Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 July	3 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles O'Toole

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

does not meet the general guidelines for notability Interlaker (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources beyond the one NYT mention which isn't enough to satisfy the GNG. Spectacularly fails the Google test. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with no possibility of moving elsewhere or draft/userfy as there's not much to begin with) - I agree, my searches found basically nothing and browser immediately gave the NYT link among the first; this has existed since September 2007 with basically no significant improvement since and it's also seems he may not be very well known so there's no much info. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a few references and added them, although the Irish Times piece appears to be a "roundup". Also seems to be some background information on him here [1]. In 2008, responding to the Carlo Rossi Make Something campaign, he made the "Carlo Rossi Jug Cluster table".[2] However, his company was wound up in 2011, so I don't think there will be enough for him to appear notable using WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much reliance on primary sources. The NYT article just has a quote from O'Toole and is entirely about other issues, much of it a clear case of Kellerism in which accusations against Roman Catholic institutions are thrown out as fact and insinuation is used instead of study of the sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate coverage in reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onecyze project

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

does not meet Wikipedia's general guidelines for notability, is written like a resume for the band, and cites exclusively primary/promotional sources Interlaker (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, 'cos no third-party sources in years. Did they have anything not self-released? - David Gerard (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one independent source. — Ben Ben ^(talk) 17:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND test and no reliable sources. How can an article written almost entirely in lowercase letters lasted 7 years? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G3 by User:Reaper Eternal (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Georgia and the south sandwich islands national football team

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

This was previously tagged CSD G3, but most of it seemed plausible to me. However, I cannot find any evidence that this team exists, and the stated FIFA code seems to be fake. Adam9007 (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3. I tagged it with the speedy because the 3 letter FIFA code listed on the page does not exist according to List of FIFA country codes and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands has no permanent population. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant hoax - I retagged it with speedy. Not only does the FIFA code not exist, neither does the "stadium" listed nor is there any record of the top player. This "park" Salisbury Plain, South Georgia appears to be their home stadium. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find the argument (supported by consensus) that there's no coverage on the author to be most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Potok

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

Delete: this is a fairly blatant resume-style promo page for otherwise non-notable subject. Quis separabit? 22:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Richard Potok has a GScholar h-index of 3. Law is however a very low citation field, the average h-index of a (full) law professor being 2.8 according to LSE, which he exceeds. He does, however, certainly satisfy GNG and WP:AUTHOR, with multiple periodical book reviews. His book "Cross Border Collateral: Legal Risk and the Conflict of Laws" has been reviewed, in particular, at (2002) 50 American Journal of Comparative Law 877 [3] and at (2002) 25(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal 260 [4]. (This means that the book is also idependently notable under the criteria for books). There may well be other reviews. I haven't looked further, as I have seen enough. James500 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, generally speaking, book reviews are treated as giving notability to the book, but not to the author unless the author is also extensively discussed in the review. I can't view the American Journal of Comparitive Law link as it's dead for me, but the UNSW one only discusses him in passing (noting he's UNSW alumni), and is arguably not completely impartial in any case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
(1) This link or this one or this one may work better than the one given above for the American Journal of Comparative Law. (2) WP:AUTHOR says nothing about the book reviews discussing the author instead of the book, and the consensus alleged above does not exist. It is clear that any attempt to distinguish between coverage of the book and coverage of the author, as regards notability of the author, is manifest nonsense, since the book is nothing more than the author's thoughts committed to print. Critical commentary on a book is critical commentary on the author, on his thoughts, his ideas, his opinions, on the contents of his brain, that being what the text is. It is not something that is genuinely distinct from him so that it can't contribute to his notability. That is like arguing that the handle of a bucket isn't part of the bucket because it has its own name, and we can point to it an say "that's a handle". That's just not a valid argument. A person's ideas are part of that person. If a person is only notable for one book, and nothing else, we might prefer to redirect him to an article on the book for practical reasons, but it isn't because he isn't notable. (3) The periodical articles are required to be independent, not "impartial" (ie neutral). That will exclude ones written by the subject or by an employee or other person under his direction and control. It will exclude something written to promote his book by the publisher. We might exclude something written by an employer if it appears that they are advertising his services to prospective clients. But the university no financial or legal relationship with him as an alumni that I can see. The fact that he was an alumni of that university appears irrelevant. It is too tenuous. It is not sufficiently proximate. We might as well allow "six degrees of separation" as an argument against the independence of all sources. On top of that the review was not even written by the university, it was written by Peter Willis. The description of Willis in the first footnote does not say he is employed by the university or mention any other connection. And the review is not entirely positive. In any event, I doubt that "independent", which seems related to notions of integrity, was ever meant to exclude a publication like the University of New South Wales Law Journal. (4) Even if we doubted the independence of the UNSW review, there is another review at (2002) 49(03) Netherlands International Law Review 416 [5] (note: you need a subscription to Cambridge Journals Online to read this review, or its abstract, but an extract comes up in GScholar on a search for potok+"cross border collateral".) So the requirement for multiple periodical articles is still satisfied. And there may still be more. James500 (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too promotional and although his notability is argued to be because of his book, he fails the WP:AUTHOR test. Thousands of books are published and hundreds are reviewed every year and most authors and most books are not notable enough to warrant an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of notability is the level of coverage, not elitism. The total number of books published or reviewed is irrelevant. We are not here to say "we'll only accept the top 0.1% (or whatever) of textbook authors no matter how much coverage there is" for the sake of doing so. We are NOTPAPER and have no reason to do that. If a book has two reviews it is notable (and this one might satisfy TBK as well), and if it is notable, it will pass the lower test of significance in AUTHOR. Serious scholarly works, and their authors, tend to be notable. And they should be. There would be something seriously wrong with society if they were not. James500 (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The author clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. There's no coverage on the author, and notability is not WP:INHERITED. The book has been the subject of two academic reviews, and thus just barely passes WP:NBOOK. Under the circumstances it should be considered to move the more important part of the info on the author to an article on the book. On a sidenote, I'd like to suggest to James500 that they follow the guidelines on discussions: please indent (instead of bulleting) your replies. Kraxler (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Cena discography

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

one album released, over a decade ago, and a combined total of three "guest appearances", this trivial information would all easily be summarised on John Cena's own page. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's already mostly summarized at John Cena#Music, albeit for the lack of charting positions of the album, some minor additions to that section of his main article could easily incorperate the non-included parts that currently stand on the AfD'd article. Azealia911 _talk 13:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John Cena. No need for a separate article for such a tiny discography -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary CONTENTFORK from John Cena#Music, stand-alone article unwarranted after the release of one album. There's nothing to merge here, since there is also an article on the album. Kraxler (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as John_Cena#Music contains more information on his musical career than what is contained here. His discography isn't significant or notable enough for a separate article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus to delete. The consensus is that at this point in time the player does not meet our notability inclusion criteria. If this changes in the future the article can be recreated. Chillum 17:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Page

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Playing against a semi-pro team does pass NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has made his professional debut representing a fully pro team in UEFA affiliated European competition. Arials101 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Playing against a semi-pro team in the Europa League first round qualifying does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if this fails the guidelines, delete it, I can't argue with the rules. However, the rules should also apply to Reece Oxford, who debuted in the same match. This made him WHUFC's youngest player, but again that's just a club record and the opponent fails notability. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Almightey Drill: Reece Oxford passes WP:GNG for being the youngest player to represent West Ham at 16! JMHamo (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that, but at this early stage, the "General Notability" for that fact is only sourced from Sports Mole and West Ham's own website. Such coverage could also be expected for the youngest player at (insert League Two team here) if he made his debut against a Conference team in the cup. '''tAD''' (talk)

Keep Page has played his first game in a professional tournament that is the Europa League. Kieran167 (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: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. A case of WP:TOOSOON, article can be recreated if / when he plays and passes a notability guideline. Keep votes above citing that he has played in a professional competition are misguided. NFOOTY only specifically refers to FULLY professional league on the WP:FPL listing. The Europa League is not on this because it is neither a true league competition, nor is it fully professional. There is however some consensus the individuals who compete in this competition (as a top professional continental competition) are generally notable if they have played in the competition proper in a match between two teams from FPLs. In this case the player has neither played in the competition proper yet, nor featured in a game between two teams from an FPL (Andorra is not fully professional). Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The Europa League is not a "professional tournament" given the significant number of semi-pro/amateur clubs which compete. Giant Snowman 17:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hard to make a case for notability for Page. Debut in a first qualifying round against a semi-pro team from Andorra, West Ham development team player and nothing else to pass GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As of now according to Wikipedia rules the player qualifies to have a Wikipedia page after he makes debut in any competitive match no matter against a semi-pro team. He surely did in the Europa league so I think this page should be kept. And according to Wikipedia:Notability (sports), he passes as he has played in the fully professional league. NextGenSam619^t@lk 03:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Europa League is not a league, it's a cup competition and most definitely at the qualifying stages when clubs from the likes of San Marino, Andorra and Gibraltar enter, not competed for by fully-pro players from fully-pro sides in fully-pro leagues.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Egghead06 Yes. Well if a player plays once in the English League Cup, he then passes the criteria and is a allowed a Wikipedia page. The Europa League is a knockout tournament similar to the League Cup. Page hasn't just played a friendly or a reserve match, he has played for the first team in a important match in an professional tournament. Should be kept. --Kieran167 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not the current consensus. A league cup game would be a game between two teams from fully professional leagues in competition proper. This player has played in the first qualifying round of a competition in a game where one of the teams was not from a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SALT Well seeing the different views of different editors I think this page should be salted so that when he makes his debut in the professional league it does not have to be recreated. NextGenSam619^t@lk 02:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense at all. salting refers to putting a block on an article being created. "Salt an article now so that it doesn't have to be re-created later" doesn't make sense.............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Since his Europa League appearance was in qualifying this does not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not yet notable.Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Auryn. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blas Cantó

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

The singer fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. He only took part in a preselection show to represent Spain at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2004, but failed to win. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 22:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above. –323MU (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Auryn, his band's page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward MacDowell Medal

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

Non-notable medal, fails WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from the notable winners. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MacDowell Colony, who award the prize. If that would make the target article too long, then Keep as WP:SPINOFF of that article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen³²⁸'s WP:HEY work below. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage of the medal in reliable sources going back well over half a century. Here is just one example from a recent biography of Georgia O'Keeffe. In 1988, William Styron praised the award and its recipients. The New York Times published extensive coverage of the fact that bitter enemies Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy had both won the award. I know that notability is not inherited, but when you look at the long list of luminaries who have won the award and spoken at its annual ceremony, well, logic and common sense must be brought to the process of evaluation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article and added seven references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the award was significantly covered by the media (as shown in the souces in the article), and the recipients (all notable themselves) apparently thought very highly of it. Passes easily WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Kraxler says, the recipients are clearly notable and with sources like the NYTimes, the BBC and Washington Post, I believe the medal is notable in itself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sayan Bhattacharya

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

Not a notable person. The article looks like a personal webpage. Fails WP:GNG. Factissupreme (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- in the absence of major awards, assistant professor appointed in 2013 fails the average professor test. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not present any evidence of passing WP:PROF nor WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests. This fellow "is a researcher and professor of environmental science and a noted photographer." Unfortunately I know little about environmental science. But as for photography: (i) "He received many national and international awards in photography." Which awards, and what are the sources for his having won them? (ii) "In 2013, he organized his 1st solo photography exhibition in Coffee House, Kolkata which receive huge media coverage and response." Links, please, to the huge media coverage and response. -- Hoary (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC at this time. Google Scholar shows multiple publications, but they are not highly cited. Maybe later as his career develops. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that most publications in Google Scholar search are by different people with same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.3.4 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but in context, due to the above comment I am not sure about the surname so I added two words that relate to him to the https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sayan+Bhattacharya+manganese+oxide&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10 search and I still come up with hundreds of citations. Jadeslair (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the new information brought in by Jadeslair ought to be evaluated by current/new participants —SpacemanSpiff 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seems all promotional, Fails WP:ACADEMIC. –Davey2010^Talk 19:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about Jadeslair's "hundreds of citations": yes, but no individual article has more than 25 citations. That does not suggest he is a "thought leader in his field", merely that he publishes a lot. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My sweeps of Indian-related media found nothing to support meeting the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gymternet

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

Not sure if this is particularly notable internet slang. Comments? | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 16:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: "Not sure if this is particularly notable" is not a good reason to put something up for deletion, AfD should be a last resort for non-notable articles. Saying that, I believe this article is non-notable, and fails WP:NOTADICTIONARY and WP:GNG, and so I support Delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: That's my point, apologies if the language I used wasn't showing what I meant. I did mean that it wasn't notable. :) | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 16:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: I agree, i would point out though that 'Gymternet' is already the name of a site for gym fanatics. Not quite what the article says. Definitely not notable internet slang. Delete. BrookDaCow

Delete: WP:NOTADICTIONARY ubiquity (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. If I recall correcly we just had an AfD about the girl who runs the "Gymternet" blog and it was deleted. Note they mention her in this article and refer to her as "renowned gymnastics blogger, Lauren Hopkins." Same person probably wrote both articles. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NAD. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NEO. Bearian (talk)
Delete. as neologism. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#NEO Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I had actually decided that the lack of evidence of notability plus the promotional tone of the article warranted speedy deletion before I saw FreeRangeFrog comment below. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ludi Inc

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Speedy tags removed by IP and later a new account. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator - the company fails WP:CORP. One article about receiving investor funding is not enough, everything else is company profiles or self-generated material. I could make the case for a speedy delete as borderline advertisement, including the use of registered trademark symbols which are never a good sign. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touchsuite

~~The result was speedy delete. Advertising. (& not notable as well) DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have reverted my speedy close by request of the contributor, though I think it arguably justified. I will comment below.

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

Not sure if this is notable, especially given that it doesn't seem to fully maintain NPOV, and some of it reads as an advert. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no credible claim to importance, and promotionalism. The firm is on the Inc 500 list of fastest growing companies, which normally indicates that is small and not yet notable. . This is therefore not a credible claim to importance. The emphasis on the inclusion in the list in the first paragraph was advertising. Otherwise, I see either just mentions or press releases-- except for the NYT article, which is I think a human interest story about the family, and does not show notability of the company. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, no claim of notability, clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References do not adequately support notability, specifically WP:CORP. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder Sam Zietz is the subject of articles in Inc and the New York Times but he seems more notable than his company. Maybe he should be the subject of this article. I mean, he has executive producer credits on IMDb, he certainly seems notable on his own. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ligowave

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

None of the references demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - My searches immediately found nothing outstanding with News finding mostly press releases or other non-significant coverage (unfamiliar blogs, etc.) and one result at Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is there no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but the article is also promotional. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per SwisterTwister. None of the references in the article are clearly WP:RELIABLE. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article, poor references, no legitimate evidence of notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QUADRO

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

This concept appears to have near-zero notability. It's somebody's proposal ("We propose a novel Rayleigh quotient based sparse quadratic dimension reduction method") and take-up appears to have been minimal. The article has two cites on Scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best this is WP:TOOSOON. Novel method with no uptake in the community yet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability. PianoDan (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability to meet GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy to User:SOTIRIS CRETE/Neogeopolitics.. Daniel (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neogeopolitics

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

Non-notable neologism. The one reference in the article actually using the term seems to have been written by the article's creator. A handful of hits on the word on Google and Scholar, but with each of them trying to coin it themselves with their own definition. Kolbasz (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, given source is a journalist saying they will (to quote Google Translate) "try to give the definition" of their own invented term. --McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

response to user: McGeddon

1. Not a journalist.SOTIRIS CRETE (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Need to decide whether you consider it for deletion as a "new invented term" or you consider it as already been existed as Kolbasz said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOTIRIS CRETE (talk • contribs) 10:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever he is, Sotiris N. Kamenopoulou says in his article that (and forgive the Google translation): "In this passage of my article first introduced a new concept: the concept of "neo-geopolitical". I will try to give the definition of this new concept: the "neo-geopolitical" is...", suggesting that this is his own word. This is not a secondary source as required by WP:NEO. --McGeddon (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you recommend the terms of "neoliberalism" or "neomarxism" or "meta-geopolitics" for deletion? Because, eventually, someone have invented them, and someone have provided their definition...somtmnes there cpuld many different defintions. So, what? Any body is accepted to add/update defintions.SOTIRIS CRETE (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "neoliberalism" can be sourced to what "reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept", as WP:NEO requires. It seems that neogeopolitics cannot be sourced in this way (at least yet), so does not currently merit an article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resposne to user Kolbasz:SOTIRIS CRETE (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please provide the "handful of hits" with definitions. And in any case, if someone else can provide an additional definition, this would be very much accepted.SOTIRIS CRETE (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. You would recommend deleting the terms of "neoliberalism" or "neomarxism" or "metageopoltics" when they appeared for first time?SOTIRIS CRETE (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated the good comments/critic.

Speedy Userfy - this article is clearly incomplete (lede asks for more help) and creator needs assistance learning referencing. A search reveals this term used by multiple people in politcal science. [6], [7], [8]. It was used as far back as 1967 by Canadian James George Eayrs ([9] snippet view, but says... "Neo-geopolitics was made in U.S.A., more exactly, made in Princeton, with some assistance from the University of Pennsylvania. And for Americans, neo-geopolitics was a comforting doctrine...") This term was not invented by article creator, who should be given time to work on the article before submitting it for approval once sufficient sources are there. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Userfy The term is out there being used. More research is needed to determine of it has a stable enough meaning to be "notable" for a WP article. Then a better article can be prepared. Borock (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy. An unreferenced statement like "Neo-Geo" is the "geopolitics of smartphones" seems like OR to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mashar Hamsa

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon, I think. He needs to prove himself more and catch wider attention for his work. Mabalu (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches found nothing to suggest solid independent notability and there's no possibility for moving elsewhere as any related articles simply mention him as the film's fashion designer. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some of the sources are not entirely reliable nor indepth. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete - Why wikipedia deletion tag in this article, This article is 100% genuine and he is an upcoming fashion designer in Malayalam films. If any doubt, Please check the reference links. Already designed costumes for 5 Malayalam films. He deserves this wikipedia page. Sanju Vishnudas (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the references are just mentions except for this one. But if he is as fantastic at his job as it implies, I imagine he might have an article one day. Right now, I didn't even find a bio at IMDb and I believe he could have submitted that himself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dalma Capital

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete These two are usable[10][11] but one's an interview and the other is a borderline blurb. Not quite enough. CorporateM (Talk) 21:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia von Rittberg

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

Non-notable person, very few sources that aren't IMDb. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep This film has article in Wiki, actors may also? Shad in Net 01:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet (talk • contribs)

Comment @Shad Innet: That isn't a good reason, the person needs to be notable other than just for being in a film, else this article should just be redirected to the film. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fulfils both WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Has won an award at the Bavarian TV Awards and played multiple major roles in noteworthy films. Inwind (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Won a Bavarian TV award (last link) in 2013 for her work in a single TV show. I have no idea of the importance of the award. All of the other links are to IMDB. Since she was clearly a popular TV actress, I'm assuming that there are better sources, although they would undoubtedly be in popular German magazines. The German WP article doesn't have RS that we can use. We need someone who can search Google in Germany, which will probably give more results than I see when searching from within the US. LaMona (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per these sources [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19], Without a doubt some are pretty shit but meh shit's better than nothing I guess. –Davey2010^Talk 02:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the plentiful iw links indicate a pretty solid base. Despite WP:CRYSTAL, the release of Our Kind of Traitor (film) (which has references) with Ewan McGregor, Damian Lewis and Stellan Skarsgard in 8 weeks or so is likely to generate more English language references. Bazj (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Analyzing the provided sources (including the first page of results from Cunard (t c)'s Google search suggestion) shows that all of them except the Firstpost article are routine press-release based coverage of obtaining funding, making them invalid when considering the general notability guideline. There's a YourStory page/article about them, but that's of dubious independence because companies request to be covered by them. One remaining truly independent source does not provide sufficient evidence of notability. —Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KartRocket

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROUTINE coverage of fundraising does not confer notability. Brianhe (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - My first searches found nothing aside from News links. Nothing yet to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose the deletion Same story here...no research done by Joseph2302 before nominating this page for deletion like in case of many other pages. Just do a google search and there are more than 50 news stories about the website and some of them are below:

http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/kartrocket-helping-small-time-e-tailers-take-off-104225.html http://yourstory.com/2015/01/1900-active-stores-kartrocket/ http://www.moneycontrol.com/sme-stepup/news/kartrocket_set_to_transform_online_selling_for_smes-1364485.html http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-22/news/55318773_1_nirvana-venture-advisors-kartrocket-bigfoot-retail http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/kartrocket-raises-seed-fund-from-5ideas-startup-superfuel-and-500-startups-113072300585_1.html http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2013/12/09/kartrocket-opens-up-shipping-service-shiprocket-to-all-e-tailers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjohn39 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those links aren't very significant or in-depth and at best this is a case of too soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister What do you mean by too soon? Is there any maturity time defined in wikipedia guidelines? Also, can you mention which one is not significant? These all are leading publications of India and if these are not considered notable then I wonder if any Indian brand will even be able to be listed on wikipedia!! Andrewjohn39 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By too soon I mean there's not enough coverage yet and by significant I mean it isn't in-depth coverage. I'm open to drafting/userfying the article to your userspace so you can save and work it. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Firstpost article provides seven paragraphs of coverage about the subject. It is in-depth coverage. The other sources also provide several paragraphs of coverage about the subject. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will go for Keep. As a news search results in lots of significant and reliable sources. Should pass GNG.

- Arr4 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Lots of significant and reliable sources" such as ... ? Or are you disagreeing with SisterTwister and endorsing Andrewjohn39's list? Worldbruce (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Arr4 (prior to a rename) has previously disclosed they were paid _{(admins only)} to write a promotional article that Andrewjohn39 also promoted. Meatpuppetry seems likely. SmartSE (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that we need more than coverage of funding to pass WP:CORP. Apart from that, all I can find is brief mentions. Open to reviewing this in the future if more sources appear. SmartSE (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tilve, Priyanka (2013-08-20). "KartRocket: Helping small time e-tailers take off". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2015-07-12. Retrieved 2015-07-12.
2. Gooptu, Biswarup (2014-10-22). "KartRocket raises $2 million in Series A funding". The Times Group. Archived from the original on 2015-07-12. Retrieved 2015-07-12.
3. Deoras, Neha Pandey (2013-07-23). "Kartrocket raises seed fund from 5ideas Startup Superfuel and 500 Startups". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2015-07-12. Retrieved 2015-07-12.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow KartRocket to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous other sources in a Google News search. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Artist Pension Trust#APT Institute. Daniel (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

APT Institute

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

Promotional advert by possible paid editor about a non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either this article or Artist Pension Trust should go, since the articles duplicate one another in large part. I would say delete here because its notability is due to the money and holdings documented in the other article. If this article is notable (the "institute" of holding art), then that article needs to merge to it, since it is only the retirement fund that makes this one possible. There are definite monkeyshines involved here. Deletion is justified partly on promotional grounds, but mainly this is duplication (again). I would imagine a paid writer would duplicate as much as possible. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'd support deleting this, and redirecting it to Artist Pension Trust#APT Institute (which already has information about it). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Yep, and just to be clear, in case the above was "tl;cr": delete this article. I'm not sure a redirect is necessary, but the reliable sources in this article all talk about how the Artist Pension Trust has a pile of money and art, not so much anything about the institute. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:BiH has a declared COI for this article, which is proper. LaMona (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Of note is that the delete !vote following the nomination does not provide a guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion. As such, closing as no consensus due to a lack of valid input in this discussion relative to the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coresystems

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a company that offers unspecified "solutions" is not inherently notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoPatient

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article would be expanded Shad in Net 01:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet (talk • contribs)
I see one iRS attestation of notability (The Oregonian), while the other sources are about capital and "hometown" stuff (or lump stories where this company gets a mention). It's not a clear deletion case, and I would rather err toward keep, but the article needs to be cleaned up. Weak keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hithladaeus (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above reason (only local coverage) is an argument for deletion, not keeping. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, except that I would consider The Oregonian to be more than local. I understand your point, and I don't feel very strongly about the "keep," but I felt as if this article were qualitatively different from most of the promotional articles and unattested businesses. (I don't know why all these articles tell us how much money a business raised, as if that is an indication of its success. Borrowing money does not mean you're doing your job well, but it must look good to investors.) Hithladaeus (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fernox

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable company, passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Andrew D. (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Circle

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

Non-notbable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in multiple RS: [20] [21] [22]. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep border line but SMH and Business Review articles do push it pass WP:GNG Gnan garra 03:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this is a small, private company, but it appears that it's been able to garner a lot of free media from reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – looks to me to meet notability criteria, both for its media coverage and its mentions in other fields, such as tech (Deloitte Fast 50). It is Australia's largest online pet supplier, according to sources. Libby norman (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Herotwinz

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

Does not meet notability requirements. "First release EP" in April, single interview as source. Scr★pIron^IV 21:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Push Interactions

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

Nonnotable small app company, awards don't appear to be notable enough to confer notability on this company. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19 June 2015 (UTC):

Many of these like the Branham are nation wide awards in Canada. We can add more information and awards if necessary but I don't understand why it wouldn't already be more than enough. The reference links are quite a bit longer then the content already. We can double it but it is already really long. For example creating Canada's first University app for students with iUsask. Featured in Globe and Mail, Maclean's Magazine Canada's top publications. Or one of the first to implement depositing a cheque through an app in Canada. Doing work for Team Canada Hockey. Working with TomTom. Creating Canada's first iPhone programming class. These are why some of those awards are won. Ding Free is used nationwide in a advertising campaign (about half way down the page): http://www.pushinteractions.com/media

Compare that to the entry below for example which isn't pegged for deletion. Compare the two which is more notable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetec

Also, consider this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

and this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_assume_negative_notability

If you need us to add more let us know how much more. Or any other edits needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadJones951 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anastassia Vedi

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

Can't find any sources outside of the performers own blog site. Granted there may be Russian sources I'm missing. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also checked Russian sources, found nothing.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Fails GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 17:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andul Dutta Chaudhury Zamindar Bari

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

inscrutable ramble essay, unsure of its own topic or focus Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy - As far as I can tell the article is about the "Dutta Chaudhury" family, which apparently has some historical significance. Unfortunately, the article, which is written by Debi Prasad Dutta Chaudhury, cites no reliable sources to back it up but rather links to a family website. No prejudice against recreating or userfying to work on it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Very long essay-type article that is very hard to understand. Because it has language that does mean something and is not just made up of random characters, I don't think that this a case of PN, in which it could be speedy deleted per G1. However, I still strongly feel that articles should be direct and easy to understand. I have added {{too long}} to the page, but I don't see any way to improve it at this point. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what this article is, it reads like fiction to me. Definitely not suitable as a Wikipedia article so I wonder if it was a serious contribution or just a writing exercise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Attwood (writer)

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

Notability HistoryFightFan (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. It appears that an AfD tag is not in the article; can an admin please fix that? Bearian (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made the AfD tag more prominent, I'll admit I didn't see it at first, it just looked like a multiple issues tag. Maybe this discussion should be given a few more days? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is very vague, but is this the psychologist who wrote Complete Guide to Aspergers Syndrome? If so, he may well be notable, since this shows in over 2500 libraries in WorldCat, plus there are other titles of his. I suspect, though, that there may be more than one Tony Attwood mixed into this article, since the article emphasizes the history of Arsenal, not the work of a psychologist. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article Tony Attwood about the psuchologist. Kraxler (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delte no indication of notability, no reliable sources Kraxler (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asia America Initiative

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

I can find no reliable media coverage or discussion of this organization, as required per WP:GNG. One can prove that it exists, but not that it's notable. Hits in reliable sources are few and far between and consist of mentions--see this and [23]; book hits are likewise limited (this and this--and the latter does not strike me as reliable). As a side note, the history is replete with COI editors. In short, delete. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple reliable sources, but nothing which would be considered significant coverage. Therefore, failing WP:GNG, I cannot support keeping this article. If significant coverage I would not oppose the recreation of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the organization is covered in various news outlets, I'm expanding the article and will hopefully be able to access Lexis Nexis today or tomorrow for more hits. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is commendable the expansion being done. But I am looking at the sources being added, but all except for the Willian Penn University article, on wordpress (so possible WP:UGC), only give passing mention about this organization which is the subject of this AfD. Are there any sources that have been found that would be considered significant coverage other than the Willian Penn University article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional advert, only trivial mentions, no in-depth coverage of the subject, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A promo piece Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that its just a promo piece. I looked for a lot of resources and they discuss more than just "trivial" aspects of what the group did as per WP:ORGDEPTH. However, I archived the page in my user area in case it gets deleted. I'm content with whatever the consensus is, and if I find additional information or more in-depth coverage, if you choose to delete, I can restore the work with the relevant info. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike plotnikoff

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

Unremarkable person. No WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Digging around on Google got nothing more extensive than this or this. Not the sort of coverage a Wikipedia article needs. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. If the d vision is to keep the article, please move the title so Plotnikoff is properly capitalized. Postcard Cathy (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete and maybe mention him whatever article is appropriate because there doesn't seem to be good sources and my searches found several results here, here and here but not much significant coverage. SwisterTwister talk 18:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 20:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harihar clan

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

In its current form, the article is a mish-mash of the articles Harihar and Mian Tansen with a couple of extra sentences and an image that's in fact a map of a French department (Aisne). There are no references and I'm unable to find coverage of this topic in reliable sources. In particular, there's no sign of the supposed founder of the clan Harihar Singh (Harihar Singh is in fact a modern political figure). Pichpich (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a mish-mash of hoax and wellness stuff, complete with a kingdom of a musician and footnotes that don't lead anywhere. Whatever it started out as, the article that's there now is not only not notable, but not verifiable. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this might be a hoax as I can't seem to verify any of the information. I have tagged the page with {{hoax}}. Not blatant enough to me to be speedied as a hoax article but still worth questioning the overall truthfulness of the article. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's a hoax, delete it for that reason. If it's not it would need a complete rewrite so delete per WP:TNT. --Michig (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miyabi Inoue

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

Contested PROD (no reason given). Original concern: This player is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable. Jared Preston (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adds {{Find sources AFD}} for presumed Japanese name. Mentioned around in Japanese tennis press but does not seem to be passing WP:GNG or WP:NTENNIS with flying colors. [24][25][26][27] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NTENNIS at this time. I think the articles linked above are not giving significant coverage to the player; they are mainly just list of results of tournaments. Not significant enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Fazzo29 (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately doesn't pass WP:NTENNIS. Kraxler (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popkonspirasy

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

It does not seem to satisfy WP:N or WP:NMUSIC. The article has not been improved in over a week, and a quick Google search returns few sources that are not self published so I'm dubious that sources exist at all. The only non-self published sources that I've found is in Malay but seems to be simply a performance announcement. Wugapodes (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure it's the language and country barrier but I'm somewhat confident there aren't any good sources especially if it was founded in 2011 (recent enough and to have coverage); my searches of course found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found one lone instance of what could be significant coverage: a page from something called Utusan Online. Other than that, all I could find were non-independent sources, YouTube videos, or music download links. Has not appeared to have any charted CDs on Malaysian charts (official or not) either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gultush

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

Pure neologism, fails WP:GNG Esquivalience ^t 16:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I'm not sure I'd accord this term even the lowly status of a neologism, as that assumes it is indeed a word. I'm fairly certain that if it is, it isn't English. Can't find any sources using this word. A small splattering of occurrences of the term within social media were found with a quick search, but that isn't a very high bar, as gibberish has a high rate of occurrence in forums like that.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced dictionary entry. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not a repository for poor quality definitions of slang terms. --Michig (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources presently. Basic search reveals nothing. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 17:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smaranda Olarinde

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

None of the sources is independent. I don't think "Acting Provost, Afe Babalola University" qualifies one for inclusion under WP:PROF. Provost isn't normally a qualifying criterion (see point 6), and in any case Afe Babalola University is a) six years old and b) private (in a part of the world where public universities have far more prestige). - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- I can't phantom out the reasons why Biruitorul felt Afe Babalola University is not a notable university in Nigeria, perhaps they are not aware that Webometrics Ranking of World Universities ranked the University as top 25 of 136 universities in Nigeria. That aside, I will consider a Provost of the best college of Law in Nigeria and President of the Nigerian Association of Law Teachers notable per News Nigeria, The Punch News and Daily Independent, all of which are reputable Nigerian Newspaper. Even if I will ignore every other criteria, she clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC#3 (an academic is notable if The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association) as President of the Nigerian Association of Law Teachers, a prestigious scholarly association founded in 1961. She also passes WP:ACADEMIC#5 as a Provost of the college of Law, Afe Babalola University. Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. Note that Provosts are persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not junior faculty members with endowed appointments. I remind the nominator that academic don't have to be a vice chancellor to meet other criteria of WP:ACADEMIC apart from criterion 6. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Wow, 25th best in Nigeria! Must be a real academic powerhouse. (Seriously though, outside a handful of countries (US, maybe Britain, France, Germany), the 25th best university is basically irrelevant in terms of wider importance, not only globally, but even within the country itself.)
- As for the rest, it would help your argument if you dismounted from your high horse - it's not actually that shocking (or, as you might put it, difficult to "phantom" [sic]) that I'd nominate for deletion an article about an individual who teaches at an obscure Nigerian university, and has made essentially no impact in her field, as measured by objective criteria like, say, Google Scholar searches. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think its high time you familiarize yourself with WP:ACADEMIC. The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. However, am not arguing in that direction (WP:ACADEMIC#1). My concern is on criterion 3 and 5. She clearly satisfy WP:ACADEMIC#3 which stipulated that an academic is notable if The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. President of the Nigerian Association of Law Teachers clearly satisfy this criterion. In addition, weather you agree or not, Afe Babalola University is a major academic institution in Nigeria and persons who are tenured at the full professor level satisfy WP:ACADEMIC#5. It doesn't appears to me that you are familiar with WP:ACADEMIC. The truth is, you are not just getting it! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Tokyogirl79 and DGG are expert in this field and their contributions will help to generate a clear consensus. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She easily meets WP:ACADEMIC#3 as president of Nigerian Association of Law Teachers OluwaCurtis The King : talk to me 22:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can we please drop the idea that President of the Nigerian Association of Law Teachers in any way satisfies WP:PROF, point 3? The criterion clearly indicates what it means: "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society", and gives two examples (National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society). For Nigeria, an example would be the Nigerian Academy of Science (note the red link, since, unlike the Nigerian Association of Law Teachers (created 5 July 2015), this one didn't have an activist AfD participant to create it). Membership or even the presidency of NALT does not indicate one is part of a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society". - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue of why you are talking about Royal Society when the criterion clearly said scholarly society or association. Nigerian Association of Law Teachers is a scholarly association founded in 1961 as the umbrella body for all professors of law, deans of law and other law teachers in all faculties, schools and colleges of law in Nigeria Guardian News. DGG do you mean, that is not a major professional organization in a country like Nigeria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on balance, notable. As far as I can tell the position is head of the law school, tho as acting head this is not necessarily notable in itself but it does contribute to notability.I agree with Biruitorul that Nigerian Asosciation of Law teachers is not necessarily a major professional organization, and would not itself be notable either (the way head of the Nigerian Bar or the Nigerian Association of university faculty would be), but it too contributes to notability. But considering both of these, and also considering the other professional activities , she's sufficiently over the boundary for notability under WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeodynamic principle

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

Lack of references using Google and if such principle exists, it may not establish notability. Also not mentioned on the discoverer's article.

This is probably the oldest hoax on Wikipedia, aged 9 years and 10 months, food for thought. The Snowager-is awake 14:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP who created this article only had 2 contributions, both from 2005.

Lastly, this page states a principal of the same name, but the book contains theories of from quantum to cosmic matter rather than psychology-related. The Snowager-is awake 14:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, this states the principal in Ackerman's point of view, but I'm on the fence whether if it is either a hoax or a stub failing notability as I could not verify. The Snowager-is awake 14:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is a hoax - it's referenced in this 1961 book. Someone needs to find Ackerman's 1958 book to confirm. This still might not be notable in itself and might need to be a redirect to the Ackerman page. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Also referenced here, at page 27. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax. None of what Google found can be verified as some of the search results even seem to be hoaxes-I wonder if they were published by the same user who created this page. Article now tagged with {{db-hoax}}. Shocked that this hoax was able to surrvive for nearly a decade. Maybe other reviewers and patrollers didn't know how to identify general Internet hoaxes, but I do. This blatantly does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a hoax, and I have declined the speedy, because although most of the search results are obvious WP mirrors, these two references: [28], [29] show that Ackerman did actually use this term. However, it evidently didn't catch on, so it is not notable; and we should not redirect to Ackermann because Googling the word shows that it is now used with other meanings - so many and so diverse that I do not think a useful article is possible. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. PianoDan (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afshin David Rahimi

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

Promotional article for non-notable dermatologist. Being featured on Beverly Hills Times Magazine shows his efforts at promotion, not his notability. We should not be adding to them. most cited paper is as junior author on a negative result [30]. 59 citations is not significant in experimental medicine. Self-publishing a book intended for prospective patients is not notable either. DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I wrote this three years ago, but might not today. The reason was his invention of the "tulip lift". But if that's not enough, I don't feel strongly either way whether or not the page remains (I can't find any significant coverage of the person since his invention). Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 14:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill dermatologist, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. DGG's research is persuasive. As for his "invention of the tulip lift", this has never even been published that I can find; it appears to be just a cute name for what is basically a routine procedure. (This is a common marketing tool among plastic surgeons.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a promotional brochure for his practice. No doubt he is successful in the competitive world of Beverly Hills doctors but that doesn't make him inherently notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo advert, no indication why he should be notable in the article Kraxler (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. If anyone want the article userfying let me know. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Barak

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

Deprodded by article creator with an WP:OTHERSTUFF rationale (see article talk page) my concern remains that I can't find any evidence that this person meets the requirements of either WP:BASIC or WP:FILMMAKER at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no claims of any significance, the biographical information is unsourced and the (unclear) contributions to non-notable works don't tell us much either. I can't see anything significant online about him, which suggests he must only be a california wannabe that hasn't made it yet. Sionk (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, there is no need for your bad attitude. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauntedsandiego (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole #amned article because Sionk seems to think mockery and name-calling is okay. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauntedsandiego (talk • contribs) 23:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- - That is not a valid argument for anything; and Sionk has not called you any names. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a minor non-notable professional. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel "california wannabe" is appropriate for Wikipedia, Orangemike? I never said that Sionk called me names, but he or she was denigrating the subject of the article, who had nothing to do with its creation or maintenance. It's my contention that comments such as that are uncalled for. If discussion regarding the merits of this article is to take place in an honest and unbiased fashion, it seems to me those taking part in the discussion should maintain some decorum. In that spirit, I am modifying my previous statement to be a little more professional. Personally, I believe Sionk should consider an apology, not for the vote but for the way in which it was cast. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — Hauntedsandiego (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's not language I would have used, unless I suspected you were yourself David Barak; but that's still irrelevant to the appropriateness of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would make it okay for me to call Sionk's parents a couple of in-bred siblings - it's not about Sionk so it must be okay. Anyway, is there a way we can accelerate the deletion of this entire article. The bickering here at Wikipedia is getting bothersome. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Hauntedsandiego: removed his comments, which whilst it was a good gesture to do, shouldn't be done, as it makes other people's comments out of context. I struck the comments instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Hauntedsandiego: I've added some ^{[citation needed]} tags to the article where you have information with no source. If you can cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject (e.g. not his website, facebook page, twitter, blog, autobiography, or page about him on a company where he is employed) to support that information I will argue for the article to be kept, and I bet at least a few of the people supporting deletion will change their opinions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ONUnicorn, I appreciate the assistance. As for the items needing citations, there are some time-based problems, namely that many of the photography items are from so long ago that any authoritative sources have long since "expired" in a sense. For instance, Hispanic Business Magazine is no longer being published. I've seen examples of the article subject's photojournalism works in the forms of name-credited newspaper and magazine portfolio clippings, but since he moved away from that business years ago verifiable sources are pretty much dried up. Regarding the reference to his home town, I have no idea how to verify that but I can't imagine that would be a place a person would lie about being from. ; ) About the Navy items, all I can say I've seen a few personal pictures.

If this article ends up being deleted, is there a way to keep it semi-active, hidden in some way, for future reinstatement if more reliable data can be added? I knew the subject from years ago when we both worked in the San Diego area (newspapers), and I've seen his name pop up now and then in San Diego's film community. I guess maybe I jumped the gun on writing this article, but I got a little excited when I saw what became of him over the years. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can cite Hispanic Business Magazine even though it's no longer being published; the source doesn't have to be available online (although it sure makes it easier to verify!). However, you mention photojournalism credits; a mere byline or credit isn't enough - what we're looking for to establish notability is something about the person himself, maybe a retrospective on his photography career, or an indication he won an award for photography or something. Something to indicate (1) that people outside of Wikipedia have written about this person and (2) to show that all the information in the article is verifiable; that readers can trace where the information in the article came from. That's why personal memories and personal pictures aren't acceptable sources. Other people can verify an article in Hispanic Business Magazine, even though they are no longer in print; because there are likely to be microfilmed copies in libraries and archives, the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive probably has stories that were published exclusively on the web, hoarders have boxes in their garage and attic full of old magazines. However, no one can verify your memory.

As for keeping it around; it can be moved to a user subpage like User:Hauntedsandiego/David Barak and you can continue to work on it there, and if more sources appear in the future it can be moved back into the encyclopedia. Look at User:ONUnicorn/Browning Hill Research for an example of a userspace draft. Also, for more short-term storage and collaboration it can be moved to draft space at Draft:David Barak, but if it's in draft space for more than 6 months without anyone working on it it can be deleted without warning as an abandoned draft. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do know of an illustration award that was given to a Palm Beach Post team which he was a part of. It's part of an online database which seems to be "stable," and I can provide a link to that. Better than nothing. : ) It seems this is moving to something that's a little more acceptable for publication, but whether it moves close enough or not is up for debate. : ) Anyway, I'll add that award link and do a bit of searching for other things. Who knew it would be such a project for me? But I'm learning, and this Wiki markup stuff is fun. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His biography is misleading as he is identified as a film director, film producer and screenwriter while in his IMDb profile it's clear that he was primarily a camera operator and assistant editor and he doesn't have enough credits to be notable in either of those occupations. Doesn't meet criteria of WP:FILMMAKER. If Hauntedsandiego wants to continue to work on this, Userfy it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's userfy? : ) I looked in Wikipedia help and the search didn't come up with anything. I'm happy to do it though, even if that means taking it offline for now. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hauntedsandiego, "userfy" means that the article would be put in your user space for you to continue to work on it rather than it being deleted. It could be moved to a page like User:Hauntedsandiego/David Barak. However, I see that Draft:David Barak already exists and must ask are you are also Dbarak? It's unusual that two separate editors would focus on creating an article on the same person at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only evidence of notability provided is that he worked as a tech on something that won an award. Not enough. - Richfife (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not him, but we worked together several years ago and our paths recently crossed. He mentioned in passing his Wikipedia account, so I figured I'd take the ball and run with it, so to speak. (I'm female.) Hauntedsandiego (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 —SpacemanSpiff 12:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Grooves

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines for web content; only sources offered back up technical information and do not indicate notability 331dot (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non-notable. sami ^talk 10:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong Speedy Delete as a blatant example of an article about some form of web content with no claim of notability whatsoever. Article tagged with {{db-web}}. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universal Peace and Humanity 2014

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

A beauty pageant that has not been the subject of enough reliable sources. Well, there are a few sources about the pageant itself, but they aren't pretty: this page suggests that the pageant is actually a fraud of some sort. A search for the pageant also results mostly in coverage for the pageant's winner, rather than the pageant itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also being bundled with this nomination is an article on the pageant's winner; the article was created by the same user. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

- - - - Any beauty pageant has a fair amount of controversy surrounding it. This pageant apparently had bad organisation, which led to it being postponed and then finally a winner was appointed from some of the contestants who made it there. There has been a winner appointed in 2015 too https://www.facebook.com/ceo.mupho/posts/419009234949047?pnref=story .If you look at facebook posts by the pageant, the organizer and the winner it does not state anything different. The article mentioned in the previous comment is based on an article by a 'Daily Star Lebanon' which criticizes the group who organized the pageant, but for some other reason involving diplomatic passports. I recommend that wikipedia Keep the winners article, since she has many more things to her credit and does not have any further ties with the organizers of the pageant.

307:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Akshaydube (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC) — user:Akshaydube (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Conditional Keep: I would keep the article on Ruhi Singh too, if references to appropriate sources are added. Otherwise, it should be deleted according to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people in a few days anyway. ubiquity (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually somewhat on the fence with nominating Singh's page for deletion. Strictly speaking, I merely decided to bundle the article with the AfD, I have no opinion on her notability (meaning I'm neutral when it comes to her article). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should either or both articles be kept, they are both in need of some serious cleanup. Adding reliable sources and copyediting would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I have edited her article today, based on what I know reading from various media sources over the years. Do you guys still think it needs more editing? And what about sources? The information I have written there is common knowledge for most related to the firm industry in India. Only for the 2nd link of her profile though, the first link you posted still seems to be a pretty empty page, and it is worth deleting that. Akshaydube (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)— user:Akshaydube (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Delete - non notable pageant, fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Debate above has failed to add a single source. named winner also fails WP:BLPNOTE. Flat Out (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non notable pageants/pageant winner fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Miss Universal Peace and Humanity 2014 and weak delete on Ruhi Singh. The pageant doesn't get enough significant RS coverage. As the nominator states, most of the coverage comes from its winner. As for Ruhi Singh, she's not quite there yet. Aside from the pageant win, she mainly gets passing coverage for the acting roles she got signed for. Too soon? I'll happily change my vote if someone finds more significant coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable pageant, maybe after five or ten years after it shows some stability it might be notable. Also, it's confusing to read This is the 1st time that India has won the title when, according to the article, 2014 was the first and only year this pageant has been held. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Watch Tower Society publications

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

This article has been given some latitude because of the effort that has gone into compiling it. However, Wikipedia is not a directory, the listed entries are not for the purpose of linking to other articles, and the article is not based on any secondary sources. Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure it's a useful list, but it's not what Wikipedia is for. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, just as any non-selective list of all books from any other publisher would most likely be. I'd support any efforts to move this somewhere else if there's another wiki where it could go. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful list in the context of what makes lists appropriate and useful on wikipedia. Entries do link to other articles and I'm not sure that more won't. Claims that it "fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY" need to point to which of the inappropriate categories it falls into, it doesn't appear to me to meat any of them. Article could be improved by telescoping it down to the series of publications (rather than listing e.g. each tract in a series), which are more likely to meet notability and have articles written about them --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains links to only three articles about publications specific to JWs (and one that is specific to the Bible Student movement), in addition to a few Bible translations not unique to JWs. As such, it is not especially useful as a resource for that purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Keep with a change or two I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not. As for the former issue, could we not turn this page from PURELY JW publications to a list of all publications specifically about/by JW's? Dr. Knox's publications (she has at least three that I know of), Penton's, Franz's, scholarly articles written by others etc could all be listed here. If there is already an article with that information, then I propose moving this one into that one. Vyselink (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, the article started out as a hodge-podge of publications about JWs and publications of JWs. It was terrible, and considerably worse than the current state of affairs. Additionally, the current article title would not be suitable for a list of publications about JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But my primary point is still valid. I agree with User:Samuel J. Howard's assertion that WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply here, and restate my own personal assertion that the list significantly contributes to the list topic, especially given the Witness habit of discarding older publications as noted by Dr. Knox. As a PhD candidate whose research is the JW's, this list was very useful for determining what publications I did not have or that might be relevant to my studies. Vyselink (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really convinced that your own use of the list as a directory constitutes a compelling argument that WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, fair enough, I merely used my own experience as an example. You have stated that "I'm not aware of any precedent necessitating an exhaustive list of everything published by a particular publishing house", but this is misleading. The JW's are not merely a "publishing house", besides the fact that they don't publish anything but their own work, but are a religion who has used publishing in an unprecedented fashion to preach. Their publishing's are (I would argue) as important, if not more so, than their door-to-door preaching work, and have been since their inception. They are therefore not simply a "publishing house", but a highly organized organization that relies on their publishing's in order to promote their beliefs. While the article need not include EVERYTHING that the JW's have published, deleting this list wholesale would be a phenomenal loss of information. Vyselink (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about what JWs have published. It is about what has been published by the Watch Tower Society, which has been around for several decades longer than Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that the publishing company is associated with a religious denomination does not confer any special privilege on the publishing company for the purposes of an article, regardless of the measure of success the religious entity as had as a result of its close association with a publishing firm (and it certainly is not appropriate for Wikipedia to promote the Society's publications on that basis). Discussion of how the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses have benefitted from the use of a publishing corporation belongs in articles such as Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, History of Jehovah's Witnesses and Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine (where supported by suitable sources), but does not necessitate a separate list of works.

Whether it would be a 'loss of information' is not the issue. The issue is whether that information is appropriate for Wikipedia. I have put a bit of effort into improving the list myself, but the amount of effort that goes into an article also is not what determines whether it is suitable to retain. The full list of publications by the Watch Tower Society is available in the Watchtower Publications Index, which is available on the publisher's website.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Jeffro, I am aware of the difference between the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (among the other legal corporations it uses) and the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" officially created in 1931, but I use JW as a shorthand while typing because I'm pretty sure you'll get it and it's faster. The passive aggressive mentioning of it here and at other places is getting a little old. It's a talk page, not the article.

I disagree with your assertion that the publishing company is "associated" with the religious denomination. It is part and parcel of it (indeed, to the point that, as the religion is no longer ecclesia based, it would probably not survive in its present form without the legal corporations and vice-versa), as evidenced by: the fact that until 2000 members of the Governing Body were in direct control of the Society's legal corporations, and since then still have de facto control, even if they do not actually sit on the board and do not occupy other executive positions; the people who do sit on the boards and occupy executive positions are all baptized members of the faith; the fact that all of the workers are volunteers of the religious order known since 1931 as Jehovah's Witnesses; and the voting, stockholding members are all "'mature, active and faithful' male Jehovah's Witnesses".

I also disagree that this article is promotional in nature (unlike Jehovah's Witnesses publications, which I agree should be talked about), anymore than the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame is promotional for the MLB HOF. (Incidentally, that list has very few non-HOF sources, and your point that the list is available elsewhere is irrelevant, as so is the MLB HOF list, and I don't see anyone adding an "AFD" tag there). There is no "this list is all you'll ever need, join the JW's" tone to it. It is what it says it is, a list of the publications of a religion whose primary (almost sole) method of proselytizing is publication based. It makes no sense to me to talk about how important the publications are to an organization (religious or otherwise) and then not to have at least some sort of coherent list to accompany it. In fact, WP:LISTPURP specifically has as one of its main purposes for lists "Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." Again, all of this, in my opinion, satisfies WP:NOTDIRECTORY in so far as it meets the criteria of "having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". Does it need work? Yes. Should it be deleted? No. Vyselink (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"WT" would certainly serve as a more accurate shorthand for the corporation than "JW", especially when discussing both distinct entities. If you imagine I was being 'passive aggressive', I can't do anything about that.

The manner in which the publishing corporation has been intertwined with the two religious denominations has indeed been advantageous for the religious denominations associated with it at different times, and I did not mean to suggest that the degree of association is not very close. But in the end, the Watch Tower Society is the corporation that actually publishes the literature, regardless of who its members may be. (The term "legal corporation" is misleading JW jargon in this context; the term "legal corporation" usually refers to a corporation related to law; similarly, the JW jargon "legal instrument" is inaccurate, as that term actually refers to a type of document). The notion that the denomination Jehovah's Witnesses 'may not survive' without the Watch Tower Society is basically the same as the reason the denomination has had the measure of success that it has (particularly with the advantage of tax-free status), but that does not make the denomination synonymous with the corporation. And the hierarchical polity of Jehovah's Witnesses—though quite legalistic—is still basically analogous to that of other Adventist groups, with no authority formally vested in the Watch Tower Society (ever since Russell, even though authority was frequently implied).

I don't really see how the Baseball Hall of Fame is remotely similar to literature for a religious denomination that is specifically used for proselytising and recruiting. The HoF article is clearly different to this one, as its primary function is obviously as an index for linking to related articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally useful in these discussions.

The list provides no information about the various publications, it is not particularly useful for linking to other articles, and it's not clear what amount of work would make the list useful other than as a directory.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a well-organised list that would appear to be acceptable as an article per WP:LIST and WP:WORKS. The article has encyclopaedic worth, compared with Jehovah's Witnesses publications, which is promotional in tone. There is already an article, Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses, that provides information as suggested by Vyselink. BlackCab (TALK) 14:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria for lists is that "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". That criteria does not appear to have been met in this case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding concerns about the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications, I started a section at the article's Talk page recently, and will raise an AfD in the next couple of weeks if suitable improvements are not made there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSC #2, WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Also WP:OUTCOMES#Lists: "Lists are more likely to be kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does an exhaustive list of publications associated with a minor religious denomination really "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes"? It only fulfils a promotional purpose so far as information. With only four linked publications (in addition to some Bible translations that did not originate with the publisher), and a paucity of notability suggesting against extras, it certainly doesn't fulfil a navigational purpose. And it isn't clear what 'development' would result from the list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Jeffro77, throughout its history the Watch Tower Society has been a prodigious publisher of books, pamphlets, tracts and magazines, most of which have been publicly distributed and all of which have been, effectively, required reading of adherents of the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. Those books chart the evolution of the religion's doctrines and dogmatic assertions and create a snapshot of those doctrines at the point of publication. Most have also been laboriously "studied" by adherents, and contain the beliefs they were individually required to hold at the time of publication. Documenting those publications as a topical and chronological list is of encyclopedic value and a worthwhile appendix to articles on the JWs and their beliefs and practices. BlackCab (TALK) 12:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any precedent necessitating an exhaustive list of everything published by a particular publishing house. The importance of the publisher's literature to the members of the religion with which the publishing house is associated does not convey external notability on the literature. The list provides no information about how the books "chart the evolution of the religion's doctrines", which is already handled better at Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is potentially a useful article, as it includes old works, some of which are now disavowed by the Watchtower Society. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being 'disavowed by the Watchtower Society' doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 10:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Morgridge

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

Not notable. Assertions of notability rely on red-link awards from red-link organisations. Bazj (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I worked on this article after finding it PRODded. Her notability relies on WP:GNG. She has press coverage, which I believe is significant. The "weak" part is that it is not broad. Cited within the article, there are articles focusing entirely on her in The Denver Post and The Chronicle of Philanthropy and one focusing heavily on her and the foundation in The Denver Business Journal. There's an interview by ICOSA. Not cited in the article (and hence linked here) I've seen an interview by Foundation, what looks to be a targeted small paper profile, and a brief interview with Aspen Public Radio. Also not mentioned in the article, her first book made JP Morgan's Reading List ([31], [32]. In terms of the notability of her awards, I can't really speak to that because I don't have time to research them, but as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST notes, the absence of the articles doesn't mean they aren't notable awards. It simply means nobody has written about them yet. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moonriddengirl. Sources show subject satisfies GNG. postdlf (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per User:Postdlf. However, it's sort of borderline, and might be better as a joint article including John Morgridge and the philanthropic projects they undertake together.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G12). MER-C 12:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevin dimond

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

Not notable. The claims repeatedly put forward by the author in various versions of the articles at Nevin dimond and Navin Dimond are inherited notability from Stonebridge Companies (no article) a franchisee of multiple hotel chains (see WP:CHAIN) and multiple institutions where he sits in a non-notable position on advisory boards. Bazj (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (AfD links for proper spelling of name)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy of https://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/industry/centers/cref/board/dimond.html . I don't think this falls under the editor's OTRS permission grant, so I've deleted it as a copyright violation. I'm not going salt or block in the event I'm wrong. MER-C 12:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even if we were to assume for the moment that the subject meets the general notability guideline (which I am not convinced that it does, based on the discussion below), passing GNG is not a guarantee that an article will pass an AfD, nor is it a policy requiring the article be kept.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article...
— Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

Based on the discussion below, the consensus is to delete. —Darkwind (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York Derby (MLS)

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

Further to similar/linked AFDs on the Hudson River derby and the New York City derbies, there is no evidence via significant coverage (WP:GNG) that this is a notable rivalry. Giant Snowman 11:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made significant improvements and believe it now meets WP:GNG. I have added multiple independant reliable sources. Paul Bradbury 11:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbradbury:...which lack the significant coverage required by GNG. Giant Snowman 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I'd argue coverage by The New York Times, The Telegraph, The BBC, The Guardian and ESPN as a derby and rivalry constitutes significant Paul Bradbury 12:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage" and "significant coverage" are different things... Giant Snowman 12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, from WP:GNG - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. - The articles referenced are not about a match but are about the derby and rivalry, thus meeting this definition, they are by multiple reliable respected sources. Paul Bradbury 12:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, described as a "derby meeting" in a BBC Sport match report. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmorrison230582: - how does that make it a notable rivalry, exactly? Giant Snowman 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a match report, it contains no significant discussion of the rivalry at all bar mentioning the word derby. How does this satisfy GNG? Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian, ESPN. FourFourTwo. Reliable sources talking about the rivalry beyond simple match preview / review. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The media calling something a "rivalry" does not make it so, as any regular reader of sports journalism will tell you. See, for example, the 'famous' Arsenal-Stoke City rivalry! Giant Snowman 12:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However when the teams and the league they play in do, it likely is. Paul Bradbury 12:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you simply can't have a rivalry when they have only played twice about five minutes ago and when one of the teams competing is in their debut season! Yes there has been coverage of the two matches which has discussed notions of rivalry, but this is not significant coverage per WP:NRIVALRY by definition as it concerns only two meetings between the two clubs. This may well be a notable subject in a few years, especially if similar articles are generated each time the two sides meet, but just not at the moment. I have bolded words in my argument that you simply should not be seeing in any discussion of a rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: They have played two games, not one. However this is an irrelevance, if you read the independant sources cited in the article they describe it as a derby and a rivalry. WP:GNG is not about whether it meats an editors definition of a rivalry, its whether its reported and recognised as such in the world Paul Bradbury 12:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have corrected that. It still makes no differences, you can't have a rivalry after two games. and you will want to re read GNG, it clearly notes significant coverage. Yes, people have remarked on a rivalry, but this is only in the context of two games, that is what makes this coverage insignificant. Fenix down (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may need to re-read WP:GNG and what constitutes significant, I have posted it above. Paul Bradbury 12:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP applies in reverse. Just because something has only been going for a short period does not mean that is not notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, let's look at your sources in more detail:

The Graun is not an article on the rivalry itself, it's just a round up of MLS news. More importantly it contains the phrase, There is actually a chance that this could develop into a proper rivalry, i.e. this isn't a proper rivalry yet. So this is really an anti-source for GNG.
ESPN regardless of what you said is merely a routine|match report and discussion of the clubs in general. More telling again, it includes the phrase, the stirrings of a legitimate rivalry in front of us. this makes it quite clear that there is not a notable rivalry there yet.
Four Four Two does provide a wider discussion of the history of football in NYC and goes some way to providing significant coverage. however, this is an article written before the teams even met, it is quite speculative on the possibilty of a rivalry. Phrases like In the city of New York, a soccer rivalry is brewing add weight to the idea that there isn't really much to speak of at the moment.
The BBC does not discuss the notion of the rivalry as a thing in anyway whatsoever. This is a routine match report that uses the word derby once. This is the very definition of insignificant coverage of a subject.

I have no doubt that in time there probably will be enough for a standalone article, but after two games and a few mentions, it is too soon. There simply is not enough out there that discusses the notion of rivalry between these two teams as a standalone concept to satisfy GNG and those that have been provided all contain elements that essentially astate that there isn't really one there just yet. Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the article is not called New York rivalry it is called New York derby. A rivalry may or may not develop into an intense one, however this is still a derby. The references above are not all of the ones in the article and as stated above it meets WP:GNG and it's definition of significant coverage. Paul Bradbury 12:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derby / Rivalry, that is just semantics, in either case WP:NRIVALRY is still the relevant guideline. You don't have a derby without a rivalry, you just have two teams playing in the same city. If you have other references please provide them. It would also be more useful if you attempted to engage with criticism of the sources rather than simply parrotting "it meets GNG", "it meets GNG". Fenix down (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources are provided in the article. The reason I am talking about whether it meets WP:GNG is because that is the criteria the deletion should be judged on. Your argument seems to be revolving around the noteworthiness of the article and not on the deletion criteria which is not really the point. See WP:NOTEWORTHY. Paul Bradbury 12:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excerpt from the NY Times reference in the article

'It may not have had the intensity of a visit from D.C. United, but there was a sense that this was the beginning of something that would grow.' - NY Times

The rivalry is new and building, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Paul Bradbury 13:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't seriously just use WP:ITEXISTS? Anyway, lets look at the sources in the article too:

The New York Times - the definition of an anti-source, it clearly states in the title that there is no history to this rivalry! Nothing more needs to be said on this.
Goal Nation is a 131 word puff piece on a marketing ploy for the first game. In no way is this significant coverage of the notion of a rivalvry between the two teams.
ESPN has been dealt with above.
BBC Again, an anti-source. This quote is so telling: Most footballing rivalries are based on decades - sometimes even centuries - of animosity, so can the New York derby be described as a rivalry at all? "Not really," says Bradley Wright-Phillips, the Red Bulls' top scorer last season. "DC United are our rivals. There's no history between the Red Bulls and New York City, it's just that we share the same city. There is no rivalry!
New York Times is a routine match report. Nosubstantial discussion of the rivalry.

Now given that the sources in the article themselves include an interview with a key player who states that there is no rivalry, why is this derby notable?

Your use of WP:NOTEWORTHY is erroneous. Its first sentence (The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content.) makes it clear it is not a guideline for use in AfD, but for articles where the subject is deemed notable. This discussion is about the inherent notability of the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK probably my last response since I am not sure this is really getting us anywhere.

The Telegraph Is not an anti-source, it simply says the rivalry is new and has no history, which is not in contention, of course it is new and as stated previously has no bearing on its notability WP:NTEMP.
BBC Again not so. The substance of the article can be summed up in this excerpt rather than a quote from a single individual. 'Wright-Phillips, the former Manchester City striker, might not feel the tension that comes with a traditional derby, but the rivalry is already fierce between the two sets of supporters.'
ESPN Again, incorrect, your quote from the article clearly indicates a building rivalry. Again WP:NTEMP
New York Times Is not a WP:MILL match report, it is one that talks at length about the derby and rivalry. It is a match report though.

I did not use WP:ITEXISTS, your contention is that it does not exist I merely disagreed with that. Bottom line though WP:NRIVALRY simply states that the article needs to meet WP:GNG you have yet to show how it does not. It meets the definition of significant coverage, reliable sources and independant of the subject. Which are the relevant criteria. Paul Bradbury 13:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The telegraph - if it has not history its not notable.
The BBC - I would say it is more important when someone involved in the supposed rivalry explicitly states that it does not yet exist than the opinion of a blogger / fan who is unlikely to be objective in their opinion
Please re-read NTEMP. It is quite clear that once a subject is notable it remains notable, it does not say that a subject is notable the instant anyone starts writing about it. There's no TEMP argument here as the subject as no one is arguing that the rivalry was notable but no longer is, what is being argued is that it is not notable and never has been.
I have shown on a source by source basis how outlets have written about the potential for a rivalry but how there is a tone thoroughout that it does not yet exist though probably will in the future. Fenix down (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The telegraph - if it has not history its not notable. - Please indicate the relevant wikipedia guideline that says this
The BBC - The BBC is not considered a blooger/fan its a reliable source, your opinion is not a wikipedia guideline.
You have still not indicated what part of WP:GNG is not being met which is the criteria for the articles exsistance. Paul Bradbury 14:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The telegraph - if it has not history its not notable. WP:COMMONSENSE two teams who have played each other twice and where one is in its debut season have simply not been around long enough to constitute a genuine rivalry beyond marketing hype. because there is no history the only thing of substance that the sources presented can talk about (bar comments about the two games that have taken place) is what might happen in the future.
The BBC - they are a reliable source, but the quote from a fan is arguably not, whereas Bradley Wright Phillips comment is.
GNG - that would be the notability part, there are constant references to this not having any history, not really being a rivalry, having the potential to become a rivalry in future but not now. there is coverage, but it is coverage that indicate a lack of notability. Fenix down (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The telegraph - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. A rivalry can be notable after a single game.
The BBC - It's not a fan quote it's part of the editorial.
GNG - It states - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. This article meats the definition of significant coverage (multiple articles discussing the derby and the rivalry), reliable sources (BBC, The Telegraph, NY Times, ESPN), independent of the subject (none are the teams or the MLS). That is what constitutes notability, not your assumption that there is not a big enough rivalry with a long enough history, it's not a notion, its defined. Paul Bradbury 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fenix down's assessment of the sources is solid--the sources are simply not solid. One could say it's too soon, or one could say there is not enough significant coverage. This is an encyclopedia, and we should require more coverage than a few news reports. I disagree very much with the direction in which we're going, that a write-up or two in a newspaper or somewhere else is enough to guarantee that the GNG is met. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand this. It clearly meets GNG, you may have an issue with GNG, but then you should bring that up in the appropriate forum and maybe propose a change to it. The content of the article includes reference to the rivalry and whether it is manufactured or real. It may need expanding upon, but that would go down to article quality and I am certainly not proposing that this is anything more than a stub at the moment. It is by no means an attempt to make this an FA. The derby is an event, that is described as such by multiple independant sources as well as the MLS and the participating teams. This article is about that event. It contains reference to the rivalry which is nascent but real. This does not make the article un-encyclopedic. The biggest problem I see with it at the moment is that it may veer towards being an almanac type article, which is considered what wikipedia is not. However some further work would rectify this. I just don't understand why people want to destroy others hard work rather than trying to improve the body of knowledge. Paul Bradbury 16:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can't understand that when I say "it doesn't meet GNG", we have a difference of opinion, then I can't help you. That something happens doesn't make it notable. And I don't have an issue with the GNG--just with too many editors thinking that a write-up or two in a newsp... wait, I already said that. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm noted, I always find that productive in a conversation. Show me how it doesn't meet GNG, simply saying so does not make it so. GNG is clear and unequivocal about what constitutes notability. Namely - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. It's also very clear about the definition of those terms. There is no other criteria. If you don't like that (which evidently you don't). Then take it up in the appropriate forum, don't simply apply your desired outcome to an AfD. Paul Bradbury 16:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I do not consider this a valid challenge of my assertion, and I think we're into IDNHT territory. Good luck, Pbradbury, with your article--and to your "fuck you very much" for my restoration of it, when G4 deletion was supported by a second admin, I just say "you're welcome". Drmies (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, It is not my article I had made no edits on it until after you reinstated it, I then made significant changes to it in order to meet WP:GNG, for all intents and purposes it is a different article than the one you G4'd. I don't understand your hostillity and resent the way you have spoken to me throughout our interaction. I hope your day gets better. Paul Bradbury 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to me like the people supporting delete here are trying to enforce an arbitrary higher standard than WP:GNG. If they don't like GNG, they should try to change it. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For it to meet GNG I need to see references which describe the rivalry holistically, and describe it either as it exists today or has existed previously. All I see is routine coverage of individual matches (not the rivalry as a whole); and speculative articles about what the rivalry might become, not what it is today. Aspirex (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspirex: Would this count? | New York derby: 'A spectacle unlike anything we've seen' It talks about rivalries in general and holistically, from what is a rivalry to how that applies to the New York Derby. It interviews, fans and players about the rivalry and draws the conclusion 'Wright-Phillips, the former Manchester City striker, might not feel the tension that comes with a traditional derby, but the rivalry is already fierce between the two sets of supporters.' Paul Bradbury 12:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is described as a derby by much of the media. It is not as big as rivalry than those with more history such as the Old Firm Derby but I feel the bigger attendances than usual in both matches show that the fans want to win it more than a fixture against a different MLS team. --CovCity97 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I recently deleted a link to "Hudson River Derby" which I assume was this same derby. It clearly does not have an official title or sufficient coverage for either title. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fails the GNG. Not due to lack of coverage in appropriate sources, which normally is the concern, but rather due to a lack of showing that the coverage is an indication of genuine sustained notability. WP:NRV is part of WP:N, and it captures this situation perfectly: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." I would argue that both the short-term interest clause and promotional activity clauses are at issue here. This can of course be cured with time, and sourcing with captures the interest over time. However, that time is not yet. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach West Scotland Route X76

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

A classic failure of WP:NOTDIR. There is nothing notable about this bus route. There are no sources to establish its notability. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I found one article about the service[33] but there's nothing special, historic, encyclopedic, about this. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable bus/coach service, Fails NOTTRAVEL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR, no evidence of notability, and doesn't show any signs of elements of WP:BUSOUTCOMES. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 17:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:BUSOUTCOMES which could probably apply to a few other articles in Category:Bus routes in Scotland. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete I cannot in good faith say that there is a consensus for deletion here. That being said there are serious problems with the article that have been brought up in this AfD. Some common ground was found by those seeking a merge with another article that was recently deleted and thus such a closure was not an option for me or I would have strongly considered it. I recommend that the issues brought up here be addressed or that another AfD be done in the future. Chillum 19:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bong-han

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

Please note the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system. jps (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a laudatory biography teased out of passing mentions in publications that are about something else. This person is known only for the "discovery" of a purported new vascular system, the primo-vascular system, of which science has taken virtually no notice (at least outside of Korea). There is only one subject - the primo-vascular system and its purported "bong han ducts" - and that subject is itself of questionable notability. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG notability does not require being the main topic of source material. There seems to be no particular reason to dismiss Korean WP:WORLDVIEW. The status of primo-vascular system is unsettled, with some editors feeling it should be merged to Kim Bong-han. I agree that the article ought to be less promotional, but its possible to WP:FIXIT. Rhoark (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it pretty much does require that the subject of the article has been the primary focuis of reliable independent coverage at least somewhere. There si only one topic here: the purported primo-vascular system (which is itself unverified outside of a small community and has no presence in the relevant current literature - and we all know the problems with North Korean claims to scientific advance). Guy (Help!) 12:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system article is kept, in which case merge over there. I argue for deletion of the other article too, but I'm pretty sure the only claim-to-notability for this scientist is that other topic. Two articles on this should not exist on Wikipedia, certainly. I don't even think one should. jps (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be anything to this other than his associated "discovery" of something that hasn't been found to be a real thing in over forty years. It ought to have been independently corroborated a gazillion times by now, but all we have is wiki eds claiming that acupuncture is vindicated by this guy's 'discovery' (nb: note justified 'scare quotes'). Nope, doesn't work that way. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with Primo-vascular system, if it is kept or no consensus is reached out there. If we are going to delete this, we would as well need to massacre quite a few half-finished pseudoscience (biography) articles involved with homeopathy or associated nonsense. As long as enough people believe in primo-vascular systems it is good enough to stay in Wikipedia. We are more a humanist project than a positivist one, and all (notable) information should be equal. It is probably better to delete the primo-vascular system article and keep this person here, if we are having a single article, just in case this person has done something else during his career. Also, regarding discoveries on human body: There have been a few new tiny parts (re)discovered on humans in the past few years. Like Dua's layer or the rediscovered Vertical occipital fasciculus. Took more than 85 years to find that one again. Those articles are in quite a bad shape too, so some WP:FIXIT is indeed needed. Ceosad (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Just as WP:GNG doesn't require being the subject of an article it doesn't allow purely passive mention. By that reasoning being in the phonebook passes WP:NOTE -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Maybe I'm a tad to harsh here, but this article would still need improving to be kept. Currently it doesn't have enough independent sources. Also some of the sources arguably fail WP:RS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the related discussion as delete, so I won't vote here at all. I will ping DGG to look, although he isn't obligated to respond. He has a real nose for policy with these medical/professor/professional types of cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to suggest merge with Primo-vascular system but that article was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system. Now what? QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite I actually agree with QG here and think the deletion unfortunate. The article needed drastic rewriting to indicate the status, but it was sufficiently important fringe. My inclination is to find some way to cover fringe, even such fringe as this, when at all justifiable (and of course to cover it in NPOV fashion) , rather than conceal it. I think it would be possible to improve this article instead, if someone will do it. I know my willingness to accept this is likely to be a minority view, but I'm always a little concerned about our having too great a tendency to suppress nonsense rather than show it for what it is. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
- - (closer, do not consider my comments for consensus) My thinking is that it would better be covered here than in the other article. My close to delete the other seemed inevitable given the consensus and evidence there. Nothing in that close prevents a redirect being recreated and pointing here. Using WP:V, this seems more likely to be kept as we don't get into so many WP:MEDRS issues in a biography, and we don't give so much undue weight to the topic, while still covering it briefly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Both pages were short so it was easy to delete them independently. If they were both merged together it would of been a different story. I think this page is not notable. The other page could of been kept if this page was merged with the other page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FRINGE subjects need mainstream sources per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. We don't have these here; instead we have a Hindawi (read: inadequately peer-reviewed) journal, an acupuncture journal, and a credulous puff piece in a business magazine. In addition, the article seems to be a WP:COATRACK pseudo-biography with half its text and all of its supposed notability based on this one discovery. And the "Legacy" quote is purely promotional retrofitting, almost as embarrassing as the attempts to vindicate Velikovsky by the discovery of Sedna. If the parts of the article on his dscoveries were to be completely rewritten based on mainstream sources as DGG suggests, it might be salveagable — I don't think the parts of the article regarding Kim's life are in dispute — but I don't know where these mainstream sources are to be found if they even exist. I did some searches looking for them and came up empty. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novatel Wireless

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

No indication of notability, effectively a largely unreferenced product listing. A Google News search found some local news that show the company is in some economic difficulties, but nothing satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. Huon (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything but passing mentions and niche/PR publications. Ping me if better refs are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there may be a bit of coverage, none of it is significant enough to indicate that the article passes WP:GNG. When you ping Piotrus because of sources, feel free to ping me, too. APerson (talk!) 03:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Broken Sword 5: The Serpent's Curse. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine (song)

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

No indication of notability. Mentioned on a handful of websites, can't even be found on the web. No indication of sales success, awards, etc. Non-notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prima face failure of WP:NSONG, does not register on WP:GNG either. Hasteur (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Broken Sword 5: The Serpent's Curse, its parent article. Agreed that it doesn't have significant coverage, but it certainly has coverage (two reliable sources cited in Reception) and is a valid search term. Please consider performing easy redirects yourself before coming to AfD. – czar 02:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per NSONGS. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paraiso Ko'y Ikaw (ABS-CBN TV Series)

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

Duplicate article. Not a viable redirect because the series is made by GMA Network not ABS-CBN. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I could see how some visitors might get this mixed up and Redirects are cheap. Hasteur (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirects may be cheap, but they also need to be plausible. Given that ABS-CBN and GMA are rival stations, and knowing how much Filipinos love primetime television series, it's very very unlikely anyone would type in the article title in the search box. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what User:Narutolovehinata5 said. Darx9url (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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