content. Furthermore, ragtime is not exactly a popular genre in contemporary times, so it makes sense for the reporters to have spoken with the man about his interest and work in this fading genre. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Another option would be to merge the article to Ragtime § Ragtime revivals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wish to make it known that I have no interest in this subject either way. I actually had never heard of him before I stumbled accidentally on his WP page. I am actually trying with great attention to find any source that could be reliable enough that I could cite in order to keep this page and improve upon it. But unfortunately, no matter what avenue I travel, it always leads back to the same source: the subject himself and self-proclamation. I'm not doubting the Library of Congress statement, but without a secondary source that shows it as a transcribed or audio source, all we have is a plethora of relayed information from the subject by way of newspaper articles and press releases announcing concerts. The only other claim is the study by Kerstin Bettermann. The 4 pieces are referred to as orchestral "symphonies" -- when in fact, two of them aren't even symphonies: "Beethoven's Emperor Concerto" and Mendelssohn's "Song Without Words". I understand this is nit-picking, but if this podcast is the only notability claim, the source is far from reliable. All of this aside, for as long as this "greatest ragtime boogie-woogie player in the world" has concertized, I have yet to find any substantial review, write-up, publication, endorsement, or acknowledgement from colleagues or experts in the field. If the interviewers did indeed speak with the man, where is the proof to back up his claims separate from the interviews? Any contributor should require substantial resources outside of an interview with the subject himself or a media / press release that is obviously fed from the internet or the source in order to build a viable article. From what I have discovered, there are contests held annually coast to coast in this genre that award "World's Best", "Champion", etc, and Bob Milne's name is nowhere to be found. Merely merging still does not solve the problem of reliable sources and notable claim. In none of the sources has he been credited with the "Ragtime Revival"; and most of the links are in need of citations. His name is where it is for whatever reason; and until citations are provided, should remain as is. I could not find any to support such claims. I vote: delete. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2016 (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 as another week has not suggested anything else and the subject, as I see the article, is in fact notable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dwelley

Charles Dwelley (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 WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I don't understand your reasoning. 90% of the article is based on secondary, independent sources that are clearly defined. These are:

1. The Seattle Times
2. The Olympian
3. Muller, Judy (2011). Emus Loose in Egnar: Big Stories from Small Towns. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0803230163. LCCN 2010051804. OCLC 679936550.
4. Skagit River Journal of History and Folklore
5. Skagit Valley Herald
6. The two issues of The Concrete Herald that were published after Dwelley stopped editing it (in fact after his death).

Only a very minor portion of the article cites The Concrete Herald when it was edited by Dwelley.

Hence, I do not understand why you cite WP:BASIC. Please explain. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not required, it would be helpful if a link could be provided to these sources. Being able to see and read these secondary sources would assist in determining notability. I did my own search for secondary sources and was not successful. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Magnolia677:! Thank you for your reply. Let’s see what I can do.

1. The Seattle Times – here are some options:
   1. First of all, modern issues already have links incorporated into references (in the article).
   2. Older issues are available in here. Most academic institutions would have this subscription, so if you don’t want to pay for a subscription, you might want to get to the relevant issues from a college, perhaps? Alternatively, you can search for “Dwelley” or “Concrete Herald”, and this service will show you snippets free of charge. This will allow you crosscheck those snippets against the sources that I cited (at least you can see that this information is actually there).
2. I know of an older website that used to be maintained by Skagit Historical Society, but now it’s just sitting on the net. This site re-quoted (albeit with some editorial remarks and omissions) some other sources that I used. Specifically:
   1. this page quotes from Bourasaw, 2005 (see at the very top.)
   2. this page quotes from Skagit Valley Herald and The Olympian (please search for these titles within the page).
3. Muller 2011 is available on Amazon here If you have an account, you can ‘look inside’, and perhaps get to the right page by searching for Dwelley.
4. Finally, the links to the post-Dwelley issues of 'The Concrete Herald' are available in the article text.

I hope this helps! 凰兰时罗 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I just added a couple of extra sources. BTW, I still do not understand why you (@Magnolia677:) thought that the article fails WP:BASIC. I agree that The Concrete Herald was failing WP:BASIC prior to my recent edits, but I believe that this article never did. The subject was shown to have extensive coverage (his bio, career, accomplishments, etc.) in independent, published, and reliable sources from the start. Look, the only 'dependent' sources in there are the issues of The Concrete Herald that were published when Dwelley was editing it. However, they were used to fully support only one section: 'World War II interruption' and to provide some supporting information for the date of marriage with the second wife and for some details in libel controversy. (Both subjects also have independent sources.). Hence, the coverage by independent sources was shown from the very start, and I strongly believe that this nomination for deletion was a mistake. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the Seattle Times articles are behind a paywall. I've done my own search for reliable secondary sources and have not been successful. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I'm sorry, but I fail to understand this logic. The fact that you cannot immediately access the provided source(s) should not affect WP:BASIC-compliance in any way. I posted some helpful tips above, but I fail to see within current policies anything that justifies the discrimination of paper sources in favor of online sources. On the contrary, I see in the policies a consistent push in favor of the most reliable sources, and for older sources on average, the sources published in paper form are more reliable than sources published in electronic form. Having said that, I admit that I'm new, and I could have overlooked something. Please direct me to the specific policy that you think supports this logic, if there is one. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, if you want, you can post the links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and see if someone there can get you a PDF or some copy of the source so you can verify the claims. Per WP:PAYWALL, sources do not have to be freely accessible in order to be used in an article. clpo13_(talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that this might be a question of veracity. I have access to PDFs of Seattle Times, and I can probably share them somehow within the appropriate guidelines. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I made another update, adding more independent sources. @Magnolia677:, do you have enough to withdraw your nomination? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Looks like that subject meets WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG (I couldn't access offline sources though). Anup [Talk] 04:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to lifetime achievements, but possibly reduce 30 to 50% so that it looks less like a WP:MEMORIAL. There's excessive intricate detail in the article that (in my view) takes away from the subject's accomplishments. It would also be less likely to be renominated for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I just updated the article with additional facts/sources. After learning additional facts, I realized that the person is even more notable than I originally thought. @K.e.coffman: I noted that you suggested the contraction the article for balance. As you can see, I've chosen another approach: I enhanced other sections. I believe this should work better. What do you think? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @MBisanz: Frankly, I don't understand why this nomination is still going, because the initial problem has been rectified a long time ago. The current version of the article has all aspects of the life of this person covered by reliable secondary sources:
  1. "The Washington Newspaper" which is a journal that is published by the University of Washington.
  2. "Seattle Times" which is a mainstream newspaper.
• Sources of this quality are listed in WP:SOURCES as reliable, and WP:GNG (a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) is met without a question.
• If we zero in on WP:JOURNALIST, there is evidence in the article that the person used to be widely cited (item 1) (confirmed by the aforementioned journal and a book published by the University of Nebraska press) and co-created notable Concrete Herald (item 3).
• To summarize, the initial reason is no longer applicable, the person who started the nomination (@Magnolia677:) apparently has nothing more to say, and two other people are in favor of keep. So, how much longer should this deletion process go on? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2016 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Jordan

Elise Jordan (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)

Second time around. Not notable: political operative who has made a tv appearance or two, and probably gets a few mentions in the papers--but there is no significant in-depth discussion that I saw to prove she's notable. Note that one of the KEEP voters from last time is a blocked sock. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to article on Michael Hastings (journalist) where her very minor roles can be covered and where her one notable set of actions, being a figure in undermining claims of foul play in her husband's death, can be better covered there. She is not notable on her own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not very bothered either way, but... It's pretty rare that I'm watching a news video on YouTube and look up one of the people mentioned in it and find that their Wikipedia article is currently at AFD. Republican who is highly critical of Trump is a fairly interesting factoid, and she came down pretty hard for an "MSNBC political analyst" who apparently usually skews right-of-center. If she still works for them then I imagine if she doesn't already meet GNG or NJOURNALIST she will pretty soon. Whether the article remains or not, I wonder if there is a better option than a redirect to her husband. Cenk described her as "She's a Republican woman, supported Rand Paul earlier" not "She's a Republican woman, was married to Michael Hastings earlier"; they were married for two years, and he died three years ago. If I searched her name after seeing the video I linked and was redirected to an article on someone who died three years earlier I would be a bit confused -- her name only appears four times in the article on her husband. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Hijiri88 above. Was watching a news video featuring her too, Ben Carson to Reporter, "Turn off her Microphone", "She's Thick Headed" and came here to look her up. I feel certain others will follow. Airwave~enwiki (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is super-suspicious. My happening to search the name of someone who was at AFD is a coincidence, but it's possible, and I've been making edits to Wikipedia virtually every day for the last two years, where Airwave~enwiki essentially hasn't edited in four years. I also don't know why a "Keep" !vote would be agreeing with my "I don't mind, but a simple redirect wouldn't make sense". (Note that I know technically Johnpacklambert said "Merge", but more often than not it seems successful "Merge" results lead to the page being redirected with no material actually being merged and the redirect ultimately being forgotten. Redirecting to the page on her husband, as that article is currently written, makes no sense, so no redirect should be done unless a simultaneous merging of the Elise Jordan content is performed.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although there was a flurry of coverage in the wake of her husband's tragic death in a car crash, the articles I found in a search and clicked on were brief and not enough to justify a stand-alone article. She is a youngish journalist; it may simply be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable outside of a specific event. Redirect unnecessary. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability cannot be inherited. The subject is not independently notable. It seems there is a small mention in the news which is ultimately connected to her husband. But nothing substantial about the subject herself. There is no need to merge any content here and a redirect is frankly unnecessary. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - run of the minor functionary. I note this discussion has been going on for over five weeks. Time to move on. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bigly

Bigly (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 is a list of external links and paraphrasing or direct quotes, failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In addition, although it looks like there are a multitude of reliable sources, however it looks like this is WP:ROUTINE, especially with this election. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO (probably the closest thing that will cover this kind of article). In addition, this article is terrible, it's a list of links and some quotes from them. Perhaps a sentence about this topic in the Donald Trump article would be okay, but this word doesn't merit its own article. Sheepythemouse (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable supposed word. A word does not become notable because an American politician uses it. Not necessarily a reason for deletion but the article is not of acceptable quality. AusLondonder (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Substubbify and then transwiki to Wiktionary. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article fails WP:N. This is also a very poor article that reflects negatively upon the project.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sheepy. Don't even bother with sending it to Wiktionary. South Nashua (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2016 (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  14:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wie Sagt Man Noch

Wie Sagt Man Noch (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)

Spam created in violation of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. Non notable website. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is a website for synonyms, originating in Germany. The website has some small mentions in listings about "useful websites" on some RS websites/magazines like Chip, but nothing which resembles actual in-depth coverage which would warrant an article on Wikipedia. The "literature" listed in the article is similar, just short mentions as parts of "useful websites" or "praxis tips" (they can be checked on google books). The rest are some self-published press releases on the internet. There is no actual significant coverage of this webpage anywhere, and the subject therefore fails WP:NWEB in all criteria and WP:GNG generally. It should therefore be deleted. Note that the creator of this page is a banned sock conglomerate which created many similar articles of questionable notability (see here). Dead Mary (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 3 November 2016 (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. / Withdrawn - Sources have been provided & therefore meets GNG - Although there's a delete !vote present sources have been found and so I see no reason for this to continue, Anyway thanks again Voceditenore, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amelda Brown

Amelda Brown (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 actress, I originally planned to source the article however I can only find mentions, The article has remained unsourced since its creation (2007), According to IMDB she was in The Bill for 10 years yet there's absolutely nothing source-wise to even confirm it, She appears to meet NACTOR due to The Bill and various others but ultimately fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 21:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this even meets the basic criteria for notability. WP:BASIC Where's the "significant roles"? WP:ENT or evidence for "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."? Without any good evidence this looks like a bit player indistinguishable from a million others. Any awards or outstanding recognition, anywhere? by anyone? Apparently not. I would prefer a speedy delete on this one.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to mention, I checked those movie links, I could not find this actor's name once. The IMDB did have her listed, but not surprising considering that site is dedicated to movies and related trivia.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article lacks any reliable sources at all. IMDb is not considered reliable. It also clearly does not establish notability since it is meant to be a comprehensive directory, and Wikipedia is not a directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- a role in a Harry Potter film got my attention. Poor quality article, but she seems to have an adequate filmography to meet NACTOR and GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject has no Significant coverage / reliable sources so I fail to see how this would meet GNG ?, There could be presumed notability but you can say that about any article although I do admit I'd imagine there is a few offline sources however I don't have access to these, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC),[reply]

• Keep per WP:NACTOR (Criteria 1). Davey2010, it is not required that she meet both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR—only one of them. I am in the process of expanding and referencing this. Apart from her television and film work, where the roles are all pretty minor, she is primarily known as a stage actress and has performed in leading roles or substantial supporting roles for the Royal National Theatre US tour (Lady Macbeth in Macbeth [9]), Royal Court theatre (Gibb in Tim Crouch's Adler and Gibb, world premiere [10]), Shakespeare's Globe (Maudlin in A Chaste Maid in Cheapside [11] and [12]). She also played major roles in the premieres of Caryl Churchill's Fen and A Mouthful of Birds as well as appearing in leadng roles in major revivals of Churchill's Light Shining in Buckinghamshire at the Royal National Theatre and Heart's Desire at the Orange Tree Theatre. [13] and [14]. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Voceditenore - Oh wow thanks for finding those, I wasn't aware of the Theatre performances so thanks for finding out about that too, Anyway I'll close as Withdrawn but anyway thanks again for finding those. –Davey2010^Talk 15:32, 10 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chorophobia

Chorophobia (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)

Thereis absolutely no valid sources besides various lists of weird phobias, occasional usages and spammy/snake oil websites. Fails WP:MEDRS miserably. The prev afd was improperly closed by a non-admin. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable. Fails WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete non-notable neologism. — soupvector (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. --Iztwoz (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all but a couple of main phobia's should be merged to an article called "listed of phobia". You can have a phobia to anything. We are not a Greek dictionary. We did something similar with strains of cannabis a while ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:14, 5 November 2016 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meters (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Harris

Damien Harris (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)

A good high school football player, just starting his second year of college ball (first as starter), but nothing notable. Fails WP:ANYBIO, and the more specific WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NHSPHSATH, and WP:NSEASONS. Meters (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator There does appear to be sufficient coverage of this player to show notability. We need to improve the article, but that does not concern this AFD. Meters (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nothing notable? Not only does he clearly pass WP:GNG which trumps all of those other policies, but he is the starting running back on the number one team in the country...--Yankees10 20:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Lizard (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'll be happy to withdraw this if he is notable, but simply playing for a notable team does not make him notable. Unless being a good high school player who is recruited is sufficient to show notability the article needs more meat. Aside from that all we source (and that is just to local media) is that he started a game in his second season of college ball. We need to show that he has gained national media attention as an individual player. Meters (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's the starting running back on not only the number 1 team, but a team that over the past several seasons has had many high-profile running backs (Mark Ingram Jr., Trent Richardson, Eddie Lacy, Derrick Henry). Thus, because of the success of his predecessors, anyone who plays running back for Alabama is guaranteed to draw attention from the media. If you'd kindly withdraw the nomination I'm almost positive I can find some sources to establish his notability. Lizard (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Immortalized Tour

Immortalized Tour (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)

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete basically a promotional tour info guide for a metal band. WP is not the place for that per WP:DIRECTORY. I looked for RS to determine if this is band is perhaps so special that it could warrant its own article, but I couldnt find enough which would satisfy WP:GNG. Only listing, trivial mentions and standard coverage of the tour, which would warrant to have this article. The article is trivial promo and should therefore be deleted; info on the tour can be added to the Disturbed article. Dead Mary (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a non-notable tour that fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. The article has been tagged as needing non-primary sources since August 2015, shortly after it was created, and although there have been a lot of edits, the amount of primary sources went from one to five and still zero reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress of the Apes

Mistress of the Apes (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 article consists of a single sentence with a link to a New York Times page as a source that has nothing in it about the film. Likely not notable. Wlmg (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It looks like Emanuel Levy reviewed the film at some point in time per Rotten Tomatoes, although the review itself isn't linked to on the site. TV Guide also rated it as well. I'll see what else I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: I found this [15] not a super fantastic RS, but it is only a cheese ball movie in the final analysis.--Wlmg (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By all accounts this film is terrible. But it is a film from Larry Buchanan, a director famous in certain circles because of his films. He's had books written about him. I feel that films from Buchanan are notable in their own way and deserving of an entry. I will try to find some extra sourcesDutchy85 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Found this New York Times blurb and video [16] The NYT is the "gold standard" of notability , right?--Wlmg (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Its still not a great article, but the sources that have been introduced since the AFD started seem to be enough to pass at least the bare minimum of the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Dutchy85: whether the film is terrible or not is not a reason to keep an article on Wikipedia. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely! just wanted to acknowledge - I think we should keep it. It's larry Buchanan! :) Dutchy85 (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dutchy85: Just because it is a film made by a notable director doesn't mean the article should stay. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - I think we should add some stuff to it but only if we can. One source about it is not enough. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning to keep, mainly per the extensive 8-page analysis in the Routledge book. The offline Emanuel Levy's review and the TV Guide review also help in terms of notability. Article was pretty horrible, now is decent. Cavarrone 06:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the reviews such as TvGuide and book source borderline passes GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Alonso

Javier Alonso (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. This player fails WP:GNG (no significant media coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (he has not played in a fully-professional league - merely being in the squad is not sufficient. GiantSnowman 18:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Azcona: Dear Giant and other collaborators, thanks for looking at the article. Javier Alonso is a professional footballer that debuted with Deportivo Alavés and has played with Aitor Buñuel and other players I can mention that have similar profiles. You can google "Javier Alonso Martinez Alaves" and you will see his profile from Athletic Bilbao's or Deportivo Alavés's sites. We could add their second last name to their profile, shrink the article f it's too large, or other options. Please keep me posted. Thank you for your time. 2 November 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Azcona: Dear Fenix down, thanks for your comments, Javier Alonso is a professional footballer that debuted with La Liga's Deportivo Alavés against Segunda División B's Real Unión. He won the U18 Spain's Championship with the Basque Country national football team and captained the team the following year when they finish third in Spain. I could delete the youth career or other recommendation to keep the profile in Wikipedia. Thanks for your help.

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no fully pro matches played and clearly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 18:24, 10 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Anderson & Associates

Kevin Anderson & Associates (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)

Its unusual that I find myself persuaded to stay my hand in a contested csd by comments on the talk page, however this one makes an interesting case that this is notable for its role in ghostwriting, therefore on the strength of that argument I have elected to put this up at afd to get feedback on whether or not this should be deleted, merged, redirected, or draft-ified. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks non-trivial support for the company. Although uses recognized authors, the author's works are their own work product (granted it is not acknowledged as such, but neither is it acknowledged as the company's) and the author's notability is not inherited by the company. reddogsix (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as completely damned as an advertisement, from the advertising information which cares to state clients and published PR, to the said published and republished PR, there is literally nothing close to an acceptable article here and certainly nothing suggesting anyone has cared to fix it since the one account is an advertising-only one. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional PR content. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:34, 10 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESO (band)

ESO (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)

Promotional article for non-notable band, which fails all the criteria at WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Only referenced from the band's own facebook page. Purported record label is owned by band members (not to be confused with notable publishers with a similar name). Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In what way is it promotional? Would someone read this article and want to go and buy the band's records? No. --Michig (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the subject is not notable and for that reason only. No real reliable source coverage found and I don't see any other criterion of WP:NBAND being met here. --Michig (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 15:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 15:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Possibly advertorial. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. and salt. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gut and psychology syndrome

Gut and psychology syndrome (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)

Subject is a non-notable psuedoscientific theory which has previously been deleted by the community. The cited sources do not address the subject (GAPS) but rather a related diet that the community has also found insufficiently notable for its own article. See also Fringe Theories. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt. Everything the nom said. WP:PROMO as well. gah. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and salt both capitalizations of the title per WP:FRINGE. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious bollocks, but, more to the point, not notable bollocks. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge somewhere. As pubmed comes up with zero articles not notable for a standalone article. But "science based medicine" discusses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt quite clearly not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. I was torn on this one. The present article is devoted mostly to countering the claims of the GAPS diet, and I feel it is useful for Wikipedia to have balanced, objective articles on pseudoscience. But only if the pseudoscience is notable and widespread enough — otherwise, the Wiki article might unduly promote a minor theory. Even after reading the prior AfD discussion I was undecided. Then I saw that the article was declined in the draft process and moved to mainspace anyway. Now I am firmly in favor of deletion.

Salting is necessary. When Wikipedia has a decent anti-pseudoscience article that is deleted by AfD, someone may create a pro-pseudo article to replace it, and it takes time to come to the attention of objective editors. Salting will prevent the creation of an unbalanced article to replace this one. In other words, the consensus that appears to be building here is not that the article is flawed, but that Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic at all, period.

A sentence or two in specific carbohydrate diet is, I think, the most that can be included. Roches (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete A tough case. While the GAPS diet is obvious bullshit (even the illustrious Dr. Weil can't see fit to endorse it), is it notable bullshit? There's little coverage outside the faddish end of the alt-med universe. That's too bad in a way, because people curious about this junk should be able to find reality-based coverage and not just praise from the diet fad echo chamber. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I started this article after reading about GAPS in the widely-read science magazine New Scientist ("The Hemsley effect: why we fall for celebrity food advice"). It said this diet was promoted by the Hemsley sisters, who have a prime-time TV programme in the UK. I think that when bad advice is given by prominent media, Wikipedia should provide information so that people can quickly find out what the truth is. I see no need to waste so much time trying to decide whether an article is sufficiently significant. There are more important things to do. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - a brief mention in the specific carbohydrate diet article would do it. Insufficiently notable for a standalone article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a mention there is warranted. But in the event that a consensus develops in favor of it, any mention would need to be worded very carefully in order to comply with WP:FRINGE and particularly PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natch. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Is there even a citation to the topic at all? All I see is a sentence about what GAPS is proposed to be and then the rest is about a diet built around it. How does anyone know if they need to use the diet if there is no more information than a sentence about what GAPS is? If anything the page should be 'GAPS Diet' and NOT what is currently is. Semmendinger (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attaantode Ittaantode

Attaantode Ittaantode (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)

Unsourced over a year since creation, no claims of notability, fails WP:NSONG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Couldn't find even passing mentions for this song. Fails WP:NMUS and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 00:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:By the weight of names associated with this song,it should be easily sourcable.Fails to even get glancing mentions.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 18:36, 10 November 2016 (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. Notability has been established, hiccup with formatting quickly fixed. Nev1 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Kaplan Eisenstein

Judith Kaplan Eisenstein (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 wiki links. No references. No ext. links. And no categories. ... Lhealt _(talk) 14:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently being edited during a University of Edinburgh editathon. Please do not delete.EMcAndrew (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current version seems quite well advanced from when this template went on. We should definitely keep this. Caorongjin (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Jewish Women's Archive bio and the numerous already-cited news obituaries (including those in The New York Times and Chicago Tribune) clearly state the case for her notability in the field of religious music, as well as her landmark role as the first bat mitzvah girl. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- sufficient for GNG; for example, Kaplan's Bat Mitzvah is covered in some detail in The Jewish Life Cycle: Rites of Passage from Biblical to Modern Times. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The breadth and scope of the reliable and verifiable sources about the article's subject rather clearly support her claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW keep, and a WP:TROUT to the nominator, Lhealt, for taking this step only two minutes after article creation, at a stage where it was clearly still being worked on by its creator (e.g. placeholders for its references, later filled in). An obituary in the New York Times is automatic notability, even if we didn't have all the other evidence that we do. And merely checking WP:BEFORE should have taken longer than two minutes. Perhaps a withdrawal is in order? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG, well referenced article reflects this, oh and a seconder on the trouting, nomination 2mins after appeared is a rediculously short amount of time. ps. please feel free to send me a minnow as i am feeling a bit peckish. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, although without any initial references, nom may feel justified, so the creator, Melissa Highton, could have placed a under construction or an active editing tag on it, or done a little more sandbox development before making it live? Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you all for your support and advice. I wrote the article as part of a 'Women and Religion' editathon with colleagues at University of Edinburgh. I used visual editor to create the page in my sandbox and then copied it across. I did not realise that visual editor would not copy all my refs and links too. I have learned new skills in the process! By the time I figured out what had happened the delete template was already on. I hope the delete nomination can be removed. Thank you. Melissa Highton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 4 November 2016 (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 draftified. (non-admin closure) ansh666 05:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Perry (pianist)

John Perry (pianist) (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)

Previously version of article was deleted. Instead of CSD, can we have a community discussion re: notability? --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]